3rd Test England v Pakistan, Edgbaston, Aug 3-7.

[Dr Cricket]

End of the day Anderson didn't even sledge in this test but he did have angry verbal at the umpire which should be an big no no, especially when you consider players can get fined for all sort of minor stuff.

maybe Anderson was genuine sorry he did give a genuine apology afterward but would still give him a small fine not like it matters to him.

[backfootpunch]

As long as both parties behave like men and can shake hands and have a beer at the end of the game I see no issue with it

Well, he doesn't do that! Socialise after play. But I don't hold that against him- it's his choice.

As long as they can shake hands at the end of it that's all that really matters

I think socialising with the opposition after the game went out of the game a while ago didn't it

I remember during the last English summer, there was a bit of talk about 'having a drink after play' and offers accepted and refused. In one case, England went into the opposition dressing room, and Anderson wondered what they were doing there, and left. I certainly don't find fault with that! Maybe adds to the reasons the Aussies don't like him though.

Tbh I probably wouldn't go and have a beer with the likes of David Warner and even Steve Smith (Smith really just comes across as an arse)

Especially after the walkabout incident in birmingham

[backfootpunch]

Well, I'd be interested as to how many times any bowler has been sanctioned for snatching an item off the umpire, shaking their heads as a level 1 breach of the code of conduct in recent years?

If one were to claim that there is a different set of rules being applied I'm sure there are many instances of other bowlers being charged for the same thing?

Plus the angry verbal volley. Obviously some will find this less acceptable than others. For me, taking out your frustrations on the umpire is a no-no.

The angry verbal volley, which of course no one seems to know the content of! If Jimmy was offensive verbally towards an umpire, then I'd be more than happy to chastise him for it.

As for tasking his frustrations out on the umpire, did he? That's a rather emotive turn of phrase to use, again there isn't any evidence to warrant it.

Mountain out of a mole hill based on what is actually in the public domain, and unlike sum, I'd rather not throw the baby out with the bath water.

Completely agree

[Making_Splinters]

If there is wide spread issues between two groups of players during a game, then you'd expect the umpires to come down hard to put a stop to it compared to a stand alone incident involving a single player.

Well, if there aren't any examples of players committing the same, or at least very similar actions, and getting a sanction, then I guess we can quickly put to bed the claims of differential treatment.

[Dr Cricket]

As long as both parties behave like men and can shake hands and have a beer at the end of the game I see no issue with it

Well, he doesn't do that! Socialise after play. But I don't hold that against him- it's his choice.

As long as they can shake hands at the end of it that's all that really matters

I think socialising with the opposition after the game went out of the game a while ago didn't it

I remember during the last English summer, there was a bit of talk about 'having a drink after play' and offers accepted and refused. In one case, England went into the opposition dressing room, and Anderson wondered what they were doing there, and left. I certainly don't find fault with that! Maybe adds to the reasons the Aussies don't like him though.

Tbh I probably wouldn't go and have a beer with the likes of David Warner and even Steve Smith (Smith really just comes across as an arse)

Especially after the walkabout incident in birmingham

Yeah I wouldn't either.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I've never liked that philosophy of a handshake at the close of play, or a drink, by the way. Which is the Aussie way. As if a handshake absolves you of your sins like a few Hail Marys. If you behave like an arse, some flimsy ritual doesn't change a thing, unless you genuinely resolve to do better next time. I had little time for McGrath as a sportsman. Obviously a great bowler. I remember Simon Jones fondly as someone who behaved like that, and then decided not to. And I respect bowlers who choose to play with discipline and sportsmanship, like Chris Woakes. I don't really believe that you have to play with anger. Even less so at the age of 34.

[Dr Cricket]

If there is wide spread issues between two groups of players during a game, then you'd expect the umpires to come down hard to put a stop to it compared to a stand alone incident involving a single player.

Well, if there aren't any examples of players committing the same, or at least very similar actions, and getting a sanction, then I guess we can quickly put to bed the claims of differential treatment.

Well Anderson did orginally get away with the jadeja stuff and jadeja was the one that got fine before India appealed the decision and then both players got a fine.

It is pretty much prove of differential treatments so it does happen but wouldn't say it is because of nation bias more of icc not following the rules consistently, actually Anderson got angry because of the same point he thought the umpire was picking on him because of the 3rd umpire telling him to, have to remember Anderson was probably running on the pitch for most of his career and it is only now the umpires are being strict.
Plenty of players got fined for excessive sledging and Anderson nearly got away with it and unlike past cases India didn't like it and actually complained.


Differential treatment is provably quite common really considering some series they are strict and some series they are not,
In this series alone they are following the running on the pitch law to the max.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Well, I'd be interested as to how many times any bowler has been sanctioned for snatching an item off the umpire, shaking their heads as a level 1 breach of the code of conduct in recent years?

If one were to claim that there is a different set of rules being applied I'm sure there are many instances of other bowlers being charged for the same thing?

Plus the angry verbal volley. Obviously some will find this less acceptable than others. For me, taking out your frustrations on the umpire is a no-no.

The angry verbal volley, which of course no one seems to know the content of! If Jimmy was offensive verbally towards an umpire, then I'd be more than happy to chastise him for it.

