SreeSanth must be banned for the beamer - Pussy Atherton
CricketLeague
Sreesanth must be banned for beamer: Atherton
Cricinfo staff
August 5, 2007
Michael Atherton, the former England captain, has called for Sreesanth to be
banned from The Oval Test for bowling a beamer at Kevin Pietersen in the
second Test at Trent Bridge.
In his column for the Sunday Telegraph, Atherton wrote that a bowler must
always be punished severely for bowling a beamer: "If bowled deliberately
there cannot be a more cowardly action on a cricket field; if bowled
accidentally it is still potentially lethal. Either way it should incur an
immediate one-match ban."
Analysing the incident in the second Test, Atherton suggested that there
were reasons to believe the beamer might not have been an accident. "The
ball wasn't new and the lacquer had worn off, making it less likely to slip
out of his hand; it wasn't wet; he had directional problems but hardly of
the 'yips' variety.
"We do know that, since the ball landed at the wicketkeeper's feet, he
missed his length by a good 30 yards, an extraordinary failing for an
international bowler. If it did slip, it slipped with remarkable accuracy,
honing in on Pietersen's skull. Shortly afterwards he overstepped the front
mark by two feet to bowl a rapid bouncer at Collingwood. Sreesanth was
hardly in control of his emotions during that particular spell."
Though Sreesanth immediately apologised after bowling the delivery, Atherton
wrote that it hardly took away from the offence. "The royal wave was all
that was needed for him to be portrayed as an innocent in the matter and to
be forgiven.
"An apology doesn't necessarily mean it is sincere. With match referees on
the prowl, any bowler with an ounce of survival instinct is bound to
apologise, deliberately bowled or not. And the batsman/batting side has no
option but to accept it, for if it is not accepted then the moral high
ground shifts in favour of the bowler, whose integrity is suddenly in
question."
Atherton also hit out at the ICC for its "misguided sense of priorities".
Sreesanth was fined 50% of his match fee for a shoulder nudge at Michael
Vaughan, but Atherton felt the beamer was a far more serious offence. "By
fining Sreesanth 50% of his match fee for a shoulder nudge that could have
inflicted no physical damage and ignoring the beamer which could have maimed
a less alert batsman, the International Cricket Council once again showed a
liking for the irrelevancies over the issues that matter."
With Ranjan Madugalle, the match referee, taking no action, Atherton felt
the onus was now on Rahul Dravid to ensure that he doesn't play at The Oval.
"Since the match referee remained silent on the issue, it is Dravid who
should take the appropriate disciplinary action ahead of The Oval Test
match. Even if he doesn't want to take disciplinary action, he should ask
himself: does he really want a bowler who so obviously cannot control his
emotions to play in such a crunch encounter?"
Chuckles The Scary Clown
"CricketLeague" <Cricket...@USA.com> wrote in message
news:13bc07e...@news.supernews.com...
>
> "We do know that, since the ball landed at the wicketkeeper's feet, he
> missed his length by a good 30 yards, an extraordinary failing for an
> international bowler.
Atherton obviously had his eyes closed when Harmison was bowling at Lilac
Hill then.
How many wides (second and third slip wides no less) did he manage in one
over?
Luke Curtis
If a batsman cannot reach a delivery with a 3 foot long bargepole then
it is hardy likely to do him damage, is it?
Mike Holmans
<lu...@whofan.pNOSPAMlus.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
As usual dear old Chuckles misses his target by as much as Harmison
did. The point was about length, not line - but then understanding
that difference would require knowing something about cricket, and
Chuckles has never known anything about that.
Cheers,
Mike
--
CricketLeague
"Luke Curtis" <lu...@whofan.pNOSPAMlus.com> wrote in message
news:a36cb3pcao0rv7bq2...@4ax.com...
How do you know that Harmison didnt intend to hit the batsman ?
He might have got the direction wrong....
CricketLeague
"Mike Holmans" <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ri6cb3pnnta8kjcg2...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 19:37:29 +0100, Luke Curtis
> <lu...@whofan.pNOSPAMlus.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
>>On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 16:59:41 GMT, "Chuckles The Scary Clown"
>><chuckles_the...@budweiser.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"CricketLeague" <Cricket...@USA.com> wrote in message
>>>news:13bc07e...@news.supernews.com...
