England and lawyers the only winners as Gordon Lewis gets it wrong

James-anderson_2995136b

 

The decision of the ICC judicial commissioner, Gordon Lewis, to throw out the charges against both James Anderson and Ravindra Jadeja bears all the hallmarks of a fudge designed to diffuse tension, but which is more likely to make things much, much worse.

The facts are more or less as follows. In the session before lunch on the second day of the Trent Bridge test, Jadeja barely survived an Anderson ball, and Anderson handed out some laugh-defying amuse-bouches that offered a glimpse of the unedifying menu to come.

When the umpires called lunch things got even more tasteless. Anderson served Jadeja some select hors d’oeuvre on the way back to the pavilion. According to umpire Bruce Oxenford, choice crudités included “you fucking c***” and “you fucking prick.” Anderson will have kicked himself for failing to employ the more insultingly efficient “you fucking hermaphrodite.”

The mains, served in the pavilion, were less clear than a dodgy consommé. Jadeja may or may not have turned on Anderson with intent to stare at him in a funny way. Anderson may or may not have tried to push Jadeja’s teeth through the back of his head. There were few witnesses and no video corroboration.

Seven years ago, the Guardian observed that “England have done little in recent weeks to dispel the notion that they are trying to cultivate a more hard-nosed image, and Prior, who repeatedly sledged Dinesh Karthik and Mahendra Singh Dhoni during the first Test at Lord’s, defended his team’s increasing garrulousness.” The article was not gushing in its appreciation of the trend.

At the time of that Guardian piece, Jimmy Anderson had already been fined half his match fee for deliberately barging into the West Indian batsman Runako Morton during a one-day international at Edgbaston earlier in the month.

Since then, Anderson has turned garrulousness into a back-street art form. He chirps it both ways. He can reverse chatter from the first ball. He swings from the lips. Not for Jimmy the mocking jollity of Freddie Flintoff’s “Mind the windows, Tino” or Shane Warne’s “Come on, Ramps, you know you want to!” Jimmy is a bi-polar bowler. He shouts at people with bats. His follow through is a violent tirade that leaves potty holes on a length. Jimmy reels off verbal brutality like the last reel denouement of a snuff movie.

When push comes to shove, verbal abuse comes easy to the England bowler. According to Peter Siddle, Anderson threatened to punch George Bailey in the face during the winter Ashes. The alleged threat to break Jadeja’s teeth racks up the level of violence. Who knows what kind of assault Anderson threatened when he confronted Ajinkya Rahane at the Ageas Bowl, but there is every likelihood it was in “fucking” breach of the Code of Conduct. Jeez, the guy was under a Level 3 charge at the time!

Admittedly, India can come across as thin skinned as a gossamer johnny. At the same time, England can behave as arrogant colonial prigs. This certainly seems to be the position adopted by the two teams and their respective national press. David Lloyd, in his Sky blog, led the way with home-spun sanctimonious codswallop, when he accused the Indians in general and MS Dhoni in particular, of “getting above their station,” in bringing charges against the inviolable Anderson. The impartiality of national broadcasters – dontcha love ’em!

India are fed up with Anderson’s boorish behaviour, and there appears to be a general consensus in the British press that Anderson more than likely did push Jadeja. England has dismissed it all as ‘handbags,’ part of the acceptable rough and tumble of professional cricket. But it is not acceptable. The play-it-hard Australians suspended David Warner for taking a swing at Joe Root last year, and Warner missed his target!

Michael Clarke’s response to Warner’s conduct is instructive: “This is not an IPL team, this is not state cricket, it’s not county cricket. When you play for Australia there are standards you have to uphold. [Warner’s] actions have not met the standard required of an Australian cricketer.”

Alastair Cook, adopting his favoured moral high ground, gave us “our conduct as players in the England team is vitally important to us,” words which ring increasingly hollow every time the captain whinges about something in public, each time Anderson fires off a fresh stream of invective, each time Joe Root follows his foul example, each time Stuart Broad holds up play to do up his boot laces for the umpteenth time, or England emerge from the tea break 3 minutes late.

England, in a sporting landscape defined by Corinthian values of fair play, is rapidly re-branding itself as a nasty team more interested in gamesmanship than the game itself. As an approach designed to win matches, it tarnishes the victory. To do so and lose, is incompetent and tarnishes us all.

The ICC Code of Conduct has four levels of charge. Only three concern us here. Level 1 charges cover minor offences, Level 2 affects serious offences, and Level 3 deals with very serious offences. It is fairly clear in the guidance notes that the Code of Conduct is not intended to penalise trivial behaviour, and verbal exchanges are permitted provided they do not fall below an acceptable standard. Needless to say, neither ‘trivial’ nor ‘acceptable standard’ are defined, which creates paralysis of action through uncertainty.

Anderson was charged by the Indian manager, Sunil Dev, under Article 2.3.3 of the ICC’s Code of Conduct for pushing and abusing Judeja. This is a catch-all provision that covers very serious offences.

The ECB, in response, issued this statement: “The ECB has today reacted with surprise that the India team has made allegations against James Anderson under Level 3 of the ICC Code of Conduct for a minor incident involving Ravindra Jadeja during the first Investec Test match at Trent Bridge.”

