Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
England Cricket 2024
Comments
-
I don't have any evidence he was involved in the plan and I didn't say he was.Addick Addict said:
Can you provide us with your evidence that he was involved in the plan? I'm sure the ICC would be pleased to see that too because he denied all knowledge of that and wasn't sanctioned by Cricket Australia or the ICC.Chizz said:
He expressed an opinion when asked. That's all. Some won't agree with him; hopefully including Joe Root. Although why anyone would take much notice of the sandpapergate coach, I am not sure.Todds_right_hook said:I’ve just listened to Lehmanns comments, don’t think he said anything wrong.
It is understood and it has been verified by others that on the walkie-talkie he said... you guys probably saw it, the first time anyone knew about it was when it came up on the vision screen. He saw that and he radioed down and he said: 'what the f*** is going on?' He said to Peter Handscomb 'find out what the f*** is going on'. Beyond that, I would like to just touch on he brought everyone into the room when the next break was. He basically went through everyone and went 'what is going on?' There are other parts of the investigation that asked lots of questions to try and understand that.
On that basis, though, presumably you don't value the opinion of the former England captain, Michael Atherton, who was caught rubbing dirt that he had collected and put in his pocket on the ball? Or Stuart Broad and Jimmy Anderson who were accused of ball tampering in 2010 during the third Test Match against South Africa. The incident occurred when the bowlers used the spikes on their boots to stop the ball?
Glass houses and all that.
His employers determined that his opinions were of such little value that his players chose to break the Laws of the game of their own volition; he was so guileless as to fail either to notice it taking place or to prevent it.
If the ACB were wrong in absolving Lehmann, then he's guilty of cheating. If they were right, then he's failed to manage the team and their performance appropriately.
He's either a cheat or he's ignored. The ACB claim the latter. (Although, perhaps he felt he was partly to blame, since he resigned almost immediately after). Either way, I think his views count for very little.1 -
I still find it impossible to believe that none of the Aussie bowlers had any involvement in the ball tampering scheme.
If Root, Cook and a rookie opener had been caught ball tampering, and the official outcome stated that Broad and Anderson knew nothing about it, I can just imagine the Aussie reaction...1 -
So you had no evidence but called him "the sandpaper coach", thereby implicating him in the affair and in a back-handed criticism of those that might value the views of someone like Lehmann you say "why anyone would take much notice of".Chizz said:
I don't have any evidence he was involved in the plan and I didn't say he was.Addick Addict said:
Can you provide us with your evidence that he was involved in the plan? I'm sure the ICC would be pleased to see that too because he denied all knowledge of that and wasn't sanctioned by Cricket Australia or the ICC.Chizz said:
He expressed an opinion when asked. That's all. Some won't agree with him; hopefully including Joe Root. Although why anyone would take much notice of the sandpapergate coach, I am not sure.Todds_right_hook said:I’ve just listened to Lehmanns comments, don’t think he said anything wrong.
It is understood and it has been verified by others that on the walkie-talkie he said... you guys probably saw it, the first time anyone knew about it was when it came up on the vision screen. He saw that and he radioed down and he said: 'what the f*** is going on?' He said to Peter Handscomb 'find out what the f*** is going on'. Beyond that, I would like to just touch on he brought everyone into the room when the next break was. He basically went through everyone and went 'what is going on?' There are other parts of the investigation that asked lots of questions to try and understand that.
On that basis, though, presumably you don't value the opinion of the former England captain, Michael Atherton, who was caught rubbing dirt that he had collected and put in his pocket on the ball? Or Stuart Broad and Jimmy Anderson who were accused of ball tampering in 2010 during the third Test Match against South Africa. The incident occurred when the bowlers used the spikes on their boots to stop the ball?
Glass houses and all that.
His employers determined that his opinions were of such little value that his players chose to break the Laws of the game of their own volition; he was so guileless as to fail either to notice it taking place or to prevent it.
If the ACB were wrong in absolving Lehmann, then he's guilty of cheating. If they were right, then he's failed to manage the team and their performance appropriately.
He's either a cheat or he's ignored. The ACB claim the latter. (Although, perhaps he felt he was partly to blame, since he resigned almost immediately after). Either way, I think his views count for very little.
That aside, using your logic, why wasn't the England coach, Keith Fletcher, sacked or why didn't he resign when Atherton was found guilty and fined £2,000 for tampering with the ball? Like Lehmann, Fletcher knew nothing about it and yet, in your words, the coach must have "failed to manage the team and their performance appropriately". As I say, you presumably do not value Atherton's views, or for that matter, those of Keith Fletcher, on cricket either? Or anyone else in sport that were or were in a position of management when skulduggery has taken place in sport.
