Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

D/L wrote:

Dilbert wrote:So the point that Anderson should have been fined or ECB should have taken action on him based on his own admission that he swore and pushed is speculation?

No. Your ability to comprehend seems to have failed you yet again. What was described as speculation quite clearly referred to what people were saying happened in the corridor.

D/L wrote:

Dilbert wrote:And your assumption that Aussies didnt think there were any mitigating circumstances when they easily could have done what Eng did - get team mates to lie, accuse Root of instigating etc. isnt speculation?...

It's quite reasonable to assume that the Aussies, had there been any mitigating circumstances, would not have banned Warner almost immediately. Why would the Aussies have concocted a defence when no credible one was available to them and when the risk of it unravelling would be too great to take, particularly as this was a far more serious incident than the spat between Anderson and Jadeja? By the same token, it's reasonable to assume that Anderson did have a credible defence and the ECB were willing to put it to the test.

This really does feel like

However, feel free to continue to misunderstand and employ strange logic in your apparent blindness to the possibility that both players in the handbags in the corridor incident were equally, or almost equally guilty.

bhaveshgor wrote:I think it is time for both of you to agree to disagree.

Dilbert wrote:

D/L wrote:

Dilbert wrote:So the point that Anderson should have been fined or ECB should have taken action on him based on his own admission that he swore and pushed is speculation?

No. Your ability to comprehend seems to have failed you yet again. What was described as speculation quite clearly referred to what people were saying happened in the corridor.

So what Anderson admitted is speculation? What people referred to was admitted by Anderson. Get that into your head, if possible.

D/L wrote:

Dilbert wrote:And your assumption that Aussies didnt think there were any mitigating circumstances when they easily could have done what Eng did - get team mates to lie, accuse Root of instigating etc. isnt speculation?...

It's quite reasonable to assume that the Aussies, had there been any mitigating circumstances, would not have banned Warner almost immediately. Why would the Aussies have concocted a defence when no credible one was available to them and when the risk of it unravelling would be too great to take, particularly as this was a far more serious incident than the spat between Anderson and Jadeja? By the same token, it's reasonable to assume that Anderson did have a credible defence and the ECB were willing to put it to the test.

This really does feel like

However, feel free to continue to misunderstand and employ strange logic in your apparent blindness to the possibility that both players in the handbags in the corridor incident were equally, or almost equally guilty.

Maybe, just maybe, Aussies have a moral compass and they felt the need to take action on their player for crossing the line. Whereas ECB, even when they know what Anderson did, take a stand that he was correct in doing what he did and should continue doing it. When Anderson admitted his actions were “against the spirit of the game” to put it mildly.

I know “logic” has always sounded strange to you, but give it a try, it’s a wonderful thing.

Dilbert wrote:Good, atleast you agree to the part where Anderson admitted something. So instead of name calling, lets get the discussion back on track.
My original arguement was that ECB should have sanctioned Anderson because his behaviour was "not within the spirit of cricket", he abused and pushed Jadeja, which is a strict no-no. We can, from video evidence, also see that he was the instigator. And he continued abusing Jadeja till they reached the corridor. Based on these facts, you think what ECB did - support his actions openly, was correct?
This is where the analogy of the Warner comes in, what Warner did was incorrect and CA correctly sanctioned him.

See the difference?

DeltaAlpha wrote::sleep

D/L wrote:

Dilbert wrote:Good, atleast you agree to the part where Anderson admitted something. So instead of name calling, lets get the discussion back on track.
My original arguement was that ECB should have sanctioned Anderson because his behaviour was "not within the spirit of cricket", he abused and pushed Jadeja, which is a strict no-no. We can, from video evidence, also see that he was the instigator. And he continued abusing Jadeja till they reached the corridor. Based on these facts, you think what ECB did - support his actions openly, was correct?
This is where the analogy of the Warner comes in, what Warner did was incorrect and CA correctly sanctioned him.

See the difference?

Certainly I see the difference, as (for the umpteenth time) it seems that there were mitigating circumstances in the Anderson case with Jadeja not being entirely innocent, whereas the Aussies seemed to conclude that Root was.

Perhaps it would be good to try harder to understand what you read and not jump to silly conclusions.

Perhaps the "India all the way !" as your team supported says all we need to know about your stance on issues such as this, though.

Dilbert wrote:

D/L wrote:

Dilbert wrote:Good, atleast you agree to the part where Anderson admitted something. So instead of name calling, lets get the discussion back on track.
My original arguement was that ECB should have sanctioned Anderson because his behaviour was "not within the spirit of cricket", he abused and pushed Jadeja, which is a strict no-no. We can, from video evidence, also see that he was the instigator. And he continued abusing Jadeja till they reached the corridor. Based on these facts, you think what ECB did - support his actions openly, was correct?
This is where the analogy of the Warner comes in, what Warner did was incorrect and CA correctly sanctioned him.

See the difference?

Certainly I see the difference, as (for the umpteenth time) it seems that there were mitigating circumstances in the Anderson case with Jadeja not being entirely innocent, whereas the Aussies seemed to conclude that Root was.

Perhaps it would be good to try harder to understand what you read and not jump to silly conclusions.

Perhaps the "India all the way !" as your team supported says all we need to know about your stance on issues such as this, though.

Does it really matter if Jadeja is innocent or not? Anderson provoked, abused, then pushed. Even if Jadeja hit him with a bat on his head, wasn’t Anderson the aggressor, instigator and more importantly, he did something which is a strict no-no? So why is the ECB supporting this? Don’t you think he crossed the line before Jadeja did anything, if at all? Or is it so hard to see?