Duncan Fletcher and Paul Downton sought to defuse the situation. Fletcher’s position was “Anderson is a foul-mouthed bully who crossed the line the moment he made physical contact with Jadeja.” Downton’s position was “reduce the charge to a Level 2 offence or the ECB will make a tit-for-tat charge against Jadeja.”

There are a number of issues here. While the ECB had adopted a public position throughout that the incident was a minor one, it seemed to privately accept, by inference, that there was substance in the allegations against Anderson. The ECB caveat took the line that the offence was a ‘serious’ one rather than a ‘very serious’ one. England’s nervousness in the lead up to the hearing seems to support this.

When Paul Downton decided to get involved, what could possibly go wrong? Instead of mediating a solution, Downton made the situation exponentially worse by employing the kind of gunboat diplomacy last used by the nineteenth-century imperialist Lord Palmerston.

Fletcher, clearly unimpressed with the size of Downton’s gun, decided to proceed with the Level 3 charge. In an act of petty retaliation, the England team manager, Phil Neale, charged Jadeja, ex post facto, with an offence under Article 2.2.11 of the Code of Conduct, the catch-all provision that covers serious offences.

Following the last six months of PR implosion, the ECB still has no sense of self awareness. After brushing off the incident as a storm in a lunchtime teacup and seeking to stand above it all, Downton really should have resisted taking the action against Jadeja, which flowed from entirely base motives. England can’t seek to run with the angels and then hunt with the devil.

David Boon, the match referee responsible for adjudicating the Level 2 charge against Jadeja, concluded that there was a confrontation between Anderson and Jadeja, but he was not comfortable, within the meaning of Article 6, that Jadeja was guilty of a Level 2 (serious) offence. On the standard of proof required of him, Boon instead found Jadeja guilty of a Level 1 (minor) offence. He fined Jadeja fifty per cent of his match fee, the maximum sanction.

Meanwhile, the ICC’s Head of Legal, under Level 3 procedural protocols, decided that Jimmy Anderson did indeed have a prima facie case to answer, which led to the appointment of Gordon Lewis as a Judicial Commissioner to hear the case.

India were so convinced of Jadeja’s innocence, and so incensed at the perceived injustice of match referee Boon’s decision to fine Jadeja, that they sought to appeal his verdict. The problem was that Article 8.1.1 of the Code of Conduct states that there is no right of appeal in relation to Level 1 offences. When the ICC accepted India’s submissions in allowing an appeal, inevitably there was much consternation in the press about the governing body caving in to BCCI pressure.

It seems to me that there is an obvious fault line in Code of Conduct procedures if two allegations, so inextricably connected, are investigated by different people applying different standards of proof. Green lighting the appeal allowed common sense to prevail over procedural intransigence.

However, I am not convinced that Jadeja had no right to appeal. Though Boon downgraded the charge against Jadeja to a Level 1 offence, as he was entitled to do under Article 7.6.5, Boon’s wider decision to downgrade and fine Jadeja related to a Level 2 charge, to which a player does have right of appeal. There was no dubious back-room deal here.

According to a Cricinfo report, when Gordon Lewis heard the case on 1st August, he dismissed both charges in double-quick time after taking evidence for six hours. He did so, not because he considered the behaviour of Anderson or Jadeja to be part of the everyday cut and thrust of the modern game, as the British press have casually suggested, but because he thought the witnesses on both sides were so one-eyed and entrenched that he could not establish to his satisfaction what the truth was. Lewis’s decision was closer to a Scottish ‘not proven’ verdict than to an English ‘not guilty.’

It would have been fairly easy for Lewis to downgrade the Level 3 charge against Anderson to a less serious Level 2 or Level 1 offence, After all, Anderson agreed under cross-examination that he had used abusive language towards Jadeja and that he had acted outside the spirit-of-cricket provisions of the Code of Conduct.

Umpire Bruce Oxenford confirmed Anderson’s on-field tirade in a witness statement. There was nothing equivocal about this. Anderson himself and Oxenford had provided 360 degree, 20:20 evidence that supported a significant element of the charge against the English seamer. If the evidence was predictably one-eyed, Gordon Lewis was just as myopic in dismissing the good along with the bad.

Lewis had an opportunity to put down a marker about the standards of behaviour expected from a cricketer, and he flunked it. If delicate national sensibilities guided his decision, it would have been better to fine both men. By attempting to defuse a potential diplomatic pratfall by appearing to be even handed, Lewis has possibly made things worse. Of all the parties involved in the incident, only Anderson, England, and the lawyers will emerge happy.

India will remain convinced that a serious injustice has been done to them, and I don’t blame them. It was plain for all to see that Anderson was sledging Jadeja on the field of play. Anderson admitted verbal abuse and behaviour outside the spirit of cricket. Yet he escaped sanction.

Gordon Lewis has effectively declared that Jadeja and MS Dhoni are unreliable witnesses, diminishing the integrity of a national captain widely regarded as a man of utmost integrity. I imagine a bitter Indian team will take the field at Old Trafford, seething with resentment.

David Boon has every right to feel miffed that his judgment has been called into question, when his reading of the situation, before all the lawyers arrived with £250,000-worth of obfuscation, was probably pretty close to seeing it right.

