Random Cricket Thread (International Cricket)

[meninblue]

Henry Williams seems to be trying to reopen the Cronje files by claiming that neither he nor Gibbs were actually offered money by Cronje but were told to bulk up their stories to make a better case against Cronje.

Rather damning claims if true but Gibbs seems to have no interest in revisiting the scene of the crime rather understandably.

In that case Henry can be punished for false testimony in courts against a person. Cronje accepted that he was a fixer. It was proved during the trial that other South African cricketers were also fixers. Now they are trying to make stories and prove they are not guilty because he is no more alive .

[DeltaAlpha]

Interesting article on the BBC website this morning:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-no ... e-21013615

I remember watching a BBC programme - or it could have been a series - quite a while ago now, and it featured footage of Larwood's bodyline bowling. It really was fearsome, but I'm not sure that it should have been banned.

[Arthur Crabtree]

The Bodyline story is still fascinating, and the Larwood footage compelling. Bodyline (as I've said before...) would be my time machine series, if I could travel back and watch any cricket.

But Larwood saying, if he did, that he acted as he did, because his captain told him to, isn't really defensible. He must have made a judgement himself, right or wrong, and doing something you think is wrong because your captain said so, is a very weak moral position. Though understandable.

Winning by any means isn't acceptable to me. The hypocrisy of the England management probably shouldn't be surprising. But this is part of what makes it such a fascinating story. Bodyline was a rather shameful episode in England's sporting history. But at least we can say, thankfully, that no one got killed.

[Gingerfinch]

Bodyline bowling was introduced to stop Bradman scoring runs and it sort of worked. The intention wasn't to hit a player from what I know. Tactical genius from Jardine, although not very viewer friendly.

[DeltaAlpha]

But Larwood saying, if he did, that he acted as he did, because his captain told him to, isn't really defensible. He must have made a judgement himself, right or wrong, and doing something you think is wrong because your captain said so, is a very weak moral position. Though understandable.

I think you may be overlooking the 'class' structure and culture of the 1930s there, AC. The lower classes (Larwood) did what the upper classes (Jardine) told them to do, without question... just as children did what they were told at school.

[Gingerfinch]

But Larwood saying, if he did, that he acted as he did, because his captain told him to, isn't really defensible. He must have made a judgement himself, right or wrong, and doing something you think is wrong because your captain said so, is a very weak moral position. Though understandable.

I think you may be overlooking the 'class' structure and culture of the 1930s there, AC. The lower classes (Larwood) did what the upper classes (Jardine) told them to do, without question... just as children did what they were told at school.

They were also rewarded with a bit of cash, which was important in them days.

[Kim]

But Larwood saying, if he did, that he acted as he did, because his captain told him to, isn't really defensible. He must have made a judgement himself, right or wrong, and doing something you think is wrong because your captain said so, is a very weak moral position. Though understandable.

I think you may be overlooking the 'class' structure and culture of the 1930s there, AC. The lower classes (Larwood) did what the upper classes (Jardine) told them to do, without question... just as children did what they were told at school.

I think thats right as exemplifeid by the fcat that Gubby Allen - who didnt take part - was a well-to-do amateur who worked in the City I think

[Arthur Crabtree]

But Larwood saying, if he did, that he acted as he did, because his captain told him to, isn't really defensible. He must have made a judgement himself, right or wrong, and doing something you think is wrong because your captain said so, is a very weak moral position. Though understandable.

I think you may be overlooking the 'class' structure and culture of the 1930s there, AC. The lower classes (Larwood) did what the upper classes (Jardine) told them to do, without question... just as children did what they were told at school.

Which was why I added 'though understandable'. I appreciate Larwood was put into a difficult to position, and was treated badly, but he carried out the plan and accepted that responsibility. People are probably more aware of this choice now. Most will have heard of the Milgram experiment. It would be wrong to assume Larwood would think as is commonplace now. But he did still have a fairly obvious choice to make.

[Gingerfinch]

Larwood also hated the fact that Bradman had not only scored heavily against him but also taken him apart in every innings in which he scored runs. I'm sure there was a bit of revenge in Larwood's mind.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I accept financial hardships will have played a part too.

I watched a play of the series at the Nottingham Playhouse last year. The play was ok, mainly for the subject matter. But there was a lot of newsreel footage of the series, or probably all that remains, which was great to see.

Also loved the Aussie series from the 80s. Which I think puts me in a pretty exclusive club.

[Gingerfinch]

Bodyline?

I'm watching it on you tube at the moment (not right now) The whole series is on there.

btw
I'm not taking what was said on there to seriously as it looks like Mel Gibson may have wrote it, if you get my drift

[Arthur Crabtree]

Hugo Weaving as Jardine. Reminds me of being on the dole in the 80s and watching it in the middle of the afternoon. Same with the Manageress, with Cherie Lunghi.

[Gingerfinch]

Yeah, thought I recognised him from The Matrix films.

[meninblue]

It was learnt that the match referee has described Praveen as "mentally unfit" in his report to the BCCI.

Praveen Kumar abuses rival player in Corporate Trophy match

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/spor ... 383075.cms

Praveen Kumar had abused a fan who taunted at their performances during nets practice last year as well.

[meninblue]

BCCI fined $10m for anti-competitive practices

http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/conte ... 04236.html

The BCCI has been fined Rs 52.24 crore (US$10m approx) by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) for misusing its dominant position and indulging in anti-competitive practices. The Indian board has 90 days to pay the fine.