finally more MONGREL

[mansize rooster]

sure we lost

but it was so great to see some real anger and passion on the cricket feild again.

johnson just needs to hold it in and go the full 9 yards on strauss and we will have a great ashes.

 

[Gazza_11]

He went a bit too far though? I'd be happy just seeing him back to his finger breaking best.

 

[SriLankanCat]

Johnson should have been suspended. This is the second time this summer he has got into some argy bargy. And before anyone says this is an anti-aussie post, it isnt.

No need for him to go and head butt someone even if it was in the helmet. No need whatsoever for physical confrontation.

 

[Gazza_11]

Going physical was too far. If he wanted to make a point, he should have tried to hit his head with a bouncer, not his own one.

 

[caveman72]

how many weeks would you get for a headbutt in AFL a contact sport?

 

[crownie]

how many weeks would you get for a headbutt in AFL a contact sport?

headbutting a guy wearing a helmet? nah seriously maybe 6 weeks.

i dont mind words being exchanged but Johnson went to far imo making the contact with the helmet.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Mongrel? More like petulance IMO

Cricket isn't a contact sport - it's one of the few sports where you clap the opposition.

If you want to show mongrel - do what Ambrose used to do - stare at them, keep your mouth shut - and take their f ucking heads off next ball

 

[sudzz]

Mongrel? More like petulance IMO

Cricket isn't a contact sport - it's one of the few sports where you clap the opposition.

If you want to show mongrel - do what Ambrose used to do - stare at them, keep your mouth shut - and take their f ucking heads off next ball

Or even just smile at em like Marshall used to....

 

[sudzz]

Interesting take on this in Cricinfo by a guy based in Oz

Where is the justice? http://blogs.cricinfo.com/diffstrokes/archives/2010/03/where_is_the_justice.php

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Or even just smile at em like Marshall used to....

Was it Marshall or Roberts who had the two bouncers?

The normal quick one - then the bone breaker

 

[sudzz]

Was it Marshall or Roberts who had the two bouncers?

The normal quick one - then the bone breaker

I have seen very little of Roberts according to me it was Marshall though from what I have seen Marshall very rarely used his bouncers unless it was a wicket taking delivery so I guess its got to be Roberts?

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Was it Marshall or Roberts who had the two bouncers?

The normal quick one - then the bone breaker

Every fast bowler worth his salt has a quicker and a slower bouncer, but Roberts was probably more famous for it than anyone else. The classic example was getting belted by Hookes for 6 one ball, then smashing his jaw with the next one in WSC at the Sydney Showground.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Every fast bowler worth his salt has a quicker and a slower bouncer, but Roberts was probably more famous for it than anyone else. The classic example was getting belted by Hookes for 6 one ball, then smashing his jaw with the next one in WSC at the Sydney Showground.

Yeah - i think it was Roberts - i just recall hearing/reading a lot of stories about that bouncer - it's why it got stuck in my head.

 

[dumb]

more mongrel, now all he needs is more wickets and more runs.

 

[Plugger35]

Yeah - i think it was Roberts - i just recall hearing/reading a lot of stories about that bouncer - it's why it got stuck in my head.

Yeah I never saw Andy Roberts bowl but there a few stories about how ruthless he was with his bouncer. Ian Chappell said he got a bouncer from him once that he hooked for six and he reckons he never got a bouncer from him in the same place again.

Likewise if you hit a bouncer from Marshall, Holding, Garner and co. for four or six you could guarantee the next one would be a lot quicker and aimed straight at your head.

None of those guys used words to intimidate the batsmen, they just used their bowling along with a few death stares.

 

[sudzz]

Yeah I never saw Andy Roberts bowl but there a few stories about how ruthless he was with his bouncer. Ian Chappell said he got a bouncer from him once that he hooked for six and he reckons he never got a bouncer from him in the same place again.

Likewise if you hit a bouncer from Marshall, Holding, Garner and co. for four or six you could guarantee the next one would be a lot quicker and aimed straight at your head.

None of those guys used words to intimidate the batsmen, they just used their bowling along with a few death stares.

Except Holding and in that era Lillee and Thomson who were not really beyond going for the batsman's body

 

[Plugger35]

Except Holding and in that era Lillee and Thomson who were not really beyond going for the batsman's body

Marshall used to occasionally say a bit as well. Apparently he said to David Boon in his debut test "Are you going to get out or will I have to come around the wicket and kill you?".

Nice introduction to test cricket.

 

[Tambaran]

I'm wondering where the fellas who described Watson as disgracing the team for his Gayle send-off are in this thread.

Funny the double standards.