While it was not proved one way or the other whether Anderson was guilty of a very serious offence, the British press will wrongly spin this to suggest Anderson has been fully exonerated, which he has not, and Anderson will feel free to continue his boorish behaviour, and he will.

The incident has served to shine a spotlight on the ICC’s Code of Conduct, and the lists of proscribed behaviour contained therein, from time wasting to slow over rates and dissent to verbal abuse, that umpires and other officials have allowed to go unpunished so routinely that poor behaviour and bad practice are now widely regarded as acceptable through common practice.

It is time the ICC reviewed the Code and applied its rules consistently. Gordon Lewis had a big opportunity to make an unequivocal statement about the standard of behaviour the ICC expects of teams and players, and to put some bite into it.  Unfortunately, if Lewis had any balls, he dropped them both.

@Tregaskis1

53 comments

  • England have become increasingly boorish and unlikeable and it is about time they concentrated more on old fashioned tactics like scoring runs and taking wickets than behaving like over privileged public school boys.

  • Just seen on Sky that India are planning to appeal the decision to “convict” and fine Jadeja for his part in this incident. The fact that he has no right to appeal does not seem to phase the BCCI – probably because they now run the ICC.

  • It seems now that the BCCI have appealed the decision – something which would make me nervous if I was Anderson as the time it has taken for them to do so suggests it’s not a knee-jerk spur of the moment reaction but rather the result of the wheels behind the scenes having already been greased…
    I would’ve been happy with Anderson being found guilty of a lesser charge and given a heavy fine and warning, or even a suspended sentence if such a thing exists (surely with the transiency of the ICC’s legal framework being easily manipulated by those whom wish to see it work for them, something like that could have been imposed as a compromise). I can’t stand his pathetic abusive manner sometimes when he bowls – it’s like watching football – and would love to see his wings clipped in that regard. But at the same time I still can’t overcome to the suspicion that this is a tactical ploy on the part of one or two members of the Indian camp to suspend England’s best bowler for the test series, which would diminish the contest greatly and is the sort of underhand tactic I would only have expected from England themselves.
    Maybe the best solution would be for the lawyers to drag this out until September so that Anderson can miss the ODI series he was probably going to be ‘rested’ for anyway and all parties can walk away with only a moderate amount of muck on their fingernails.

    • Sorry, I mis red the release. So, Jadeja is appealing the decision to have the charges thrown out! Can we assume that the ECB will reciprocate? Really, WHO is now bringing the game into disrepute – the BCCI, the ECB or both?

  • “This is not an IPL team, this is not state cricket, it’s not county cricket. When you play for Australia there are standards you have to uphold. ” I sometimes wonder if the England team play so much cricket week in week out, as they’re wheeled out all round the year to make maximum income for the ECB, that they actually forget that they’re representing their country.

    Mind you, if it was just an ordinary job, Jimmy would have been sacked years ago.

  • I am not sure that Cricinfo have got this quite right in its report.

    Under Article 8.2.3.6 of the ICC Code of Conduct, any decision made by the Judicial Commissioner in relation to a Level 2 appeal, is the full, final and complete disposition of the matter and is binding on all parties. So far as I can see, the case against Jadeja is now closed.

    Under Article 8.3.2 of the Code of Conduct, the only parties who may appeal a decision made in relation to a Level 3 offence are: (a) the player found guilty of the offence; and (b) the ICC’s Chief Executive Officer, in this case Dave Richardson.

    This Article covers Gordon Lewis’s decision to ‘exonerate’ Jimmy Anderson. No player any longer has locus standi in the matter since none were found guilty, so only Dave Richardson can trigger an appeal, hence the BCCI’s overtures to him. I guess he has no more than a couple of days left before the time limit expires.

  • I wouldn’t read Paul Newman’s piece in the Mail (actually, that goes for pretty much all he writes, but I do it out of some sort of masochistic desire for pain and anguish I can’t satisfy in other parts of my iife, but quite enough of that….) on this particular appeal. Plenty of high-handed Indians and embarrassment to go round.

    I didn’t go into depth on this incident on my blog because I wasn’t there, I get bored with he-said, he-said arguments, and it stirs up the more “loyal” members of each fan base, which I find incredibly nauseating. The biggest casualty, as always, is the truth.

  • This is a very biased version of the story. No one has denied that verbal abuse took place or that there was an altercation as the players left the field. What is in dispute is the nature of that altercation and there are two “one-eyed” versions of what actually happened. Gordon Lewis decided that given the serious nature of the charge (Level 3) and what that might mean in terms of sanction for Anderson, the evidence could not possibly be relied upon. The BCCI’s mistake was charging Anderson was at such a high tariff. If it had been at Level 2, I’m sure the ECB would have made Anderson take his punishment and come out with the statements that all on here are calling for.

  • It would be nice if the two sides could just play cricket to the best of their abilities but it is unlikely that this is going to happen. I can only hope that Anderson is intelligent enough to realise that he needs to bite his tongue. If he goes off again then then the Indians need to turn to the Umpires and threaten to walk off. That will get everybody going because all of a sudden the cash registers will stop ringing for Downton and his crew.

  • Interesting article, although I do think Rich makes a good point. We don’t know exactly what happened in the tunnel, which is extremely tight with little room to move. Physical contact really wasn’t surprising in this context. While I think Lewis did drop the ball(s!) and missed an opportunity to curb abuse (if that’s what the ICC really want) let’s not forget that Jadeja is a bit of a prat too. It takes two to tango. Both players probably need to look at themselves.

