Remove this Banner Ad

Keep sooking Jonny

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.



Ahh the memories. Some say "where were you when man landed on the moon, or when the second plane hit the twin towers"

For me it will always be "where were you when Johnny went walking". Bedroom tv, just getting up to go and refill my whiskey glass.

That replay is a thing of beauty. I've watched it so many times I recon I could pick that distinctive sound of ball hitting stumps, with bails hitting ground shortly after, one after the other; in an audio line-up of ball hitting stump recordings from over the years. Some DJ should sample that shit.
 
kickazz said:
2 years and yet to get a proper apology from England regarding how Carey and his family were treated.
Click to expand...

That was the most shameful part of the whole episode for me. A complete lack of maturity from the captain and coach. A mature response would have been "hopefully Jonny learns from his dismissal" but no, a response that opened the floodgates for Carey and his loved ones to be abused was what Stokes gave all because England needed something to deflect from the fact they were 2-0 down in an Ashes series they (understandably) thought they'd win.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

010203 said:
That was the most shameful part of the whole episode for me. A complete lack of maturity from the captain and coach. A mature response would have been "hopefully Jonny learns from his dismissal" but no, a response that opened the floodgates for Carey and his loved ones to be abused was what Stokes gave all because England needed something to deflect from the fact they were 2-0 down in an Ashes series they (understandably) thought they'd win.
Click to expand...
Yep.

Honestly looking forward to seeing Joe Root bat well this summer, and the likes of Duckett and Brook should be entertaining to watch.

But the captain and coach in particular can get in the bin.
 
kickazz said:
2 years and yet to get a proper apology from England regarding how Carey and his family were treated.
Click to expand...

Well it’s not their team who should be apologising - I’m guessing they probably had beers with the Aussies numerous times after that and to a greater or lesser extent it was all more or less dealt with.

I’d say that’s up to the MCC members to make those extensions for their disgraceful behaviour
 
PhatBoy said:
Well it’s not their team who should be apologising - I’m guessing they probably had beers with the Aussies numerous times after that and to a greater or lesser extent it was all more or less dealt with.

I’d say that’s up to the MCC members to make those extensions for their disgraceful behaviour
Click to expand...
Maybe not that many beers

 
Yeah look I think it's best we keep this thread light hearted, but when there are threats against family etc I think that's really poor; and whilst it was most definitely the hoi polloi at fault there, I think the ECB / team itself had some power and opportunity to take a leadership role and be a bit more adult about the whole thing and set an example. Could have made a difference.
 
010203 said:
That was the most shameful part of the whole episode for me. A complete lack of maturity from the captain and coach. A mature response would have been "hopefully Jonny learns from his dismissal" but no, a response that opened the floodgates for Carey and his loved ones to be abused was what Stokes gave all because England needed something to deflect from the fact they were 2-0 down in an Ashes series they (understandably) thought they'd win.
Click to expand...
The ironic part is:

1. Bairstow tried to do exactly the same thing in Australia's first innings to Marnus. Was not mentioned by the English press.
2. Both Bairstow and McCullum have done the same thing in their respective careers. In fact, McCullum did it several times.
3. Joe Root did come out about 12 months ago and in interview, said that Bairstow should have stayed in his crease. Maybe Joe old boy, you probably should have said that at the end of the days play instead of waiting all that time which maybe may have eased the situation somewhat.

It still burns me to this day the way the English try to take the high moral ground.
 
Rabish Binney said:
3. Joe Root did come out about 12 months ago and in interview, said that Bairstow should have stayed in his crease. Maybe Joe old boy, you probably should have said that at the end of the days play instead of waiting all that time which maybe may have eased the situation somewhat.

It still burns me to this day the way the English try to take the high moral ground.
Click to expand...

Well that would be undermining the captain, and Joe isn't captain anymore. Even though he would be a better choice, it goes against their overall strategy of the yobbification of cricket.
 
kickazz said:
Well that would be undermining the captain, and Joe isn't captain anymore. Even though he would be a better choice, it goes against their overall strategy of the yobbification of cricket.
Click to expand...

