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

sussexpob wrote:D/l

Clearly your comment about Mitchell Johnson uncovers a complete lack of understanding...

Clearly, yours reveal an inability to accept probable simple explanations for what is observed.

sussexpob wrote:...The idea that such an issue happened because of a few bouncers is totally dumb, totally ignorant and offensive...

Perhaps not quite as totally dumb, ignorant and offensive as the recent comments about an ex-Formula I racing driver, seriously injured in a skiing accident. The hypocrisy here is breathtaking.

sussexpob wrote:...As I said before, it's testament to trotts bravery that he even picked up his bat and walked out. If you don't care to understand then please don't comment. It's hurtful to those that have tackled similar issues that your comments are so flippant and misinformed.

I think I know "psychobabble" when you post it.

What medical basis do you draw the conclusion on? Can I have an explanation?

sussexpob wrote:What medical basis do you draw the conclusion on? Can I have an explanation?

in the absence of not speaking to Trott, I think neither of us have any evidence on which to base our opinions (and that is what they are - not conclusions). Forgive us if we don't take the mere description of symptoms, from whatever source, as evidence that Trott must be suffering from them.

I'd simply put it this way. We can only discuss possibilities based upon what we see and hear and it's entirely possible that Trott "didn't fancy it" when he got the hostile treatment from Johnson in Australia. That would never be communicated in a press statement. His departure had to be given some explanation, though.

D/L wrote:

sussexpob wrote:What medical basis do you draw the conclusion on? Can I have an explanation?

in the absence of not speaking to Trott, I think neither of us have any evidence on which to base our opinions (and that is what they are - not conclusions). Forgive us if we don't take the mere description of symptoms, from whatever source, as evidence that Trott must be suffering from them.

I'd simply put it this way. We can only discuss possibilities based upon what we see and hear and it's entirely possible that Trott "didn't fancy it" when he got the hostile treatment from Johnson in Australia. That would never be communicated in a press statement. His departure had to be given some explanation, though.

No, I don't think I will forgive an attitude that is at best inappropriate and unhelpful (not just to understanding Jonathan Trott's situation, but for anyone else who's trying to get their head round a similar illness whether it's their own or a loved one's) and at worst arrogant, ignorant and offensive.

Frankly, exactly what he's suffering from and to exactly what extent is none of your business, none of anybody else's on this or any other forum and, yes, none of mine. If he and his employer both say he's taking long-term sick leave, then he's sick and you have neither the evidence, nor the authority, nor the right to question that, second guess it or deposit snide innuendo all around it. Just because Jonathan Trott's profession is one that he carries out in public doesn't make him public property and you have no more right to stand there "speculating" (though I think the word "accusing" is more accurate) that he didn't fancy facing Mitchell Johnson than you do to "speculate" that...I dunno, pick a profession...a chartered accountant who went on long-term sick didn't fancy the annual VAT returns.

Edward Mills Grace wrote:

D/L wrote:

sussexpob wrote:What medical basis do you draw the conclusion on? Can I have an explanation?

in the absence of not speaking to Trott, I think neither of us have any evidence on which to base our opinions (and that is what they are - not conclusions). Forgive us if we don't take the mere description of symptoms, from whatever source, as evidence that Trott must be suffering from them.

I'd simply put it this way. We can only discuss possibilities based upon what we see and hear and it's entirely possible that Trott "didn't fancy it" when he got the hostile treatment from Johnson in Australia. That would never be communicated in a press statement. His departure had to be given some explanation, though.

No, I don't think I will forgive an attitude that is at best inappropriate and unhelpful (not just to understanding Jonathan Trott's situation, but for anyone else who's trying to get their head round a similar illness whether it's their own or a loved one's) and at worst arrogant, ignorant and offensive.

Frankly, exactly what he's suffering from and to exactly what extent is none of your business, none of anybody else's on this or any other forum and, yes, none of mine. If he and his employer both say he's taking long-term sick leave, then he's sick and you have neither the evidence, nor the authority, nor the right to question that, second guess it or deposit snide innuendo all around it. Just because Jonathan Trott's profession is one that he carries out in public doesn't make him public property and you have no more right to stand there "speculating" (though I think the word "accusing" is more accurate) that he didn't fancy facing Mitchell Johnson than you do to "speculate" that...I dunno, pick a profession...a chartered accountant who went on long-term sick didn't fancy the annual VAT returns.

For those who may not be aware of it, this is a forum for people to discuss what is happening in the world of cricket. Also, a glance at the title of this thread may suggest that comments and opinions on the subject were invited. Mine were simply that a much more simple explanation may lay behind the media statements by the cricket authorities.

There is a chance, of course, that we may not be so aware of an accountant not fancying preparing VAT returns, let alone interested, and posts on the subject may not therefore be so much in evidence.

You say I have no right to comment. I would say you should get off your ludicrously high horse.