    • But surely Jadeja’s conduct, whatever it was, should not affect the substance of the case against Anderson, either way?

      • It offers insight into whether Anderson was provoked / acted in self defence. It’s important in determining whether Anderson was abusing a helpless little lamb or someone with a similarly big gob giving as good as he’s getting. Abuse or argument???!

  • I think for the spirit of cricket to prevail there should be a total ban on any form of banter between opposing teams.

  • Very occasionally the cricket ECB Pravda will drop a little story here and there that is revealing. Not often mind.

    On Sky’s Sunday show Etheridge of the Sun (a usual ECB toadie) recounted a story from a few years ago about how he had given some sledging to Anderson in a bar in Austrailia. The result was the then (unnamed) England captain stepped in and demanded an apology from Etheridge to Anderson.

    What this shows apart from the wafer thin skin of The English captain and players is how unapropriate sledging is in normal circumstances. Why should players have to be abused on the field? Andersons comments as they left the pitch for lunch was abuse. Pure and simple. Would you put up with it in real life?

    Quite often the supporters of banter/sledging/abuse claim that “what goes on out in the field should stay out on the field” How convenient.

    The ICC refuses to take any serious action against abuse,and this is what happens. It is not heat of the moment or amusing banter, it is abuse. Dished out over after over to a someone who is doing nothing else but batting.

    It is only a matter of time before a batsman decides he has had enough, and takes a bat and smacks it over Andersons head or who ever else is doing the abuse. And when that day happens all the banter lovers and defenders like Bumble Lloyd will all clutch their pearls In horror. It can’t come soon enough for me.

    • I saw that too and at the time, I thought “how can that bear any resemblance to players verbally abusing each other?” I also thought what a complete twat he (Etheridge) made himself look.

      Only once have I seen a batsman attack a bowler with his club – that was when Javed Miandad did it to Denis Lillee – who just stood there, bared his teeth then walked away laughing.

      On another occasion, I recall a spat between Alan Mullalley and Glen McGrath – all forgotten in the bar after the day’s play. Nearly every ball that connected with the bat resulted in McGrath mouthing/saying/shouting “F*^*ing Cheat” and with very little effect on match officials.

      Now, we are too much into the “sue ’em” culture of society, and, it seems, India is at the head of the queue.

  • I’m afraid my own thoughts on this are utterly predictable – imagine either that Kevin Pietersen had been accused of pushing a player, or had admitted to using the language which Anderson has? What would the reaction have been then?

    It’s possible of course that Anderson has been scolded and warned behind the scenes.

    But it’s astonishing that after the charge was made against him, he then continued to behave as he did at Lord’s.

    I have no truck with the ‘whatever goes on field stays on field’ argument, along with the notion that anything which is said or done in the dressing room must remain sacrosanct. It’s emblematic of the insular culture of Team England, and perhaps a sense of entitlement. I don’t think this is the fault of the players themselves; these are the pervading attitudes, and they’ve rubbed off on the individuals.

    The Etheridge story is indicative of this. Had John Etheridge heckled or cheeked one of a group of, say, Norwich Union staff on a night out, the manager of those insurance employees would not have stepped up and demanded an apology. But because they’re the England cricket team, obsessed with this quasi-religious cult of team, the rules are different.

    The players’ private lives, and whatever they do off-duty, is none of our business. But what they do on a test ground, during a test match, *is* our business, within reason, because they are on duty. The fact that a fracas took place out of earshot does not put it beyond scrutiny just because the players would prefer it to be.

    • I agree with you comments about “quasi-religious cult of team” and I venture to say entitlement.

      Agnew said the othe day (in a rare critical moment) that England are not liked around the world. And it’s not jus other players and teams. It’s umpires, and match officials.

      This surely image (not helped by pissing on the pitch) is cultivated and encouraged by the gormless media. The same media who can’t wait to attack certain players if they are not to be seen as “playing the game.”

      The English reaction to the run out at Lords of Butler was ridiculous and arrogant. The media repeated the “not in the spirit of the game” clap trap. Yet they jump to the defence of Anderson formcalling someone a c–t. Very strange.

  • Cricket has been on an inevitable path towards an incident like this for about 15 years since Steve Waugh tried to legitimise sledging as ‘mental disintegration’. Since then, it seems to have become ‘accepted’, with England the worst culprits in recent years. After all those years of being battered by the Australians, there seems to be this need to be seen as ‘tough’ cricketers.

    Situations like this should never arise, and it needs to be the umpires that take more of a lead in controlling on-field behaviour. These are professional sportsmen, and they will try to gain whatever advantage they can (fairly or unfairly) until they’re stopped by the relevant authority, which in my mind, should be the umpire on the field of play.

    You can’t stop things being said in the heat of the moment (and certain banter can be amusing), but to me there is a fairly straightforward line – personal insults and abuse like Anderson’s, threats like Clarke’s “broken arm” comment are clearly not acceptable. For their part, umpires need to take a bit more control – there’s no way fielders should be approaching batsmen either during or between overs, and the umpires can easily monitor that.