Why would he be a better choice? He had his go, and he had a poor record. He won 27 out of 64 matches, and that was with Anderson and Broad throughout his entire tenure.
They’ve won 21 of 35 under Stokes. Broad has been retired for two years and Anderson for one.

Just because it makes them less likeable in your eyes doesn’t mean it is the inferior choice
 
PhatBoy said:
Why would he be a better choice? He had his go, and he had a poor record. He won 27 out of 64 matches, and that was with Anderson and Broad throughout his entire tenure.
They’ve won 21 of 35 under Stokes. Broad has been retired for two years and Anderson for one.

Just because it makes them less likeable in your eyes doesn’t mean it is the inferior choice
Click to expand...
I'll put the fact that they've finally got some player that can bat now to the side, but that is a factor.

Better all round leadership. People bagged the shit out of Australia when Clarke was captain, so we put in Payne with a remit to reform behaviour. It helped a bit, but we probably got it really right with Cummins. What a great leader of men he is. Clarke won test matches but the cricket world said we were turning into a bunch of campaigners and needed to be more like NZ. So I'm just saying the same thing about England, I don't think Stokes or McCullum are of particularly good character, are not good leaders of men or custodians of the game when you look at the bigger picture. It's fine if you think that doesn't matter, many would agree wins are all that count, but I do think it matters.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

kickazz said:
I'll put the fact that they've finally got some player that can bat now to the side, but that is a factor.

Better all round leadership. People bagged the shit out of Australia when Clarke was captain, so we put in Payne with a remit to reform behaviour. It helped a bit, but we probably got it really right with Cummins. What a great leader of men he is. Clarke won test matches but the cricket world said we were turning into a bunch of campaigners and needed to be more like NZ. So I'm just saying the same thing about England, I don't think Stokes or McCullum are of particularly good character, are not good leaders of men or custodians of the game when you look at the bigger picture. It's fine if you think that doesn't matter, many would agree wins are all that count, but I do think it matters.
Click to expand...

What did Root do as a leader that was so impressive?

Was it when he essentially washed his hands of the Yorkshire racism saga?

What makes a good leader of men?
Root had a golden asset at his disposal at one point early in his career in Joffra Archer. So he bowled him for 44 overs in an innings.
He publicly criticised his bowlers at various stages and publicly commented on how their attitude seemed to improve in the absence of Broad and Anderson during one series where neither played.
Being a nice guy, which Root undoubtedly seems to be, doesn’t make someone a good leader. It just makes them a nice guy.

Stokes made a complete fool of himself when he got into that fight - well it wasn’t even a fight it was just him throwing punches.

But what’s so bad about his captaincy and leadership? He bowls the shitty overs whenever he can despite knowing that his body can break down at any moment. His team all seem to love playing for him. He backs every single player he has. He’s somehow found a way to back some of the most ordinary players imaginable like Bashir and Crawley etc and just keeps on showing faith in them and to a greater or lesser degree they reward it.

No one has to like them, in fact it’s often the case with decent leaders that unless you’re a fan of that particular team that you don’t. But I’m struggling to see on what basis you couldn’t say he’s a good one.

Graeme Smith was a prick and Shaun Pollock was a gentleman but I know who the better leader was.
 
PhatBoy said:
Why would he be a better choice? He had his go, and he had a poor record. He won 27 out of 64 matches, and that was with Anderson and Broad throughout his entire tenure.
They’ve won 21 of 35 under Stokes. Broad has been retired for two years and Anderson for one.

Just because it makes them less likeable in your eyes doesn’t mean it is the inferior choice
Click to expand...
This has been said/noted a few times, but the problem with Stokes/McCullum is the 'total war' attitude they bring to the way they use the media. It wasn't just the furore on the field, it was everything building up to that moment; for whatever reason, this current Australian team seems to be bearing the consequences for the behaviour of Aussie teams of the past. Both the way Australia was treated in South Africa prior to Sandpapergate and the way Australia was treated prior to that Ashes series was pretty inexcusable: what possible excuse is there for the Sonny Bill Williams masks handed out in the first test? What excuse was there for the multiple attacks and pressure heaped upon Australia by the inexorable English press and the bowlers who were still currently ****ing playing in their weekly articles, even before the Bairstow stumping?