The irony of this is that Root attended the Darren Lehmann Cricket Academy (DLCA), one that he attributes as contributing to his success “I had five months here and really enjoyed my time. I worked really hard at my game at the Adelaide Oval, where it [the DLCA] was based, and the season after that I ended up making my County Championship debut. It was very beneficial for me. I felt much sharper and fitter as a result." The DLCA has improved thousands of cricketers over the course of the last 20 years and hundreds have gone on to play first class and even international cricket including the likes of Alex Hales, Jason Roy, Liam Livingstone, Sam Billings, Rory Burns, Dom Bess etc etc.
Now, the main rival overseas coaching outfit in Adelaide is, believe it or not, the "Joe Root Cricket Academy". It is the inferior of the two academies by virtue of the fact that it was only established a few years ago and as far as I'm aware, no cricketers of any real note have gone there. That's not to say that they aren't looking to emulate the DLCA because they are as both are looking to attract the best overseas youngsters. So, just perhaps, there is a bit more to Root's attempted "put down" of Lehmann in suggesting that he is nothing more than a commentator.0 -
I called him the sandpaper coach, because he was the Coach of the team that committed the Sandpapergate offence.Addick Addict said:
So you had no evidence but called him "the sandpaper coach", thereby implicating him in the affair and in a back-handed criticism of those that might value the views of someone like Lehmann you say "why anyone would take much notice of".Chizz said:
I don't have any evidence he was involved in the plan and I didn't say he was.Addick Addict said:
Can you provide us with your evidence that he was involved in the plan? I'm sure the ICC would be pleased to see that too because he denied all knowledge of that and wasn't sanctioned by Cricket Australia or the ICC.Chizz said:
He expressed an opinion when asked. That's all. Some won't agree with him; hopefully including Joe Root. Although why anyone would take much notice of the sandpapergate coach, I am not sure.Todds_right_hook said:I’ve just listened to Lehmanns comments, don’t think he said anything wrong.
It is understood and it has been verified by others that on the walkie-talkie he said... you guys probably saw it, the first time anyone knew about it was when it came up on the vision screen. He saw that and he radioed down and he said: 'what the f*** is going on?' He said to Peter Handscomb 'find out what the f*** is going on'. Beyond that, I would like to just touch on he brought everyone into the room when the next break was. He basically went through everyone and went 'what is going on?' There are other parts of the investigation that asked lots of questions to try and understand that.
On that basis, though, presumably you don't value the opinion of the former England captain, Michael Atherton, who was caught rubbing dirt that he had collected and put in his pocket on the ball? Or Stuart Broad and Jimmy Anderson who were accused of ball tampering in 2010 during the third Test Match against South Africa. The incident occurred when the bowlers used the spikes on their boots to stop the ball?
Glass houses and all that.
His employers determined that his opinions were of such little value that his players chose to break the Laws of the game of their own volition; he was so guileless as to fail either to notice it taking place or to prevent it.
If the ACB were wrong in absolving Lehmann, then he's guilty of cheating. If they were right, then he's failed to manage the team and their performance appropriately.
He's either a cheat or he's ignored. The ACB claim the latter. (Although, perhaps he felt he was partly to blame, since he resigned almost immediately after). Either way, I think his views count for very little.
That aside, using your logic, why wasn't the England coach, Keith Fletcher, sacked or why didn't he resign when Atherton was found guilty and fined £2,000 for tampering with the ball? Like Lehmann, Fletcher knew nothing about it and yet, in your words, the coach must have "failed to manage the team and their performance appropriately". As I say, you presumably do not value Atherton's views, or for that matter, those of Keith Fletcher, on cricket either? Or anyone else in sport that were or were in a position of management when skulduggery has taken place in sport.
The irony of this is that Root attended the Darren Lehmann Cricket Academy (DLCA), one that he attributes as contributing to his success “I had five months here and really enjoyed my time. I worked really hard at my game at the Adelaide Oval, where it [the DLCA] was based, and the season after that I ended up making my County Championship debut. It was very beneficial for me. I felt much sharper and fitter as a result." The DLCA has improved thousands of cricketers over the course of the last 20 years and hundreds have gone on to play first class and even international cricket including the likes of Alex Hales, Jason Roy, Liam Livingstone, Sam Billings, Rory Burns, Dom Bess etc etc.
Now, the main rival overseas coaching outfit in Adelaide is, believe it or not, the "Joe Root Cricket Academy". It is the inferior of the two academies by virtue of the fact that it was only established a few years ago and as far as I'm aware, no cricketers of any real note have gone there. That's not to say that they aren't looking to emulate the DLCA because they are as both are looking to attract the best overseas youngsters. So, just perhaps, there is a bit more to Root's attempted "put down" of Lehmann in suggesting that he is nothing more than a commentator.