    I also think that hearings are a waste of time because lawyers get involved – for a penalty to be effective, it has to be instant and have an immediate impact on the side. I’m all for the umpire having the ultimate sanction of sending a player off the field for a spell (2 overs for T20, 5 for a 50 over and say, 8 in first class / test cricket) I guarantee that would stop the problem, because no player/captain would want the team handicapped.

    While I’m at it, I’m all for the umpires taking a no tolerance stance on the picadilly circus that is a professional cricket match nowadays. There is a drinks break, so, unless a batsman is in physical distress, nobody should come onto the pitch apart from to replace broken equipment. There should be time limits on captain / bowler conferences as well – does my nut in watching captain run 50 yards from slip to chat with his bowler then run back again. When the batsman’s ready to receive, the bowler should be ready to bowl, and vice versa. Don’t mind chats between overs, but the game drags so much at the moment.

    How about losing a fielder for every over short at the alloted time of the end of a one day innings, if you’re 2 overs short, you lose 2 fielders for the last 2 overs, 3 for the last 3 and so on. Again, I guarantee it would stop all the nonsense.

    Zero tolerance……

    • Yes I agree about the Mental disintegration comment. Steve Waugh let the cat out of the bag. Banter my foot. Players are targeted to see if they are perceived as weak. Waugh himself was one of those players who thrived on banter/ abuse. He famously remarked (I think 1997 tour to England) that no England player had spoken to him for the first 2 test matches. England decided that winding him up was countr productive.

      Curley Ambrose was another who it was wise not to annoy. He kept his line and length but just went up a yard of pace. The famous incident when Dean Jones asked him to remove his white wrist bands and the groan in the Australian dressing room as they feared the worse.

      Hick was seen as mentally weak and received a fearful ear bashing almost every ball from Merv Hughes. The poor bloke had to keep wandering off to square leg to avoid eye contact.

      But should that be right? How many people could do their jobs of they had some smart arse standing their abusing them every 5 minutes?

      As for over rates. My solution is make them bowl 30 overs a session. And if they have not bowled 30 overs by lunch they carry on until they have. And reduce the lunch time accordingly. So if they take till 1.15 then so be it. They will be back at 1.40. And same at tea. In theory a fielding side might only get 20- 25 minutes break all day.

      I agree about stopping endless drinks onto the field. 1 drinks break and that is it.

    • Excellent post, Hamish.

      Everybody’s going to swear or lose their temper sometimes, it’s systematic abuse that ought to be stopped.
      Imagine if Rafael Nadal is playing Roger Federer in a Wimbledon final and each time he serves he calls Federer a fucking prick.
      Or Rory McIlroy calls his golf opponent a fucking c***t every time the opponent is about to tee off.
      Or if you want to stick to cricket, suppose Ellyse Perry called the batter a shitfaced bitch every time she bowled to her?

      Why are these examples unthinkable, yet for a male cricketer a non-stop stream of obscenity is considered an acceptable accompaniment to taking part in international competition?

      • A brilliant point. The way cricketers treat each other on the field, and their use of obscenities, would not be tolerated in any other sport. Cricket (rather smugly and self-indulgently) prides itself on its gentlemanly virtues and purity of ‘spirit’, yet turns a blind eye to professional players calling each other a c*** every five minutes.

    • Excellent post, Hamish (you see, we do agree on some things!)

      A related point is use of substitute fielders. England have been taking the piss on this front for years – bowlers mysteriously disappearing off the field for five overs at a time, while a specialist fielder from a county side takes their place. The fielding side should only be allowed a sub if the absent player is genuinely incapacitated.

    • spot on! plus give the umpire the chance to sin bin an offensive bowler/fielder for 10 minutes…maybe Cook and Moores would start to sing a different song from their current discordant ode of glory

  • Isn’t all of this the major responsibility of the game’s rulers? A Codeof condut is in place so why isn’t it managed? What do umpires do more than say ‘over’ okay wickets etc? Why dont they take a more active role? if anderson came near me I’d flatten him. This behaviour, loutish in the extreme just puts people off – anthr reason people don’t goto cricket

  • Thanks for the comments, James.

    I am not clear what Rich’s point is, nor which aspect of the article he considered biased. There is nothing in his post that was not addressed in my piece.

    A more forensic analysis of the known facts makes it clearer why the BCCI are lobbying the ICC to consider an appeal.

    Jadeja was not charged with being verbally abusive. He was charged with making an aggressive movement towards Anderson in the pavilion. There is no suggestion from any party that Jadeja was being in any way verbally abusive or ‘gobby.’ Such speculation offers neither context nor insight.

    Gordon Lewis decided he could not trust the evidence in relation to this alleged offence and felt he had no alternative but to dismiss the charge. He made a similar decision in relation to the pushing allegation against Anderson.

    The position is completely different on the question of Anderson verbally abusing Jadeja. Anderson admitted the charge under cross-examination and accepted that he had been in breach of the ‘spirit of cricket’ provisions of the Code of Conduct. If further unimpeachable evidence were need, umpire Bruce Oxenford confirmed in his witness statement that Anderson repeatedly abused Jadeja verbally, calling him a fucking prick and a fucking c**t.

    It was in Lewis’s power to dismiss the level 3 charge relating to the alleged pushing incident, on the grounds that he did not fully trust the evidence, but find Anderson guilty of a level 2 or level 1 offence for the sustained verbal abuse, for which there was ample evidence, including an admission.

