Langer's pre-ashes dossier in the Telegraph

[zaremba]

I cannot agree with your statement there. Jelly bean episode was very childish prank but which was not even remotedly funny. What next? Planting balloons on the wickets? Wear "I am Sly Stallon fan" T shirts to the middle? Cricket is a gentleman's game and is played with mutual respect and maximum competition. To try and inject such stupid stuff which is detrimental to the game's status, atleast in the test format, required abject criticism which Zaheer did.

I never said that it was funny. It wasn't, it was childish. But imho India overreacted to it. The idea of it being some mortal insult to their dignity (which is how Zaheer in particular appeared to regard it) was, as I say, a whacking great over-reaction.

Also, for what it's worth, I think that the idea of cricket being a gentleman's game can be overstated.

Anyhow let's not fall out about this, it's not worth it.

The real point here is that Burgey has an oft-articulated fixation with England's murray mints in 2005 and yet seems unable or unwilling to face up to his own team's use of jellybeans in the current series (the reason that teams use jellybeans being precisely the same reason why they suck murray mints, of course).

Burgey - care to explain yourself?

 

[Pigeon]

I never said that it was funny. It wasn't, it was childish. But imho India overreacted to it. The idea of it being some mortal insult to their dignity (which is how Zaheer in particular appeared to regard it) was, as I say, a whacking great over-reaction.

Also, for what it's worth, I think that the idea of cricket being a gentleman's game can be overstated.

Anyhow let's not fall out about this, it's not worth it.

The real point here is that Burgey has an oft-articulated fixation with England's murray mints in 2005 and yet seems unable or unwilling to face up to his own team's use of jellybeans in the current series (the reason that teams use jellybeans being precisely the same reason why they suck murray mints, of course).

Burgey - care to explain yourself?

Oh yes. Zaheer's bat pointing reaction was indeed a bit over the top. Anyways that never worked out for England's advantage. Zaheer channelised that aggression into his bowling very well.

 

[pasag]

Feel for JL, but he'll get over it.

Dick move by whoever leaked it without his permission or without removing his name from it.

 

[Burgey]

I never said that it was funny. It wasn't, it was childish. But imho India overreacted to it. The idea of it being some mortal insult to their dignity (which is how Zaheer in particular appeared to regard it) was, as I say, a whacking great over-reaction.

Also, for what it's worth, I think that the idea of cricket being a gentleman's game can be overstated.

Anyhow let's not fall out about this, it's not worth it.

The real point here is that Burgey has an oft-articulated fixation with England's murray mints in 2005 and yet seems unable or unwilling to face up to his own team's use of jellybeans in the current series (the reason that teams use jellybeans being precisely the same reason why they suck murray mints, of course).

Burgey - care to explain yourself?

My Murray Mints fixation comes about because it's the only reason I can find (logical or otherwise) that a team which had been so bad for so long suddenly got the ball to talk and managed to beat the then best team in the world.

It saves me having to acknowledge England were good in that series, is what I'm saying .

 

[zaremba]

Dick move by whoever leaked it without his permission or without removing his name from it.

True; but a dick move also by JL for kidding himself that there was no risk of it being leaked. Eg by Shane Watson phoning a friend for an explanation of the word "feral".

Really sorry that this has happened, (a) because the contents of the memo make for uncomfortable reading for any England fan (even though what he said was overstated, it certainly has elements of hurtful truth), and (b) because JL has been undertaking a successful charm offensive in England in the last couple of years, which might now be regarded as a shade 2-faced. I suspect that in reality he was attempting to give the Aussie players a bit of a confidence boost more than anything else, but it reads awfully in the cold light of day.

I wonder whether he'll pick up the phone to Anderson to explain himself, and if so, what he'll say?

 

[howardj]

Always amuses me how JL portrays himself as the flint-hard, mentally tough pro. I remember reading how, on the 2001 Ashes tour, he was in the bar openly blubbering in front of his coach that his international career was over - and generally carrying on like a big boob.

 

[zaremba]

My Murray Mints fixation comes about because it's the only reason I can find (logical or otherwise) that a team which had been so bad for so long suddenly got the ball to talk and managed to beat the then best team in the world.

It saves me having to acknowledge England were good in that series, is what I'm saying .

The only reason I'm responding to this post is so that you can't edit it away, sunshine. It's called preserving the evidence.



Well played to your boys at Headingley. You pissed all over us.

 

[zaremba]

Always amuses me how JL portrays himself as the flint-hard, mentally tough pro. I remember reading how, on the 2001 Ashes tour, he was in the bar openly blubbering in front of his coach that his international career was over - and generally carrying on like a big boob.