My opinion is that the views of the coach of a team that planned and carried out a reprehensible act of cheating are of considerably less value than those of most others. You disagree (surprise!) and you're entitled to do so. But to prevent everyone else on this thread being bored numb, I won't respond further. (Although you might want to do so).
I think Root deserves to be called an all-time great.1 -
I'm somewhat surprised (shocked in fact) that you've chosen to "prevent everyone else" from "being bored numb". Even more susrprised that, twice now, you have have failed to answer whether you feel Atherton's views are "of considerably less value" because he was actually found guilty of ball tampering.Chizz said:
I called him the sandpaper coach, because he was the Coach of the team that committed the Sandpapergate offence.Addick Addict said:
So you had no evidence but called him "the sandpaper coach", thereby implicating him in the affair and in a back-handed criticism of those that might value the views of someone like Lehmann you say "why anyone would take much notice of".Chizz said:
I don't have any evidence he was involved in the plan and I didn't say he was.Addick Addict said:
Can you provide us with your evidence that he was involved in the plan? I'm sure the ICC would be pleased to see that too because he denied all knowledge of that and wasn't sanctioned by Cricket Australia or the ICC.Chizz said:
He expressed an opinion when asked. That's all. Some won't agree with him; hopefully including Joe Root. Although why anyone would take much notice of the sandpapergate coach, I am not sure.Todds_right_hook said:I’ve just listened to Lehmanns comments, don’t think he said anything wrong.
It is understood and it has been verified by others that on the walkie-talkie he said... you guys probably saw it, the first time anyone knew about it was when it came up on the vision screen. He saw that and he radioed down and he said: 'what the f*** is going on?' He said to Peter Handscomb 'find out what the f*** is going on'. Beyond that, I would like to just touch on he brought everyone into the room when the next break was. He basically went through everyone and went 'what is going on?' There are other parts of the investigation that asked lots of questions to try and understand that.
On that basis, though, presumably you don't value the opinion of the former England captain, Michael Atherton, who was caught rubbing dirt that he had collected and put in his pocket on the ball? Or Stuart Broad and Jimmy Anderson who were accused of ball tampering in 2010 during the third Test Match against South Africa. The incident occurred when the bowlers used the spikes on their boots to stop the ball?
Glass houses and all that.
His employers determined that his opinions were of such little value that his players chose to break the Laws of the game of their own volition; he was so guileless as to fail either to notice it taking place or to prevent it.
If the ACB were wrong in absolving Lehmann, then he's guilty of cheating. If they were right, then he's failed to manage the team and their performance appropriately.
He's either a cheat or he's ignored. The ACB claim the latter. (Although, perhaps he felt he was partly to blame, since he resigned almost immediately after). Either way, I think his views count for very little.
That aside, using your logic, why wasn't the England coach, Keith Fletcher, sacked or why didn't he resign when Atherton was found guilty and fined £2,000 for tampering with the ball? Like Lehmann, Fletcher knew nothing about it and yet, in your words, the coach must have "failed to manage the team and their performance appropriately". As I say, you presumably do not value Atherton's views, or for that matter, those of Keith Fletcher, on cricket either? Or anyone else in sport that were or were in a position of management when skulduggery has taken place in sport.
The irony of this is that Root attended the Darren Lehmann Cricket Academy (DLCA), one that he attributes as contributing to his success “I had five months here and really enjoyed my time. I worked really hard at my game at the Adelaide Oval, where it [the DLCA] was based, and the season after that I ended up making my County Championship debut. It was very beneficial for me. I felt much sharper and fitter as a result." The DLCA has improved thousands of cricketers over the course of the last 20 years and hundreds have gone on to play first class and even international cricket including the likes of Alex Hales, Jason Roy, Liam Livingstone, Sam Billings, Rory Burns, Dom Bess etc etc.
Now, the main rival overseas coaching outfit in Adelaide is, believe it or not, the "Joe Root Cricket Academy". It is the inferior of the two academies by virtue of the fact that it was only established a few years ago and as far as I'm aware, no cricketers of any real note have gone there. That's not to say that they aren't looking to emulate the DLCA because they are as both are looking to attract the best overseas youngsters. So, just perhaps, there is a bit more to Root's attempted "put down" of Lehmann in suggesting that he is nothing more than a commentator.
My opinion is that the views of the coach of a team that planned and carried out a reprehensible act of cheating are of considerably less value than those of most others. You disagree (surprise!) and you're entitled to do so. But to prevent everyone else on this thread being bored numb, I won't respond further. (Although you might want to do so).