    Lewis failed to do this, and I think it is legitimate for India to feel indignant about this.

    Had Anderson been sanctioned under one of the lesser offences, it would have led to a fine only but with the added benefit of establishing a deterrent against future abusive behaviour because a second offence within 12 months would lead to suspension points.

    By dodging the decision, Lewis has not just allowed the bad will to fester, but kept open the possibility that the whole sorry circus will continue deep into the summer.

    • Entirely agree with you. Your main article is a thorough analysis.There have been some who claim it took India 3 days after the match to make the case – is it not true that they pursued the issue immediately but it took 3 days to process?

      The majority of comments in the mainstream media have been downright appalling bordering on racist about all of this. It’s interesting how the DT and Guardian particularly have ‘allowed’ such commentary in this instance where the Guardian particularly would delete similar comments on another subject- that’s when the allow comment at all! The DT is beyond redemption.

      I hold a sense of injustice on this still because there were obvious and agreed verbals/actions that deserve a clearer response – surely, whatever has happened is not in the ‘spirit of the game’ (so loved by Cook and the ECB) and sanctions should be brought. Peter Moores and Cook have gone on record as saying they see nothing wrong and Jimmy can continue ad infinitum. Moores and Cook again proving what WEAK characters they are. This sort of behaviour by Jimmy is not acceptable, the support of it by the ECB is not acceptable – their little island of dreams should be sunk without trace. They are not fit for purpose.

    • If there were Guardian style recommends here, you would have as many as I could offer. Thank you for a very balanced and sensitive comments. The Pringles (but even otherwise more sensible writers) have been really jingoistic and defensive on this issue. Exemplified by David Lloyd’s over-the-top remarks…. “above their station” indeed. Gunga Din was not playing Test cricket last I heard. Surprisingly, and I hold little brief for them most of the time, the Indian media have been less one-eyed on this, condemning Anderson but also Dhoni and the management.

      Thinking out aloud, I wonder if this phenomenon (the English and Indian press’ responses) has something to do with the teams’ results and performances? Might the responses (on both sides) been very different if this publicity were happening right after the Lord’s test, for example? The mainstream English media were (very slowly) coming to recognize Cook’s limitations as a captain (even focus on technical flaws as a batsman). Anderson’s mindless bowling on the first day was uniformly criticized. Jadeja played a key innings What would have happened if this issue were to hit the papers right afterwards? My point through this long digression is to highlight the immediate context, even as big words such as “man up” “spirit of the game” and pettier ones such as “handbags” are coming up in this context.

      I seldom write comments, though read BTL with as much interest as the main articles — whether blogs or papers. This one, and Dmitri Old’s (along with Paddy Smith’s which I discovered through links here or at Dmitri’s) often give much more insight and often data, than the “meanstream” media. Ditto, with different blogs, for what’s going on in the Middle East. One reason for the lack of comments is that I do tend to go on a bit, so this is it for now. Thanks again

      • It is noticeable the English cricket media has decided to become more like the Australian cricket media lately. By that I mean the Aussie media sees itself as part of the Australian team. They are there to undermine and attack Australia’s opponents and big up the baggy green.

        England’s media has decided to do the same. And they have lost any sense of balance or impartial opinion. It’s speak your weight ECB talking points all the way now.

    • Not at all questioning the thrust of your piece :-) I didn’t agree with Rich’s ‘biased’ statement, I just think Anderson is getting a little too much attention whereas Jadeja’s role has been somewhat understated by various writers. India made him out to be some kind of passive object that was being bullied by a bigger boy. I don’t accept that. Anderson needs to be taken down a peg or two, as his sledging is over the top, but Jadeja is no shrinking violet himself. He was also armed with what Max Walker might call ‘one big mother of a cricket bat’. I don’t see how Anderson could’ve been particularly threatening in the circumstances. He’s hardly Merv Hughes

    • Just to offer an Indian perspective here, I think the disappointment with the verdict comes from the facts which have been established, and the lack of action has been taken based on them.

      Most legal proceedings tend to be two version affairs, and there is often no objective or neutral evidence. In this instance however, Anderson has admitted that he did abuse both Dhoni and Jadeja and pushed Jadeja. Those facts by themselves constitute more than one offense under the ICC code.

      Anderson has claimed that he pushed Jadeja in self defense. As a general principle of law it is up to a person making an assertion to prove it. In Indian law, and I suspect in the UK as well, it is up to the person claiming self defense as an exception to prove that he acted in self defense. If Anderson failed to satisfy the judge that this was the case, he should have been punished. If he satisfied the judge he was acting in self defense, both Jadeja and Anderson should have been punished. This affair should not have ended with no punishments for either player.

      As to the larger implications for the game, the ‘manning-up’ argument is nonsense, and Micheal Holding puts it well here – http://www.wisdenindia.com/cricket-article/manning-lead-confrontations/119540. Players should not have to run and complain to their boards / managers about persistent abuse because the umpires should penalize this rubbish when it happens.

      Its not just any one country, India have their fare share of serial abusers, and the India under 19’s behavior at the last world cup was shameful. The BCCI may be pursuing this to appease their own egos, but it might accidentally result in some good for the game.

