Dilbert wrote:Which, again, is just your opinion.
That the Aussies gave no support to Warner is a recorded fact. Is that so difficult to understand and the conclusions that may be drawn from it?
Perhaps, for some, it is.
Dilbert wrote:Which, again, is just your opinion.
D/L wrote:Dilbert wrote:Which, again, is just your opinion.
That the Aussies gave no support to Warner is a recorded fact. Is that so difficult to understand and the conclusions that may be drawn from it?
Perhaps, for some, it is.
Had the Aussies thought they could plead something in mitigation, they would have done so instead of immediately banning Warner.
Dilbert wrote:D/L wrote:Dilbert wrote:Which, again, is just your opinion.
That the Aussies gave no support to Warner is a recorded fact. Is that so difficult to understand and the conclusions that may be drawn from it?
Perhaps, for some, it is.Had the Aussies thought they could plead something in mitigation, they would have done so instead of immediately banning Warner.
You believe that just because Eng supported Andersons bad behaviour, Aussies would have done the same if they could have gotten away with it.
Or that Andersons bullying and thuggery is not similar to Warners.
That is just your opinion
How you conviniently decide that some things are obvious and others hearsay or whatever based on your bias, it is indeed difficult to comprehend.
SaintPowelly wrote:Can the ICC intervene on the Warner case ?? It happened in a night club, which makes it a criminal matter, whereas Anderson/Jadeja happened in a cricket stadium.
Arthur Crabtree wrote:Pushing. But in response to Sir J's aggression. So in self defence. Of course, Jadeja's alleged aggression would have been provoked by Jimmy's offer to break his teeth/etc...
D/L wrote:There is no bias. I have criticised both sides. The conclusion formed from the Warner issue, based entirely upon the public record of how the Aussie authorities reacted to it (i.e. they banned him straight away) and not on opinion, could hardly have been explained more clearly.
Difficulty in comprehension is sometimes entirely down to the person attempting it.
shankycricket wrote:The major difference between the Warner-Root incident and this is that the former, as St_P rightly pointed out, is outside the purview of the ICC's authority. So the insinuation that Aus wouldn't have banned Warner if they knew he could've "gotten away with it" is frankly laughable. They acted because they thought he had crossed a line and that such behaviour was unacceptable and unbecoming of a cricketer. Ever since that ban, Warner hasn't been involved in any controversies, has managed to stay focused on his cricket and has become a world class opener. Sometimes, sending out a message when a line has been crossed is not the worst thing. Of course, when it comes to the ECB, this standard applies only to certain players. Panesar was dropped for pissing on nightclub bouncers (rightly so) but a player acting in contravention to the laws of the game and having admitted to commiting an offence that would tantamount to a Level 3 charge has managed to get off scot free. Guess you shouldn't expect anything else from those bunch of hypocritic clowns.
I wonder how they would've reacted if it was KP who had done this. Maybe charge him with attempt to murder and get arrested?!
Dilbert wrote:shankycricket wrote:The major difference between the Warner-Root incident and this is that the former, as St_P rightly pointed out, is outside the purview of the ICC's authority. So the insinuation that Aus wouldn't have banned Warner if they knew he could've "gotten away with it" is frankly laughable. They acted because they thought he had crossed a line and that such behaviour was unacceptable and unbecoming of a cricketer. Ever since that ban, Warner hasn't been involved in any controversies, has managed to stay focused on his cricket and has become a world class opener. Sometimes, sending out a message when a line has been crossed is not the worst thing. Of course, when it comes to the ECB, this standard applies only to certain players. Panesar was dropped for pissing on nightclub bouncers (rightly so) but a player acting in contravention to the laws of the game and having admitted to commiting an offence that would tantamount to a Level 3 charge has managed to get off scot free. Guess you shouldn't expect anything else from those bunch of hypocritic clowns.
I wonder how they would've reacted if it was KP who had done this. Maybe charge him with attempt to murder and get arrested?!
The interesting point is that when Monty pissed on a bouncer OUTSIDE a cricket field, ECB thought it appropriate to take action. But when Prior, Cook et al pissed on the wicket after last years Ashes, no action was taken. They clearly have their favourites and not so favourites.
Dilbert wrote:shankycricket wrote:The major difference between the Warner-Root incident and this is that the former, as St_P rightly pointed out, is outside the purview of the ICC's authority. So the insinuation that Aus wouldn't have banned Warner if they knew he could've "gotten away with it" is frankly laughable. They acted because they thought he had crossed a line and that such behaviour was unacceptable and unbecoming of a cricketer. Ever since that ban, Warner hasn't been involved in any controversies, has managed to stay focused on his cricket and has become a world class opener. Sometimes, sending out a message when a line has been crossed is not the worst thing. Of course, when it comes to the ECB, this standard applies only to certain players. Panesar was dropped for pissing on nightclub bouncers (rightly so) but a player acting in contravention to the laws of the game and having admitted to commiting an offence that would tantamount to a Level 3 charge has managed to get off scot free. Guess you shouldn't expect anything else from those bunch of hypocritic clowns.
I wonder how they would've reacted if it was KP who had done this. Maybe charge him with attempt to murder and get arrested?!
The interesting point is that when Monty pissed on a bouncer OUTSIDE a cricket field, ECB thought it appropriate to take action. But when Prior, Cook et al pissed on the wicket after last years Ashes, no action was taken. They clearly have their favourites and not so favourites.
Dilbert wrote:D/L wrote:There is no bias. I have criticised both sides. The conclusion formed from the Warner issue, based entirely upon the public record of how the Aussie authorities reacted to it (i.e. they banned him straight away) and not on opinion, could hardly have been explained more clearly.
Difficulty in comprehension is sometimes entirely down to the person attempting it.
Umm, referring to this incident as "handbags", "hearsay", stories printed on websites as "not credible" is not criticism. Atleast i can't comprehend the criticism in those statements you made.
The comparison is the boards attitude towards their player, not the exact incident itself. Aus acted immediately, their coach didn't defend their player, their board didn't accuse Root of provoking, didn't brush the incident as "minor". They also didn't accuse Eng of provoking (one of) their best players so he would react angrily and get banned. How hard is this to comprehend?
Arthur Crabtree wrote:Unfortunately, that's never going to be known (the nature of Jadeja's response). There's no reason for either side to change their story now.
India's dismay over the lack of CCTV maybe backs up their expectation that it would support them.
For me, Anderson's abuse justifies/excuses a similar verbal response from Jadeja (should there have been one), but that (theoretical) response doesn't excuse the push. It's a shame that England seem to bring so much bad feeling to their series, and their coach offers no guidance or hope of change.
Return to International Cricket
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 46 guests