The whole thing, designed to make the players buckle and break under the pressure of it.

So, sorry, but no. England deserve all the shit that gets flung their way on this l, the holier than thou pontificating whilst mudslinging hypocritical weeds. Cricket's at the end of it just a game, and treating your opponent like the Axis of Evil isn't good sportsmanship.
 
PhatBoy said:
What did Root do as a leader that was so impressive?

Was it when he essentially washed his hands of the Yorkshire racism saga?

What makes a good leader of men?
Root had a golden asset at his disposal at one point early in his career in Joffra Archer. So he bowled him for 44 overs in an innings.
He publicly criticised his bowlers at various stages and publicly commented on how their attitude seemed to improve in the absence of Broad and Anderson during one series where neither played.
Being a nice guy, which Root undoubtedly seems to be, doesn’t make someone a good leader. It just makes them a nice guy.

Stokes made a complete fool of himself when he got into that fight - well it wasn’t even a fight it was just him throwing punches.

But what’s so bad about his captaincy and leadership? He bowls the shitty overs whenever he can despite knowing that his body can break down at any moment. His team all seem to love playing for him. He backs every single player he has. He’s somehow found a way to back some of the most ordinary players imaginable like Bashir and Crawley etc and just keeps on showing faith in them and to a greater or lesser degree they reward it.

No one has to like them, in fact it’s often the case with decent leaders that unless you’re a fan of that particular team that you don’t. But I’m struggling to see on what basis you couldn’t say he’s a good one.

Graeme Smith was a prick and Shaun Pollock was a gentleman but I know who the better leader was.
Click to expand...

Gethelred said:
This has been said/noted a few times, but the problem with Stokes/McCullum is the 'total war' attitude they bring to the way they use the media. It wasn't just the furore on the field, it was everything building up to that moment; for whatever reason, this current Australian team seems to be bearing the consequences for the behaviour of Aussie teams of the past. Both the way Australia was treated in South Africa prior to Sandpapergate and the way Australia was treated prior to that Ashes series was pretty inexcusable: what possible excuse is there for the Sonny Bill Williams masks handed out in the first test? What excuse was there for the multiple attacks and pressure heaped upon Australia by the inexorable English press and the bowlers who were still currently ****ing playing in their weekly articles, even before the Bairstow stumping?

The whole thing, designed to make the players buckle and break under the pressure of it.

So, sorry, but no. England deserve all the shit that gets flung their way on this l, the holier than thou pontificating whilst mudslinging hypocritical weeds. Cricket's at the end of it just a game, and treating your opponent like the Axis of Evil isn't good sportsmanship.
Click to expand...

Two really good posts from two different perspectives. Cheers guys. BigFooty delivers...
 
Grubs.
Been grubs for centuries.
Dunno why it surprises people when they revert to type after a few years of relatively human behaviour.
 
Gethelred said:
This has been said/noted a few times, but the problem with Stokes/McCullum is the 'total war' attitude they bring to the way they use the media. It wasn't just the furore on the field, it was everything building up to that moment; for whatever reason, this current Australian team seems to be bearing the consequences for the behaviour of Aussie teams of the past. Both the way Australia was treated in South Africa prior to Sandpapergate and the way Australia was treated prior to that Ashes series was pretty inexcusable: what possible excuse is there for the Sonny Bill Williams masks handed out in the first test? What excuse was there for the multiple attacks and pressure heaped upon Australia by the inexorable English press and the bowlers who were still currently ****ing playing in their weekly articles, even before the Bairstow stumping?

The whole thing, designed to make the players buckle and break under the pressure of it.

So, sorry, but no. England deserve all the shit that gets flung their way on this l, the holier than thou pontificating whilst mudslinging hypocritical weeds. Cricket's at the end of it just a game, and treating your opponent like the Axis of Evil isn't good sportsmanship.
Click to expand...

I’m not claiming it is good sportsmanship and the mask thing in particular was one of the lowest things I can recall seeing associated to a sporting arena and I actively SUPPORT South Africa to some degree. It was a disgrace.

But I still don’t see how any of this makes Stokes a bad captain or leader anymore than someone like Steve Waugh was a ‘bad captain’ in the past (he wasn’t - he was a good captain) when he extolled the whole ‘we play hard but fair and don’t cross the line’ when clearly they did from time to time.
 