        • I think the umpires need to get involved more (as others have mentioned). I certainly agree that it’s nonsense that neither player was punished. Umpires need to be strong, and if they think sledging is going to far, and becoming outright abuse, they should step in. If players were sent from the field (and couldn’t bowl for a session for example) the excessive abuse would soon stop.

  • At today’s press conference in Manchester, Alastair Cook reiterated that Anderson should continue playing as usual. He stated clearly that Anderson needs the ‘banter’ in order to make him a good bowler. Interpreting that, he means that it is okay to verbally abuse other players, even to push them when necessary – England are not going to be ‘nicey nicey’ rather be competative in the game.

    Either Cook is being a moron or he is the puppet by which the ECB get out their propaganda.It could be both of course. This sort of nonsense is not acceptable to me. Anderson, as he has on occasion shown, does NOT need to abuse other professionals to be a fine bowler. Is there no discipline within the England cricket team? Where are the professional codes that say you can abuse, constantly, incessantly, a fellow professional? This is just not good enough. Imagine this sort of abuse in any other form of employment – it would not be acceptable – why is it deemed acceptable in cricket????

    For me this is an issue irrespective of India’s recent complaints. I don’t want to hear batsmen being called cunts and pricks all the time. It is incredulous that the ECB seem totally unmoved by this behaviour – then when I look at who is part of the ECB I’m not surprised; when I hear Cook I’m not, when I hear Moores I’m not; when I read the papers I’m not. This is the same England that rowed with Sri Lanka about Buttler being run out and called on ‘the spirit of the game’ to be invoked. England are corporate bullies, hpocrites and liars. Who would want to pay money into their coffers – it’s the only power we have?? I don’t like these people!

    • I saw the same press conference and agree completely. Dmitri had already pointed out the difference in the ECB’s attitude to Anderson’s foul mouth and Gary Ballance’s enjoying a drink. And then I saw this, which makes a nice juxtaposition with Cook’s babble about Anderson:

      http://sports.ndtv.com/england-vs-india-2014/news/227901-india-in-england-alastair-cook-helped-gary-ballance-regain-focus

      I am in such a cynical place with regard to the England cricket team and its media management that I read this as a planted story to burnish Cook’s reputation and allow him some reflected glory from Ballance’s two subsequent hundreds (Ballance was already averaging 68 this summer after Trent Bridge, by the way). Don’t even take bets on this PR guff being mentioned in the TMS studio at least once tomorrow. If not by Aggers, then by AKA Tim Lovejoy.

      • I suppose it helps being from the right sort of family, doesn’t it? Alastair Cook is helping me now – move away from cricket

        And as for Tim Lovejoy? – what exactly does he do, has he done to get where he is – cookery programmes and the like – I used to blog regularly elsewhere about him, not sledging mind, just finding various uses for him around the house …..Graeme Swann is not much better!

        • Ah, perhaps I should explain. Having cancelled Sky, I listen to TMS a lot more often than before, and find myself exposed to Graeme Swann rather a lot. I found his media persona utterly unbearable (Michael Vaughan seems like Des Lynam circa Italia 90 by comparison, that’s how insufferable he is), until I realised how amazingly similar he/his persona is to Tim Lovejoy. I called Swann “Tim Lovejoy” in a couple of posts on Dmitri’s blog, Dmitri thought this was “bang on” and the name has stuck.

  • I forgot to add, is James Anderson becoming the Joey Barton of cricket???? Bet he even votes UKIP!

  • The normally more sceptical George Dobell carried the same story on Cricinfo. Reads like a plant, smells like a plant etc etc.

    A few months back, though it was not really picked up by BTL commentators at the time, large swathes of the press suggested in their pieces that KP had won the PR campaign and had succeeded in coming across as the victim. The wording was virtually identical in every national. Clearly came from an off-the-record briefing from the ECB, regurgitated without question by most of the press. The Balance-Cook story has a similar feel to it.

    • T,

      George Dobell has been consistent in his approach to Cook. He hasn’t joined the chorus to get him out over his captaincy – that is tactical nous in the field, the leadership qualities from inter-personal skills, oratory etc – but instead quotes all the things that these high-cost leadership courses people like me have been made to undertake in the past have told me aren’t good leaders; that being a nice guy, who works hard, and has a track record of doing his day job well are more important. Love Dobell’s work, think he’s talking nonsense in saying the tactics and oratory stuff aren’t important. If that were the case, your best bat who is a nice guy will always be leader.

      George Dobell does say Cook’s batting still worries him. That this one test with passable results, albeit an incredibly stodgy knock in the first innings (not a great one, please spare me that) do not show he is “back”, and those technical worries still exist. Good luck getting traction on that argument, George. The “serious journalists” have put that one away for a long time.

      Cook is here until the end of the Ashes now. I only hope the powers that be know what they are doing. You can’t say there isn’t an ECB / press conspiracy when all you’ve done in the past six months is do their bidding in the main. A few stories moaning about the 2015 fixture list, which has been part of the FTP for years, doesn’t cut it. Even then these stories don’t say “ECB greed” but instead “money men” and “administrators”.