>>>>
>>>> "We do know that, since the ball landed at the wicketkeeper's feet, he
>>>> missed his length by a good 30 yards, an extraordinary failing for an
>>>> international bowler.
>>>
>>>Atherton obviously had his eyes closed when Harmison was bowling at Lilac
>>>Hill then.
>>>
>>>How many wides (second and third slip wides no less) did he manage in one
>>>over?
>>>
>>If a batsman cannot reach a delivery with a 3 foot long bargepole then
>>it is hardy likely to do him damage, is it?
>
> As usual dear old Chuckles misses his target by as much as Harmison
> did. The point was about length, not line -
Whats the difference between DELIBERATELY hurting the batsmen with BOUNCERS
and BEAMERS ?
I know beamers are illegal while bouncers are not in test cricket........But
I am talking about the END RESULT.....
>but then understanding
> that difference would require knowing something about cricket, and
> Chuckles has never known anything about that.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
Sir Mike Holmans,
Please enlighten me what difference does it make to the batsmen whether the
bowlers HURTS him with bouncers or beamers......
After you finish that project, please tell me how many times bowlers bowled
BOUNCERS to DELIBERATELY HURT the batsmen in the past......
Paul Robson
> Whats the difference between DELIBERATELY hurting the batsmen with BOUNCERS
> and BEAMERS ?
>
> I know beamers are illegal while bouncers are not in test cricket........But
> I am talking about the END RESULT.....
>
Mike answers your question below. Anyone with a clue about cricket would
know the difference.
CricketLeague
"Paul Robson" <pa...@robsons.org.muralichucks.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.08.05....@robsons.org.muralichucks.uk...
> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 13:48:59 -0700, CricketLeague wrote:
>
>> Whats the difference between DELIBERATELY hurting the batsmen with
>> BOUNCERS
>> and BEAMERS ?
>>
>> I know beamers are illegal while bouncers are not in test
>> cricket........But
>> I am talking about the END RESULT.....
>>
> Mike answers your question below. Anyone with a clue about cricket would
> know the difference.
You should go enroll in an english comprehension course along with my god
bush.........
I cant believe a "pakistani" like me has to teach english to brits like
you.........lol
max.it
Law 42 covers persistant fast short pitched bowling . The umpire must
consider the deliveries to be dangerous to the batsman, and also
consider the wearing down / intimidation factor in his judgment.
You don't ever see umpire intervention for this on tv cricket.
CricketLeague
"max.it" <max.it@teatime> wrote in message
news:46b65131...@news.btinternet.com...
Now go ahead and tell me how many times batsmen were intimidated/hurt by
fast short pitched bowling in the past and how many of the bowlers got
BANNED for a test.......
> You don't ever see umpire intervention for this on tv cricket.
>
> max.it
I am asking you about REAL cricket on the real cricket ground......
CricketLeague
Correction:
Now go ahead and tell me how many times batsmen were intimidated/hurt by
fast short pitched bowling in the past and how many of the bowlers got
BANNED and did NOT get banned for a test.......
> You don't ever see umpire intervention for this on tv cricket.
>
> max.it
I am asking you about REAL cricket on the real cricket ground........
max.it
None of my business, but I would expect any test number 11 to be able
to fend off a few before I would intervene.
>> You don't ever see umpire intervention for this on tv cricket.
>>
>> max.it
>
>
>I am asking you about REAL cricket on the real cricket ground........
In that case QUITE OFTEN I would think.
Are you that drunk guy from FATHER TED ?
CricketLeague
Then why the fuck are you posting the same shitty garbage comments about
SreeSanths deliveries even though they didnt hit the batsmen and they were
not called by the umpires ?
>>> You don't ever see umpire intervention for this on tv cricket.
>>>
>>> max.it
>>
>>
>>I am asking you about REAL cricket on the real cricket ground........
>
> In that case QUITE OFTEN I would think.
I already asked you to cite the instances of bowlers being banned/not banned
for bowling fast pitched short deliveries and hurting batsmen in the
past.....
Andrew Dunford
"Chuckles The Scary Clown" <chuckles_the...@budweiser.com> wrote in
message news:1mnti.1355$cw7...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
What an extraordinarily irrelevant analogy.