Well that's partly how I feel about his reaction to the leak of his email. If he wants to say those things about the England players, fine. But don't engage in public snivelling when you get found out.

 

[sledger]

"Ravi Bopara is a good player"

I lol'd at this.

 

[Burgey]

The only reason I'm responding to this post is so that you can't edit it away, sunshine. It's called preserving the evidence.



Well played to your boys at Headingley. You pissed all over us.

Fair play

 

[pasag]

True; but a dick move also by JL for kidding himself that there was no risk of it being leaked. Eg by Shane Watson phoning a friend for an explanation of the word "feral".

Really sorry that this has happened, (a) because the contents of the memo make for uncomfortable reading for any England fan (even though what he said was overstated, it certainly has elements of hurtful truth), and (b) because JL has been undertaking a successful charm offensive in England in the last couple of years, which might now be regarded as a shade 2-faced. I suspect that in reality he was attempting to give the Aussie players a bit of a confidence boost more than anything else, but it reads awfully in the cold light of day.

I wonder whether he'll pick up the phone to Anderson to explain himself, and if so, what he'll say?

Yeah, was a bit naive, but it's just not something that would come to your head at the time of writing, you'd imagine. Especially with little precedence of it from this side. On the plus side, his stock as a cricket analyst couldn't be doing too badly at the moment.

 

[zaremba]

Well he was aware when he wrote it that it was likely to be circulated to the entire Australian squad and presumably some at least of the backroom staff. Therefore security couldn't be guaranteed. He ought to have realised that it was dangerous and he should have at least chosen his words (and indeed spelled them) a little more carefully in case it got a wider readership.

You're spot-on about his pundit career, it won't have hurt that. Nor will it hurt his reputation in the long run in any way. All that he's harmed, in the short term, is the stock of goodwill that he's built up in England in recent years by being quite a positive commentator on English cricket.

 

[sledger]

Yeah, was a bit naive, but it's just not something that would come to your head at the time of writing, you'd imagine. Especially with little precedence of it from this side. On the plus side, his stock as a cricket analyst couldn't be doing too badly at the moment.

Don't see why not, when you are doing anything in a high profile professional context, which this unquestionably was, you should do it professionally, even if you do believe it will only be seen by one person. This sort of thing would not be acceptable in a normal work place, so I don't see why it should be any moreso here. That said I do like the guy, and everyone makes mistakes, but this is a pretty poor one to make.

 

[pasag]

I think after so many years in the side he felt secure that what's said in the dressing room, stays in the dressing room and may not have realised that the Australian team may have changed quite a bit in the two years he's been out. As I said, naive, but understandable.

 

[Top_Cat]

I find this pretty tame, to be honest; Anderson is a bit of a ***** and Ravi/Prior have big egos which you can manipulate. Oooooo, burrrrrrrn.

 

[zaremba]

I find this pretty tame, to be honest; Anderson is a bit of a ***** and Ravi/Prior have big egos which you can manipulate. Oooooo, burrrrrrrn.

Yeah that's maybe the approach Langer should have taken. Instead he told cricinfo that he was "shattered and really upset" by the leak. *****.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah that's maybe the approach Langer should have taken. Instead he told cricinfo that he was "shattered and really upset" by the leak. *****.

Exactly what I'd be thinking if I was bowling to JL in his next match, especially if I was one of the blokes in the dossier. I doubt we'll see Jimmy huddled in the corner of his shower in tears screaming "I AM NOT A *****!" JL should have just said "Yeah, so what? Prove me wrong."

Let this be a lesson in netiquette for JL; never, ever say anything in an email you wouldn't be comfortable with sharing publicly.

The article above is hilarious; haven't seen that much arse-covering since Bill Clinton walked into a prom.

NAFTA.

 

[slippyslip]

Today I'm going to see if anywhere in Australia sells Murray Mints.

 

[andyc]

Well he was aware when he wrote it that it was likely to be circulated to the entire Australian squad and presumably some at least of the backroom staff. Therefore security couldn't be guaranteed. He ought to have realised that it was dangerous and he should have at least chosen his words (and indeed spelled them) a little more carefully in case it got a wider readership.

I don't think it was that silly for him to think it would remain secret. In the article linked to in the first post, Michael Vaughan said he had the same kind of thing from someone obviously close to the Australians, and that stayed a secret.

 

[sledger]

I don't think it was that silly for him to think it would remain secret. In the article linked to in the first post, Michael Vaughan said he had the same kind of thing from someone obviously close to the Australians, and that stayed a secret.

Yeah, i'm sure this kind of thing does go on a fair bit, but it's naive to think that just because you've gotten away with something for X amount of times you will not eventually get caught.