The Breitling Watch Source Forums

of the 35 doctors I work with in my unit, 20 are from the UK :-S
They all did the rain dance today, and unfortunately it seemed to work! Thankfully not for too long

Will be an interesting 2nd test!

So what's with all the whinging? For some reason only the Clark half of the broken arm sledge is being shown. Anderson likes a sledge, as does Peterson....it's part of the game right? Historically England has been really good at it also. And what's wrong with Trott? Remnants of Trescothick there.

Anyway it's a shame that sledging has again become the focus of a good first test. Both teams do it. Let's get on with it shall we

A good first test for Australia. England will no doubt bounce back as it's a very good side. I'm looking forward to the rest of the series.

_________________
Happines is Good Health and a Bad Memory.
"Ingrid Bergman"

No one in the England camp has 'whinged' off-pitch about the on-pitch sledging. The comments from both Cook and Flower related to the off-pitch, press-conference remarks from Warner (also criticised by a number of Australian commentators, and Warner himself has since conceded that he went too far).

On-pitch, of course it's a fine line. Anderson gives it out so yes, as you say, he has to expect to cop it - the point no doubt being made to him. There's always the chirping from fielders; and there are the inevitable direct exchanges between bowler and batsman. But when you go well out of your way to talk to someone, jab your finger at them etc, as Clarke did, then it seems over that line. Certainly the ICC thought so. Again, note, the umpires reported him, not England.

It was pretty ugly, and beyond the realms of what Clarke (whom I've always liked) defended as "banter". The great shame of it is that it's gotten in the way of appreciating some outstanding cricket from Aus. As I've said previously in this thread, it sets up the series superbly.

Interesting read. Not sure what to make of it...
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/ash ... 2y6ag.html

Cricket isn't the gentleman's sport that some of the 'old guard' like to pretend that it is. It's a professional sport played for high stakes and emotions are going to run high, just like in any other sport. Heck if we had this kind of stuff when I was playing at a much lower level than this then I would have been bankrupt from fines and that was 20 odd years ago.

Let them get on with it and let's focus on the cricket.

Interesting. Clarke is one of Warne's closest friends of course. But that's entirely plausible. You can't think Warne would make it up, since there will have been other witnesses. It would explain why Eng only expressed disgruntlement at the off-pitch Warner stuff, knowing that the on-pitch was six of one and half a dozen of the other. I think Clarke's mistake was to start pointing, the body language etc.

I'm never very impressed by blokes getting lairy with helmets on!

I don't like too many in this England team I must say. If this helps to mute Anderson I'd be delighted. I suspect that the Trott issue might take a bit of edge off things in the next test, though it won't take much to reignite.

I really feel for Jonathan Trott. It's pretty tough dealing with issues like that in public. Takes a brave man to step down and go get better. On a different note, I dislike David Warner; he's an oaf. But there's a pretty long history of international cricketers commenting on other cricketers' performances in press conferences. They do it all the time. I don't see that his comments were any different to any number of comments made by players from every country in the past ten yrs.

I can't readily think of any in quite that vein. Saying someone isn't very good, or that you have the measure of him etc might not be unusual; saying someone is scared and "weak" seems to have offended the sport's masculine codes. Warner himself concedes that he went "a little bit too far" (and that was before the Trott story broke).

Here's a remark from Steve Harmison :

"Six months ago this guy assaulted an England cricketer and every time any England player was asked they said Cricket Australia were dealing with it. That showed respect ... I've defended him a lot as I used to play with him but that was the final straw, it was horrendous. To try and humiliate a fellow cricketer was bang out of order."

Whether you agree with that or not it does seem to articulate the quite widespread sense that this was a bit different from the more regular sort of deprecation.

Here is the quote of what David Warner actually said...

"It does look like they've got scared eyes at the moment, and the way that Trotty got out today was pretty poor and pretty weak."

Warner may be a pratt but he didn't call Trott weak but the way he got out. That's a big distinction. It also happened to be true. Trott's dismissals in both innings were poor and weak. I think the reason Warner and Co backed away from the comments is because of media backlash, not because there was a sense that they were unsportsmanlike or untrue. It's media handling.

Please don't mis-hear me: Warner is a jerk but in this instance i happen to think what he said was neither wrong, nor improper. Hitting Joe Root, now that's a different matter. He should have had his contract torn up over that.

I think the distinction between the manner of the dismissal being weak and him being weak is a fine one, certainly lost on most. Warner backed off a bit from the comment before the story of Trott's return broke, so I'm not sure how much media handling there was - very possible.

Out of interest, how are Trott's issues / return being reported in the Aus media? Though I guess it's not easy to generalise.

With sympathy. No one likes to hear of things like mental illness/ stress. Cricket's one thing but the guy's health is a different matter.

As to the distinction, I'd say its considerable and easy to draw. Trott's a fine player: averages 50 odd but no one could deny his playing of short pitch bowling last summer in the ODIs and in this test was pretty poor. Fine player... playing badly. That's Warner's point (and several media commentators' too) and it seems fair enough to me.

The best response to Warner isn't to complain about his remarks but to point out the differences between their records. Warner has only got three tons and averages 38! He's a pretender thus far: Trott's the real deal.

Well ok, we just disagree (and more cordially than the protagonists). Another easy distinction to draw is between saying someone is playing badly and saying someone is "weak" and that batsmen are "scared". It's a shift in language and emphasis - casting aspersions on someone's character rather than ability - that seems to have troubled people not normally bothered by banter. I'm just seeking to account for that.

Perhaps it's helpful to distinguish between three types of comment:
1. About someone's performance
2. About someone's ability
3. About someone's character

David Warner said...

"It does look like they've got scared eyes at the moment, and the way that Trotty got out today was pretty poor and pretty weak."

I think that is about Trott's performance. At a stretch the comment about "scared eyes" might be about ability. It's certainly not casting aspersions about anyone's character. That's a classic mistake of reading the personal into the impersonal. It's worth noting that even Alistair Cook didn't introduce the word "disrespectful"; a journalist did. He was asked if DW's comment was disrespectful and answered...

"I think for any professional cricketer, really, yeah,"

I think Cook made a mistake there. He should have said...

"Well, we'll let Trott's career and future performances speak for themselves..."

Or he should have treated DW's remarks with ridicule. As it is, Cook's allowed himself to look like a complainer. In Australia that doesn't play well.

As for how Trott is being reported in the news here:

And as for me...
Perfect way to spend a birthday: beachside lunch, good coffee, England thrashed and a watch that shows aging gracefully is possible!