I think Root deserves to be called an all-time great.0 -
Must be in the top 5 best bowling figures.Addick Addict said:1st Test
South Africa 191 all out
Sri Lanka 42 all out (Jansen 6.5-1-13-7)0 -
Not in the top 100 given that the number of wickets count as the "best" starting point i.e. Jim Laker's 10-53. Otherwise it could be argued that someone taking 3-0 is infinitely better than 7-4golfaddick said:
Must be in the top 5 best bowling figures.Addick Addict said:1st Test
South Africa 191 all out
Sri Lanka 42 all out (Jansen 6.5-1-13-7)0 -
Carse takes the wicket of Southee but Phillips is now on 50* (77). Too many of the 11 balls delivered to O'Rourke have started so wide that they are comfortable "leaves"
335-9 (89)0 -
348 all out. Final wicket to Carse who yorks O'Rourke and finishes with 4-64. Phillips 58* (87). Extras amount to 42 which is far too many given that total.0
-
Henry will be a real Test for his former teammate Zak0
- Sponsored links:
-
And the ball seems to be doing a bit more today than it was yesterday even if Stokes and Woakes weren't at their best in the conditionskillerandflash said:Henry will be a real Test for his former teammate Zak0 -
Crawley can't have faced a maiden first over for quite some time in the test team0
-
fenaddick said:Crawley can't have faced a maiden first over for quite some time in the test team
He didn't lay a bat on the ball did he?0 -
Very uncharacteristicAddick Addict said:fenaddick said:Crawley can't have faced a maiden first over for quite some time in the test team
He didn't lay a bat on the ball did he?0 -
Southee looks dangerous but already being given a talking to about running on the pitch0
-
It wasn't because he was leaving, more that he's missed many of them!fenaddick said:
Very uncharacteristicAddick Addict said:fenaddick said:Crawley can't have faced a maiden first over for quite some time in the test team
He didn't lay a bat on the ball did he?2 -
Crawley out LBW for a 12 ball duck. Never looked comfortable.0
-
DRS ? looked a bit leggy to me0
-
It was bizarre from him really. Very early test for Bethell hereAddick Addict said:Crawley out LBW for a 12 ball duck. Never looked comfortable.0 -
He's retiring after this series so will want to go out on a high but hasn't taken more than 2 wickets in a game in his last 11 matchesfenaddick said:Southee looks dangerous but already being given a talking to about running on the pitch1 - Sponsored links:
-
"Umpire's call" anywaygolfaddick said:DRS ? looked a bit leggy to me0 -
Well sort of retiring, with the caveat he'd play if they make the WTC final. Can't really blame him for that thoughAddick Addict said:
He's retiring after this series so will want to go out on a high but hasn't taken more than 2 wickets in a game in his last 11 matchesfenaddick said:Southee looks dangerous but already being given a talking to about running on the pitch0 -
killerandflash said:
Bethell would be perfectly suited for playing an explosive innings at 7. What he isn't suited to is coming in early on against a seaming new red ball.Addick Addict said:
It's that thing they have a hang up about having someone at 7 who is capable of scoring a ton off 30 balls.killerandflash said:Bethell playing at 3 is a massive leap of faith, for a rookie middle order all rounder.
Pope in some ways won't mind dropping down the order to 6, indeed it's a good opportunity for him to bat in an easier position. Stokes at 7 feels very low, surely one of the senior players should be at 3, with Bethell at 6 or 7?
I've just had a nasty thought though - assuming that Bethell doesn't bat beyond the call of duty, could we see Smith coming back at 3 in the summer and not keeping with Pope staying at 6 and retaining the gloves? Is that why we didn't include a specialist second keeper in the first place and that Robinson will merely be back up if and when he arrives?
This exactly the situation I feared. It would be tough enough if Jonathan Trott had walked out at 3, never mind a rookie middle order all rounder.2 -
Just an aside, what a beautiful place the Hagley Oval must be to play and watch cricket4
-
They just showed the NZ averages for this WTC - Henry with 34 wickets at 16.11 and Southee with 15 wickets at 52.26. Had it not been for the fact that Boult retired just two years ago and Jamieson is out in the long term with a stress fracture of the back, I suspect that he might have gone earlier if only because he wouldn't be in the side.fenaddick said:
Well sort of retiring, with the caveat he'd play if they make the WTC final. Can't really blame him for that thoughAddick Addict said:
He's retiring after this series so will want to go out on a high but hasn't taken more than 2 wickets in a game in his last 11 matchesfenaddick said:Southee looks dangerous but already being given a talking to about running on the pitch1 -
Brilliant shot from Duckett to relieve some pressure0
-
Ollie Robinson's dad might have missed this one but he is flying out to watch and there are four or five of Sidcup's ex-players (where Ollie started until he went to Bexley at the age of 16) that are living in NZ that will make the effort to get to the other two Tests. Let's hope the same doesn't happen to Ollie as it did to Jordan Cox.fenaddick said:Just an aside, what a beautiful place the Hagley Oval must be to play and watch cricket3 -
23-1 off 9 overs and Duckett has all 230
-
Bethell gets his first run!0
-
And Duckett dropped the next ball0