Andrew
SultanOfSwing
> India in England, 2007
>
> Sreesanth must be banned for beamer: Atherton
>
> Cricinfo staff
>
> August 5, 2007
>
> Michael Atherton, the former England captain, has called for Sreesanth to be
> banned from The Oval Test for bowling a beamer at Kevin Pietersen in the
> second Test at Trent Bridge.
>
> In his column for the Sunday Telegraph, Atherton wrote that a bowler must
> always be punished severely for bowling a beamer: "If bowled deliberately
> there cannot be a more cowardly action on a cricket field; if bowled
> accidentally it is still potentially lethal. Either way it should incur an
> immediate one-match ban."
If the ICC had to follow Atherton's recommendations, Brett Lee
would have suffered several match bans as a result.
> Analysing the incident in the second Test, Atherton suggested that there
> were reasons to believe the beamer might not have been an accident. "The
> ball wasn't new and the lacquer had worn off, making it less likely to slip
> out of his hand; it wasn't wet; he had directional problems but hardly of
> the 'yips' variety.
>
> "We do know that, since the ball landed at the wicketkeeper's feet, he
> missed his length by a good 30 yards, an extraordinary failing for an
> international bowler. If it did slip, it slipped with remarkable accuracy,
> honing in on Pietersen's skull. Shortly afterwards he overstepped the front
> mark by two feet to bowl a rapid bouncer at Collingwood. Sreesanth was
> hardly in control of his emotions during that particular spell."
>
> Though Sreesanth immediately apologised after bowling the delivery, Atherton
> wrote that it hardly took away from the offence. "The royal wave was all
> that was needed for him to be portrayed as an innocent in the matter and to
> be forgiven.
>
> "An apology doesn't necessarily mean it is sincere. With match referees on
> the prowl, any bowler with an ounce of survival instinct is bound to
> apologise, deliberately bowled or not. And the batsman/batting side has no
> option but to accept it, for if it is not accepted then the moral high
> ground shifts in favour of the bowler, whose integrity is suddenly in
> question."
Now Atherton doubts the sincerity of Sreesanth's apology.
We have had this going on for some time where some
commentators and RSC posters doubt the sincerity of
a bowler's apology after he has delivered a beamer.
IIRC, a couple of years back, Abdul Razzaq (not express
pace) bowled a couple of beamers at Brett Lee (who
obviously was not amused). Razzaq immediately
apologised, but I doubt whether the apology was
well received by Lee. In the Pakistani innings,
Lee bowled a beamer at Razzaq and many RSCers'
(including some Australian posters) felt that it was Lee's
beamer was deliberate and a retaliatory action to
Razzaq's beamers.
Mike Holmans
<asla...@yahoo.co.in> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>On Aug 5, 9:55 pm, "CricketLeague" <CricketlLea...@USA.com> wrote:
>> India in England, 2007
>>
>> Sreesanth must be banned for beamer: Atherton
>>
>> Cricinfo staff
>>
>> August 5, 2007
>>
>> Michael Atherton, the former England captain, has called for Sreesanth to be
>> banned from The Oval Test for bowling a beamer at Kevin Pietersen in the
>> second Test at Trent Bridge.
>>
>> In his column for the Sunday Telegraph, Atherton wrote that a bowler must
>> always be punished severely for bowling a beamer: "If bowled deliberately
>> there cannot be a more cowardly action on a cricket field; if bowled
>> accidentally it is still potentially lethal. Either way it should incur an
>> immediate one-match ban."
>
> If the ICC had to follow Atherton's recommendations, Brett Lee
> would have suffered several match bans as a result.
And this would have been a bad thing for what reason?
...
>> "An apology doesn't necessarily mean it is sincere. With match referees on
>> the prowl, any bowler with an ounce of survival instinct is bound to
>> apologise, deliberately bowled or not. And the batsman/batting side has no
>> option but to accept it, for if it is not accepted then the moral high
>> ground shifts in favour of the bowler, whose integrity is suddenly in
>> question."
>
> Now Atherton doubts the sincerity of Sreesanth's apology.
> We have had this going on for some time where some
> commentators and RSC posters doubt the sincerity of
> a bowler's apology after he has delivered a beamer.
Presumably because 99% of beamer apologies are insincere and someone
like Atherton who played cricket at the highest levels for a decade is
well aware of the fact.