As for tasking his frustrations out on the umpire, did he? That's a rather emotive turn of phrase to use, again there isn't any evidence to warrant it.

Mountain out of a mole hill based on what is actually in the public domain, and unlike sum, I'd rather not throw the baby out with the bath water.

As I said earlier, I don't think the content has to be known, though that might make things worse. I think the non verbal aggression towards the officials was unreasonable.

[Dr Cricket]

End of the day players can sledge it makes a good spectacle, but it shouldn't be personal and really at the moment sledging quite personal.
Samuels and stokes won't share a beer or get on, Warner/ smith probably don't get on with root, their quite a few players that don't get on.
Samuels starting to be an serial sledger against England,
Might make good viewing but it could result in a fight since Samuel clearly doesn't like England and doesn't take things as a joke.
If the players won't shake hands or laugh afterwards then the sledging gone too far.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I'm not sure I claimed differential treatment, maybe I did, not sure. But I do think that Anderson, like McGrath, has largely been unhindered by a career of bad sportsmanship. And that's a shame for him, and for the game.

[Making_Splinters]

If there is wide spread issues between two groups of players during a game, then you'd expect the umpires to come down hard to put a stop to it compared to a stand alone incident involving a single player.

Well, if there aren't any examples of players committing the same, or at least very similar actions, and getting a sanction, then I guess we can quickly put to bed the claims of differential treatment.

Well Anderson did orginally get away with the jadeja stuff and jadeja was the one that got fine before India appealed the decision and then both players got a fine.

It is pretty much prove of differential treatments so it does happen but wouldn't say it is because of nation bias more of icc not following the rules consistently, actually Anderson got angry because of the same point he thought the umpire was picking on him because of the 3rd umpire telling him to, have to remember Anderson was probably running on the pitch for most of his career and it is only now the umpires are being strict.
Plenty of players got fined for excessive sledging and Anderson nearly got away with it and unlike past cases India didn't like it and actually complained.


Differential treatment is provably quite common really considering some series they are strict and some series they are not,
In this series alone they are following the running on the pitch law to the max.

Well, actually, it shows nothing.

In the specific case under discussion, in order to show that Anderson has been given preferential treatment, you need to show that other players have done the same and been given a different sanction. If that isn't possible then it's simply a case of it being part of the code of conduct that isn't really enforced, and there are many. If you look at what counts as Level 1 dissent you'll see that it is rarely enforced, as the aforementioned shaking your head is a good example, happens all the time and never gets sanctioned.

As for the running on the pitch being picked up, as noted earlier during this thread, as with a fair few things, once the umpire has taken a note that it is happening they tend to follow it up.

[Making_Splinters]

Well, I'd be interested as to how many times any bowler has been sanctioned for snatching an item off the umpire, shaking their heads as a level 1 breach of the code of conduct in recent years?

If one were to claim that there is a different set of rules being applied I'm sure there are many instances of other bowlers being charged for the same thing?

Plus the angry verbal volley. Obviously some will find this less acceptable than others. For me, taking out your frustrations on the umpire is a no-no.

The angry verbal volley, which of course no one seems to know the content of! If Jimmy was offensive verbally towards an umpire, then I'd be more than happy to chastise him for it.

As for tasking his frustrations out on the umpire, did he? That's a rather emotive turn of phrase to use, again there isn't any evidence to warrant it.

Mountain out of a mole hill based on what is actually in the public domain, and unlike sum, I'd rather not throw the baby out with the bath water.

As I said earlier, I don't think the content has to be known, though that might make things worse. I think the non verbal aggression towards the officials was unreasonable.

I think aggression is another example of trying to make things seem worse than they are through a little hyperbole in one's synonyms, Arthur.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Well, I don't claim to be speaking objective truth. It's how I saw the incident. I find it hard to think of that exchange without aggression being one of its components. If someone confronted me like that, I'd think they were being aggressive.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I don't mind the idea of acceptable levels of aggression when considering relationships with other players. Of course not. But not towards the umpires.

[alfie]

Amuses me how a lot of people set themselves up to judge Anderson without having a clue what he actually said to the umpires . He looked angry , snatched his jumper ... wow ! Must be the first fast bowler to do that...

as MS pointed out , it all rather depends on what he said . Presumably it wasn't that bad ; else the umpires would have taken action. It is possible to question officials without being guilty of a crime ; though he apparently didn't do it politely enough - hence the apology. Which was accepted.

I do agree it isn't a good look - and not the first time for Jimmy. But I also think that he seems to be singled out for criticism in the media - and the social media - whenever he so much as looks grumpy on the field ; more so than a lot of other cricketers who have been known to sledge their opponents (perhaps more subtly ?)

In interviews he comes across as a generally decent sort of fellow ; and even admits he pushes it too far at times on the field. Just possibly he is not seen by umpires as the ogre that some imagine ? More all bark etc , a la Merv Hughes ? And if opponents sometimes complain - well : it isn't unheard of for teams to use a bit of chat as an excuse to try and put off the other team's most dangerous bowler...though that can cut both ways !

I don't mind a bit of chat on the field , though I prefer my sledging with a dash of humour. Would rather not see the nanny state take over the cricket pitch.