Cricket World Cup Preamble.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Typical England. Hales named in the WC squad and then a few days later withdrawn for a drugs ban that was known about when the squad was announced.

This article fills in the outline of my incomprehension quite well.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/ ... ss-cricket

[Arthur Crabtree]

Meanwhile, Pakistan thrash Northants B.

[bigfluffylemon]

Have to agree with wasteolad. It's illegal, it brings him and the game into disrepute, and it's not as if he hasn't had multiple warnings.

He doesn't deserve to represent England, sad as it makes me to say it.

[GarlicJam]

F

Fogged off?

as I have made a post, I now see this thread.

I may have nothing to add, but want to read the post. it was for 'following'.

[Slipstream]

I wonder how it got out. First it was Hales not playing for personal reasons. So Harrison, Giles and Newell all keeping it quiet. So quiet that Bayliss, Morgan and Smith didn't know. Giles happy to have him in the WC squad. Had to change his story.

[Arthur Crabtree]

F

Fogged off?

as I have made a post, I now see this thread.

I may have nothing to add, but want to read the post. it was for 'following'.

Think I've done that before (made reference to famous episode of UK sitcom The Likely Lads). Must remember not to do it again!

[captaincolly]

I wonder how it got out. First it was Hales not playing for personal reasons. So Harrison, Giles and Newell all keeping it quiet. So quiet that Bayliss, Morgan and Smith didn't know. Giles happy to have him in the WC squad. Had to change his story.

Mike Atherton - writing in The Times - has accused the ECB of naivety because , once Notts had announced Hales was taking a break for personal reasons , it was only a matter of time before the full story came out.
I think it was Ali Martin from The Guardian who broke the story so I wonder who told him?

[captaincolly]

Although maybe the ECB did know the story was bound to come out and knew they'd then withdraw him - had he not been named there would have been lots of questions as to why not.
So they either were naive or it was a cynical but incompetent exercise in media handling! Unusual for such a well respected institution.

[sussexpob]

I assume it's "naivety" that Vaughan is being accused of and whilst I don't possess the expertise of Sussexpob on substance abuse the training I have had from experts on the subject did indicate that in most instances substance abuse does begin as a result of peer pressure

I never said anything to the contrary, Westoelad. There is a huge difference between arguing peer pressure is responsible for substance abuse (in some ways its true, in others it is not; for example, certainly in full adults, most academic would argue in counter that social isolation is the major cause, particularly after the age of 50), and trotting out age old misconceptions based on a misunderstanding of what the term actually means. The idea that peer pressure takes the form of very direct bullying or fun making, or of direct and forceful moral pressure where someone does it to look "cool" have, if anything, a negligible effect. No one just starts taking drugs because someone starting daring you to do it, this has no academic basis whatsoever, so yes, Vaughan spouting that out maintains a naive message that is widespread, and its wrong.

Peer influence is of course, very important, although its up to debate (and not wanting to post an essay on it on a thread about the WC) what the balance is between genetic predisposition and environmental factors created by peer influence. Some would argue that there is almost a predetermination in friend selection, where gene-environment correlations essentially guide us on auto-pilot to a certain type of person to hang around with, with certain risk characteristics that help the group bond.... so a kid with a drug taking mother who has a genetic weakness to addiction and an environmental understanding that drugs are fairly normal will naturally pair with the same type of person, and so its almost pre-determined that some people become risk factors.

[sussexpob]

Have to agree with wasteolad. It's illegal, it brings him and the game into disrepute, and it's not as if he hasn't had multiple warnings

Having a gram of cocaine in your pocket is pretty trivial, and the police wouldnt bother filling the paperwork. If you are dogmatically insistent that the law is the law, then why is Hales the only person to get pulled up on this?

Graeme Swann.... Drunk behind a wheel, went to the 2011 World Cup and never missed a match due to it
Jimmy Anderson.... pushes and swears in another players face, no punishment, thats common assault/battery
Jonny Bairstow headbutts someone in a bar, no punishment
Steve Finn was asleep outside on the floor when Warner headbutted Root.... Drunk and Disorderly, not punished.
Ben Stokes smashing a locker.... criminal damage
Andrew Strauss dropping the c-bomb before the watershed on national TV..... Indeceny Act. Got promoted.

Of course, Hales has disrupted the squad, so has to go..... but Bairstow is on record saying the headbutt had a negative effect on the dressing room, and all the team paid for that with a curfew. Anderson states his pathetic performance at the 2015 WC was because of that incident, adn the team played with no aggression because he was under the radar. And Stokes was straight back for the India tests when his presence would no doubt probably not have been helpful with a court case shadowing the team.

One rule for one, another for others?

[westoelad]

Not really one rule for one, different one for another.
Hales was on a suspended sentence, then repeated his drug taking after a warning.

[bigfluffylemon]

Drunk and disorderly for being asleep? Do me a favour. For that to be an offence you have to be disorderly. It's there in the law. Besides, is there any evidence of that beyond Warner claiming he saw Finn in that situation?

Anyway, the point isn't so much the offence, as the fact that he was already on a warning for a previous offence, and another for his previous behaviour in Bristol. A one-off you can let slide. If you've got a repeated record of performing stupid acts and being unable to reign yourself in when cautioned, you probably are not the sort of character that should be around a national team. And yes, there are other characters you can name from the past who had repeated offences and were allowed to stay in the team. I don't agree with that either.

Just because you've let certain standards of behaviour slide in the past doesn't mean you should continue to. Standards change. Expectations change. You shouldn't arbitrarily change your approach without warning people. But Hales had a warning. He knew he was getting a ban if he offended again. And he did.

[yuppie]

I would have had England down as clear favorites just 6 months ago. Obviously the team decided they would prefer to be underdogs so they have started to implode as to curtail their supports hopes. Got to admire that.

[Durhamfootman]

Although maybe the ECB did know the story was bound to come out and knew they'd then withdraw him - had he not been named there would have been lots of questions as to why not.
So they either were naive or it was a cynical but incompetent exercise in media handling! Unusual for such a well respected institution.

not often you'll see the words 'ECB', 'cynical' and 'incompetent' in the same sentence

[captaincolly]

Although maybe the ECB did know the story was bound to come out and knew they'd then withdraw him - had he not been named there would have been lots of questions as to why not.
So they either were naive or it was a cynical but incompetent exercise in media handling! Unusual for such a well respected institution.

not often you'll see the words 'ECB', 'cynical' and 'incompetent' in the same sentence

According to Eoin Morgan there was a "complete breakdown of trust" between Hales and the rest of the team and it was the senior players who had a meeting and decided Hales had to be "de-selected." So no doubt the ECB will say that was why they made a U-turn and decided to get rid of him.