      • The next flashpoint will come if/when Cook retains his place in the ODI side. I don’t follow ODIs very closely, but if either of the following scenarios occur – a) Hales is left out in favour of Cook or b) Hales comes in, but for Bell – there will be absolute uproar. Even some “serious journos” are on record as recommending Cook stand down from ODIs.

        • I agree, Cook shouldn’t be in the ODI side. Bell / Morgan / Bell / Ballance are all capable of anchoring a 50 over innings and stepping up the strike rate when they need to. As you say, putting a Hales into the top 3 will certainly help Eng make the most of the powerplay for once.

          Wouldn’t be surprised if Cook takes time off at the end of the test series and Morgan takes it on.

          On another note, I’d like to see Samit come in for Tredwell too…

          I think the selectors have largely made the right selection calls post Ashes, (I can actually see the logic in wanting Prior to continue in the side whilst Buttler played some first class cricket).

  • Another angle on all of this is that England via the ECB and cricket team have shown no humility whatsoever. They clearly have chosen to brazen everything out with no regard for anybody else or indeed what it looks like the the rest of the world. What comes across is a group arrogance and group denial that anything is the matter – a seige mentality – a macho, insensitive, rather stupid way of dealing with things with hints of empire and imperialism. It is foul.

    Indeed, via the press, they have suggested that anyone who disagrees with them is an idiot. This style has continued throughout the Pietersen affair, the Cook inability and now the absolutely appalling treatment of the Indian team – inciting racial hatred in the press. They all appear to be digging themselves into a bigger and bigger hole from which it maybe difficult to ever resurface – hmmm, maybe that’s a good thing

    They are odius.

  • Hi D,

    George Dobell is one of my favourite journalists. Along with Barney Ronay, who is a bit like Dobell on LSD, and Vic Marks, who is my secret pleasure – as a Somerset boy.

    Dobell’s independent thought is an antidote to some of the guff we read in the mainstream press, which is why it is a bit of a jolt when he files the odd piece that reads like it has come from the same press release hand delivered to the usual suspects.

    Your thoughts, George?

  • All this talk about sledging being OK as long as you ‘don’t cross the line’ is rubbish. As a cricket fan, I think players should shut up and play. If you swear at yourself for bowling rubbish or playing a stupid shot, fine. If you swear at any opposing player, you get warned. If you do it again, you’re banned for a session. Do it consistently, and you start missing matches. Get this nonsense out of the game. And this applies just as much to Kohli, Ishant and Jadeja, as it does to Anderson, Broad and Root.

    I really hate that support of a team robs so many people of the ability to be honest.
    I just want to say as an Indian cricket fan, I am heartened to see so many of you calling out the hypocrisy this issue has shown up in the attitudes of England’s players and media. Apart from Boycott, Dobell and Hopps, almost no one in the English media has given Anderson’s behaviour the wholehearted condemnation it deserves. Most have been content with crowing about Dhoni’s humiliation. I agree that India should have let this go, given that it was always going to be a “he-said/she-said” issue without any video evidence. Yet, it is bizarre that the word ‘unedifying’ has been used most frequently to refer to India’s insistence on pressing the physical contact case against Anderson, and not Anderson’s abuse of the Indian players, especially, as outside of the 3 or 4 people involved, nobody really knows the truth about what happened.

    I also can’t quite believe that Cook has essentially endorsed Anderson’s behaviour, and encouraged him to continue. Mankading a batsmen who has been warned isn’t playing the right way, but a constantly spewing invective at opposing players is just playing hard? Amazingly, Michael Vaughan in the DT has advised Anderson to continue sledging, ignoring the fact that he bowled best at Southampton when he shut up. Selvey and Pringle seem to already have given the OT test to India. Given all this, is it any surprise that so few people like the English team and their media?

    • Hear hear. The reporting of this incident has been a complete embarrassment to me as an English cricket fan. I’ve stayed away from every Guardian comment section on the subject, because the “debate” is even more nauseating. Anderson, like Cook and unlike say Ian Bell, is a darling of the English cricket media and has been for several years. I just didn’t think the rose-tinted sycophancy towards both men would ever quite reach the levels it has in 2014.

      The main correspondents appear to be in a race to the bottom, to see who can be crowned England’s answer to the famously one-eyed Australian journalist Malcolm Conn. Now that is unedifying.

  • One thing that you didn’t cover btw that has kind of angered the BCCI is the whole camera not working thing, apparently BCCI are going to take it up in the next ICC meet. I think it’s great to see that at least some ppl in England are taking a non biased view of this. I just find it sad that Dhoni has had a lot of stuff said about him because he is one guy who never says anything on the pitch and he even tries to stop his players from saying stuff. In this case he clearly saw that Jadeja got lots of abuse and tried to stop Anderson on the field in a lighter way and it’s just pathetic that ppl like Bumble are having a go at him

  • If anyone follows rugby union, do you remember the flak the English team took after a “dwarf-throwing episode? Cricket needs an offensive insult bin

  • […] 5th. Post Pietersen, England are striving, commendably, to rebuild the ethic and culture of the team. James Anderson just how far the side has progressed when he calls MS Dhoni a “a fucking fat c***” and greets Ajay Jadeja with a cheery “what the fuck are you smiling at? I’ll knock your fucking teeth out in the dressing room”. The dastardly Indians press charges, but Anderson is cleared. […]

FOLLOW US ON TWITTER

copywriter copywriting