 

[Belnakor]

Interesting take on this in Cricinfo by a guy based in Oz

Where is the justice? http://blogs.cricinfo.com/diffstrokes/archives/2010/03/where_is_the_justice.php

cricinfo needs to stop pandering to the Indian readership.

The reality is that Styris and Johnson didn't make a big deal about it so they didn't get a harsh punishment. If an indian had been involved we'd be talking about how the indians were going to call off the tour.

 

[sudzz]

cricinfo needs to stop pandering to the Indian readership.

The reality is that Styris and Johnson didn't make a big deal about it so they didn't get a harsh punishment. If an indian had been involved we'd be talking about how the indians were going to call off the tour.

Dude you are stuck in a time warp and more importantly if you tried and looked at all the punishments and fines for offences real and imagined that Indians have had to pay for, you will agree that there is a reason for most Indians to feel victimised.

All that is required is a single standard for judging irrespective of who is committing the offense, the problem is that some people get away with just about anything by saying heat of the battle and some others don't.

Finally don't miss the cultural context of all of these things, In Australia or England for example calling a player a "bastard" or even worse in the heat of the moment is ok whereas for example try it with a Pakistani or a Indian player the guy will take serious offense if he is not from one of the big cities in these countries.

The author I felt was bringing out the need for a clear guideline on what will happen when an offense takes place therefore there is no need to get hysterical about what if it was an Indian.

 

[Belnakor]

Finally don't miss the cultural context of all of these things, In Australia or England for example calling a player a "bastard" or even worse in the heat of the moment is ok whereas for example try it with a Pakistani or a Indian player the guy will take serious offense if he is not from one of the big cities in these countries.

So if it happens between Australia and England should they be punished? Even though the offending and receiving party see nothing in it?

Styris thought it was quite funny and was loving the competition - he wasn't offended, he didn't want Johnson to be suspended so he played down the incident.

The article is trying to tell us Johnson should have been banned because someone in Pakistan or India, if it happened to them, would be very offended. That is ridiculous.

 

[sudzz]

So if it happens between Australia and England should they be punished? Even though the offending and receiving party see nothing in it?

Styris thought it was quite funny and was loving the competition - he wasn't offended, he didn't want Johnson to be suspended so he played down the incident.

The article is trying to tell us Johnson should have been banned because someone in Pakistan or India, if it happened to them, would be very offended. That is ridiculous.

Again you are missing the point, all that the author is saying is that if its an offense treat it as one for all teams, whether or not two teams agree and enjoy it or not. For example in Football or soccer if an offense is a red card or a yellow card offense its the same every where. It does not change if Man U plays Chelsea or Australia plays Western Samoa.

Why should the definitions and punishments change with match referees and countries in Cricket. I think thats the point that the author is making and I feel its worth implementing.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

So if it happens between Australia and England should they be punished? Even though the offending and receiving party see nothing in it?

Styris thought it was quite funny and was loving the competition - he wasn't offended, he didn't want Johnson to be suspended so he played down the incident.

The article is trying to tell us Johnson should have been banned because someone in Pakistan or India, if it happened to them, would be very offended. That is ridiculous.

It is a difficult one - how can you have separate rules for differing countries though? Also - some nations are far more easily offended then others - sometimes i wonder whether this is something exaggerated to claim the moral high ground. If I was playing cricket and someone called me a kangaroo rooter - i wouldn't give a sh1t - it would be funny. However do that to nations who have constant feelings of persecution - and it's the end of the world.

I know in the AFL this year they have tightened up the rules and made it zero tolerance. If Mitch Brown said to his identical twin that he was an ugly bastard with a w hore of a mother - he'd be suspended - regardless of the fact that it would be a humourous joke.

Regardless of whether anyone was offended - a physical confrontation is a no-no and he should have gone. I don't buy the indian or more accurately sub-continental victim card - however in this case - the rules were applied differently.

I don't see a difference between what S Benn did and M Johnson - they should have been punished the same (bear in mind i don't know if their track records play any part)

 

[Belnakor]

Benn pleaded not guilty that was his problem

 

[Belnakor]

Again you are missing the point, all that the author is saying is that if its an offense treat it as one for all teams, whether or not two teams agree and enjoy it or not. For example in Football or soccer if an offense is a red card or a yellow card offense its the same every where. It does not change if Man U plays Chelsea or Australia plays Western Samoa.
.

You don't get a red or a yellow card in soccer for culturally insensitive remarks. you get it for challenges and physical behaviour.

The author wants a system where an Aussie calling a NZer a bastard should be banned because an Indian would offended by that.