I disagree, EMG. The matter of Trott's profession gives D/L (imo) the perfect right to speculate, etc. on the cause of his inability to carry it out.

Whether it is through D/L's mere watching of the Sky ads during broadcast of the tests that he watches at his local, or his subscriptions to Sky, or his test ground entrance fees, or even all of the above, I see D/L as a stakeholder (albeit a minor one) in the England Cricket Team.

As such, I see that comment on all aspects of the game are open to him. Just because Trott's situation may be personally and professionally sensitive should not preclude it from being part of discussions.

Thanks for that, GJ.

All the contradictions and the inconsistencies in the reportage do little to discourage one from thinking that perhaps there may have been some covering up of a simpler explanation.

That may have been perfectly justifiable, but could have been carried out far more effectively. Oh, what a tangled web etc..

D/L wrote:

sussexpob wrote:What medical basis do you draw the conclusion on? Can I have an explanation?

in the absence of not speaking to Trott, I think neither of us have any evidence on which to base our opinions (and that is what they are - not conclusions). Forgive us if we don't take the mere description of symptoms, from whatever source, as evidence that Trott must be suffering from them.

I'd simply put it this way. We can only discuss possibilities based upon what we see and hear and it's entirely possible that Trott "didn't fancy it" when he got the hostile treatment from Johnson in Australia. That would never be communicated in a press statement. His departure had to be given some explanation, though.

So trott made up a mental illness to get off with the fact he couldn't bat against a player who had himself, apart from said test match, bowl appallingly against England over three series?

In doing so he de facto retired to cover that fact up, and chose an illness with a huge public stigma attached to it just for shits and giggles?

Honestly....is that the extent of your point.

GarlicJam wrote:I disagree, EMG. The matter of Trott's profession gives D/L (imo) the perfect right to speculate, etc. on the cause of his inability to carry it out.

Whether it is through D/L's mere watching of the Sky ads during broadcast of the tests that he watches at his local, or his subscriptions to Sky, or his test ground entrance fees, or even all of the above, I see D/L as a stakeholder (albeit a minor one) in the England Cricket Team.

As such, I see that comment on all aspects of the game are open to him. Just because Trott's situation may be personally and professionally sensitive should not preclude it from being part of discussions.

Indeed. Trott made his money through public interest so he has to take the rough with the smooth, same as any public figure. His living and profession only exists because of fans

Though there is an issue over how much intrusion is reasonable.

I wish JT all the very best and hope he gets well again soon.

Anyone who has ever suffered from anxiety and/or depression can tell you how debilitating such illnesses are - recognising the cause or triggers and putting in place the appropriate mechanisms to deal with the symptoms is a painful business believe me.

I think it appalling to question the integrity of a clearly sick man who hitherto has played brilliantly for England over the past few years.

A broken leg needs treatment and time to heal - so does a broken mind.

sussexpob wrote:

D/L wrote:

sussexpob wrote:What medical basis do you draw the conclusion on? Can I have an explanation?

in the absence of not speaking to Trott, I think neither of us have any evidence on which to base our opinions (and that is what they are - not conclusions). Forgive us if we don't take the mere description of symptoms, from whatever source, as evidence that Trott must be suffering from them.

I'd simply put it this way. We can only discuss possibilities based upon what we see and hear and it's entirely possible that Trott "didn't fancy it" when he got the hostile treatment from Johnson in Australia. That would never be communicated in a press statement. His departure had to be given some explanation, though.

So trott made up a mental illness to get off with the fact he couldn't bat against a player who had himself, apart from said test match, bowl appallingly against England over three series?

In doing so he de facto retired to cover that fact up, and chose an illness with a huge public stigma attached to it just for shits and giggles?

Honestly....is that the extent of your point.

Not at all but what you say seems to demonstrate nicely your capacity to understand what you read and your tendency for strange extrapolations.

Far from making anything up, Trott has said very little throughout. Most of what has been said has come from the cricket authorities and has been inconsistent and contradictory.

The possibility that there is a simple explanation behind all the "psychobabble" put out, not least by yourself, has to be a very real one.

Warwickshire batsman Jonathan Trott believes he is ready to resume his international career, 10 months since his last appearance for England.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/29222857

I can't see him playing for England again, personally

SaintPowelly wrote:

Warwickshire batsman Jonathan Trott believes he is ready to resume his international career, 10 months since his last appearance for England.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/29222857

I can't see him playing for England again, personally

not really sure who you could drop atm to make way for him unless you moved root back to open

England surely have lots of places available for the ODI side, and if they don't, they blooming well should have. There is no other cricket other than ODI's for several months now and Trott was a stalwart of the side that topped the ODI rankings briefly, so it seems to me that there is plenty of scope for him to re-emerge, if he feels okay to do it, and if England feel they need the dependability that he once offered.

Whether he should play in a top order already boasting 6 'bat through/anchor' batsmen, is another matter, of course