> IIRC, a couple of years back, Abdul Razzaq (not express
> pace) bowled a couple of beamers at Brett Lee (who
> obviously was not amused). Razzaq immediately
> apologised, but I doubt whether the apology was
> well received by Lee. In the Pakistani innings,
> Lee bowled a beamer at Razzaq and many RSCers'
> (including some Australian posters) felt that it was Lee's
> beamer was deliberate and a retaliatory action to
> Razzaq's beamers.
Gosh. Wow. Brett Lee is one of the many bowlers who have bowled
beamers. Is this some major discovery of yours, or are you just
telling us this because you're in love with him and wouldn't want to
see him banned? Certainly the fact that you bring up Brett Lee and
none of the other bowlers who've ever bowled beamers suggests that you
think that the prospect of Brett Lee being banned is a major objection
against the scheme.
I suspect you're alone in that view.
Cheers,
Mike
--
SultanOfSwing
> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 21:48:02 -0700, SultanOfSwing
>
> >On Aug 5, 9:55 pm, "CricketLeague" <CricketlLea...@USA.com> wrote:
> >> India in England, 2007
>
> >> Sreesanth must be banned for beamer: Atherton
>
> >> Cricinfo staff
>
> >> August 5, 2007
>
> >> Michael Atherton, the former England captain, has called for Sreesanth to be
> >> banned from The Oval Test for bowling a beamer at Kevin Pietersen in the
> >> second Test at Trent Bridge.
>
> >> In his column for the Sunday Telegraph, Atherton wrote that a bowler must
> >> always be punished severely for bowling a beamer: "If bowled deliberately
> >> there cannot be a more cowardly action on a cricket field; if bowled
> >> accidentally it is still potentially lethal. Either way it should incur an
> >> immediate one-match ban."
>
> > If the ICC had to follow Atherton's recommendations, Brett Lee
> > would have suffered several match bans as a result.
>
> And this would have been a bad thing for what reason?
Primarily in ODI cricket, in the death overs, bowlers strive
to bowl yorkers and low full-tosses which are difficult to
hit by opposition batsmen. Very often, the old ball slips
out of the hand and what was meant to be a low full toss
ends up as a beamer.
As usual, you go off the tangent, Mike. I mentioned Brett
Lee because he was the one bowler guilty of bowling the
*maximum* number of beamers a couple of years back.
It isn't as if *no* other bowler has bowled it in the recent
past. Shoaib Akhtar too has been guilty of bowling beamers.
Waqar Younis too bowled a couple of beamers at Andrew
Symonds in the Australia-Pakistan World Cup 2003
league game. He was promptly taken off the attack,
David Shepherd was the umpire in that match.
In the above paragraph, I also mentioned that Razzaq
bowled a couple of beamers at Lee. I should have
added that he was promptly taken off the attack.
My problem is with Atherton's reasoning that every
beamer is deliberate. Who is to decide whether a beamer is
"accidental" or "deliberate"? I am fine with the current law
where a bowler is warned if he bowls a beamer once, and
is immediately taken off the attack if he repeats the bean
ball.
Mike Holmans
<asla...@yahoo.co.in> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>On Aug 6, 1:22 pm, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 21:48:02 -0700, SultanOfSwing
>> <aslazr...@yahoo.co.in> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>> > If the ICC had to follow Atherton's recommendations, Brett Lee
>> > would have suffered several match bans as a result.
>>
>> And this would have been a bad thing for what reason?
>
> Primarily in ODI cricket, in the death overs, bowlers strive
> to bowl yorkers and low full-tosses which are difficult to
> hit by opposition batsmen. Very often, the old ball slips
> out of the hand and what was meant to be a low full toss
> ends up as a beamer.
I'm sorry, but I can't quite make out how this general statement about
odo death overs is relevant to the question of why it would be a bad
thing for Brett Lee to be penalised. Perhaps you could make it a
little clearer.
> My problem is with Atherton's reasoning that every
> beamer is deliberate.
Now it's you going off an a tangent. Atherton doesn't make his
proposal on the basis of intent but of outcome. He thinks that there
should be no beamers, period, and that anyone who bowls one should be
banned for the next match regardless of whether he meant the beamer.
Cheers,
Mike
--
Mad Hamish
>On Aug 5, 9:55 pm, "CricketLeague" <CricketlLea...@USA.com> wrote:
>> India in England, 2007
>>
>> Sreesanth must be banned for beamer: Atherton
>>
>> Cricinfo staff
>>
>> August 5, 2007
>>
>> Michael Atherton, the former England captain, has called for Sreesanth to be
>> banned from The Oval Test for bowling a beamer at Kevin Pietersen in the
>> second Test at Trent Bridge.
>>
>> In his column for the Sunday Telegraph, Atherton wrote that a bowler must
>> always be punished severely for bowling a beamer: "If bowled deliberately
>> there cannot be a more cowardly action on a cricket field; if bowled
>> accidentally it is still potentially lethal. Either way it should incur an
>> immediate one-match ban."
>
> If the ICC had to follow Atherton's recommendations, Brett Lee
> would have suffered several match bans as a result.
>
and...?
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
newsunsp...@iinet.unspamme.net.au
Chuckles The Scary Clown
"Andrew Dunford" <adun...@artifax.net> wrote in message
news:5hn8ttF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> What an extraordinarily irrelevant analogy.
>
Possibly, I'd had a few vodkas but I don't think it was that wide of the
mark (certainly not as wide as Harmison's deliveries anyway).
Ha! That was funny.
The thrust of Atherton's whining was to do with the extent of an
international bowler's innacuracy (and the subtle hint that *no*
international bowler could *accidentally* be *that* innacurate). i.e,
Atherton wanted to say that the beamers were deliberate but was scared of
legal reprisals.
I merely observed that an international bowler such as Harmison, who managed
to send second and third slip diving for cover on several occasions *in the
same over*, either proves that it is indeed possible for deliveries to slip;
or, failing that, Harmison was deliberately attempting to decapitate his
colleagues in the slip cordon.
You crafty colonials can't have it both ways.
CricketLeague
They can......its their BIRTH RIGHT.....
Lol.....
CricketLeague
Sir Mike Holmans,
Whats the freaking problem with so many pommies and convicts down under
having comprehension problems despite english being their native langauge ??
Skootti
> Now it's you going off an a tangent. Atherton doesn't make his
> proposal on the basis of intent but of outcome. He thinks that there
> should be no beamers, period, and that anyone who bowls one should be
> banned for the next match regardless of whether he meant the beamer.
Really? Any one who bowls beamers must be banned. That's nice and
consistent. It's just not Atherton though. Here is what Atherton said
about Brett Lee (verbatim):
"His visible embarrassment and immediate fulsome apology
convinces me that Lee's beamers are unintentional, although
other international bowlers doubt that such a quality performer
can be so far out of kilter. The other reason for giving Lee the
benefit of the doubt is that he is such a demonstrably decent
fellow. His popularity among team-mates, current and former,
is legend. Michael Slater, one of the few Australian pundits
prepared to speak frankly about former team-mates, says
"he's just a champion".
The nonsense about favoring outcome over intent is put to rest.
Atherton - unequivocally - supports intent here over outcome. Lee is a
decent fellow ... fulsome apology ... popularity ... nothing about outcome
and all about intent and only about intent. Worse still intent and a
beauty contest in which Lee is the paragon of virtue. Mirror mirror on
the wall ...
In other words, if it is an Australian bowling at a monster pace and
he lets loose a bouncer, we soup up some phony test based on the tone
of his voice and popularity amongst his mates (Atherton might also
have wanted to say Lee pays his taxes and is known to buy his pals a
round of drinks - but what the heck there's only some much you can
write in a column).
I am trying hard to find that elusive test of objectivity - favoring
outcome over intent - here. Alas there is no hint of this to be found
in Atherton's very different reactions to Lee and Sreesanth. But the
whole point is not to have objective tests that will result in
disqualifying the Lees along with the Sreesanths.
As usual Mr. Holmans your foot is in your mouth and you speak through
your posterior orifice. Or it is quite possible that you are speaking
of that West Indian player who's name sounds like "Atherton" but is
spelt differently.
-SB
Andrew Dunford
Another analogy is the scenario where a bowler occasionally delivers a ball
that goes almost straight up in the air and lands in the covers. Sometimes
this is the result of his bowling hand hitting something on the way through
but on other occasions the ball slips from his grasp. Nobody accuses him of
doing this deliberately.
The closest I have come to thinking "that was deliberate" in recent years
was Brett Lee beaming Razzaq after receiving two from the same bowler. That
seemed like too much of a coincidence.
Andrew