PhatBoy said:
Steve Waugh was a ‘bad captain’ in the past (he wasn’t - he was a good captain) when he extolled the whole we play hard but fair and don’t cross the line’ when clearly they did from time to time.
Click to expand...
haha - they never crossed the line, because they and only they defined where that line was. :tearsofjoy: :rolleyes:
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

kickazz said:
haha - they never crossed the line, because they and only they defined where that line was. :tearsofjoy: :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

lol well that’s exactly right. They set it and yeah that’s spot on it was left up to them as to where it was.

And I think if you were to compare them then to opposition teams now, you could probably say that other teams like England don’t push it as much on the field but go beyond it off the field where Australia went beyond it onfield but didn’t off it.

India have done on it, SA have done off it, some of their past players like Donald probably did on it.
 
Gethelred said:
This has been said/noted a few times, but the problem with Stokes/McCullum is the 'total war' attitude they bring to the way they use the media. It wasn't just the furore on the field, it was everything building up to that moment; for whatever reason, this current Australian team seems to be bearing the consequences for the behaviour of Aussie teams of the past. Both the way Australia was treated in South Africa prior to Sandpapergate and the way Australia was treated prior to that Ashes series was pretty inexcusable: what possible excuse is there for the Sonny Bill Williams masks handed out in the first test? What excuse was there for the multiple attacks and pressure heaped upon Australia by the inexorable English press and the bowlers who were still currently ****ing playing in their weekly articles, even before the Bairstow stumping?

The whole thing, designed to make the players buckle and break under the pressure of it.

So, sorry, but no. England deserve all the shit that gets flung their way on this l, the holier than thou pontificating whilst mudslinging hypocritical weeds. Cricket's at the end of it just a game, and treating your opponent like the Axis of Evil isn't good sportsmanship.
Click to expand...
I laugh and shake my head at the hypocrisy of someone like Michael Vaughan, the pommy press and their supporters when they gave the Australians shit over Sandpapergate (don't get me wrong - what happened in SAF was embarrassing as an Aussie cricket supporter and it was disgraceful)

What they (and in particular Vaughan) failed to mention or remember was that the 2005 English side, captained by Vaughan himself used breath mints to assist in shining the ball.....a fact admitted to by Marcus Trescothick in his autobiography.

So the Poms tampered with the ball in that series. Of that there is no doubt. It's against the rules of the game now and it was back then

I wish an Aussie journo had the foresight to mention this to Vaughan or that knob Piers Morgan and see what they had to say.
 
Rabish Binney said:
I laugh and shake my head at the hypocrisy of someone like Michael Vaughan, the pommy press and their supporters when they gave the Australians shit over Sandpapergate (don't get me wrong - what happened in SAF was embarrassing as an Aussie cricket supporter and it was disgraceful)

What they (and in particular Vaughan) failed to mention or remember was that the 2005 English side, captained by Vaughan himself used breath mints to assist in shining the ball.....a fact admitted to by Marcus Trescothick in his autobiography.

So the Poms tampered with the ball in that series. Of that there is no doubt. It's against the rules of the game now and it was back then

I wish an Aussie journo had the foresight to mention this to Vaughan or that knob Piers Morgan and see what they had to say.
Click to expand...


Can someone answer me this. I genuinely am struggling to see the difference.

Taking a lolly and putting it on the ball - yes.

sucking a lolly to make your spit more plentiful and sugary? When players have knowing chewed gum for the same reason for decades - I don’t get the difference. That’s not an Australia/england thing, that’s a genuine question.

That’s the only reason I ever chewed gum in cricket, to shine the ball. What’s the difference?
 
PhatBoy said:
Can someone answer me this. I genuinely am struggling to see the difference.

Taking a lolly and putting it on the ball - yes.

sucking a lolly to make your spit more plentiful and sugary? When players have knowing chewed gum for the same reason for decades - I don’t get the difference. That’s not an Australia/england thing, that’s a genuine question.

That’s the only reason I ever chewed gum in cricket, to shine the ball. What’s the difference?
Click to expand...
Ask the ICC
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom