Cricket Web Content - Feedback

[Richard]

Ridiculous. Positively clutching for a bag of straws.

Look at his average for 2005 - he took wickets at just over 21 apiece. That's a wicket- taking bowler in my book, and in most others'. You're the only one bringing race into it, when it has absolutely nothing to do with it. The figures speak for themselves.

Why would I want to clutch at straws? That would require me to find that Panesar's selection was wrong. I don't, I think it was quite justifiable.
Most people, indeed, would prefer race not to have anything to do with it - it's very uncomfortable to think so. People don't like it being suggested, and rarely does anyone other than Jesse do so.
You clearly have absolutely no clue as to the particulars of English cricket, meanwhile, if you are willing to just look and say "he took wickets at just over 21 apeice". You would expect any Northants bowler worth his salt to do so, Wantage Road is a very spin-friendly ground. Most of the most effective spinners in England in the last 10 years or so have been Northants bowlers - Davies, Brown, Swann, Panesar.
Fact is, all bowlers have been advocated for selection for England at one time or another, yet I'd be very surprised if BR would refer to them in the way he referred to Panesar in the article.
All good spinners are wicket-takers. You aren't a good bowler in the First-Class game unless you're a wicket-taker. The supposition is that Panesar might be a wicket-taker whearas Giles (or Croft) are "defensive" bowlers because that's the thing they've been given the opportunity to be for most of their Test-matches. That supposition is wholly ridiculous, given that Giles and Croft have proven themselves to rarely fail to take plenty of wickets when conditions suit them.

 

[Jamee999]

Yes, that's a fair point, but it has nothing to do with race.

Which you randomly brought up earlier.

 

[Richard]

Richard, are you trying to be stupid?

Because, that's quite honestly what it looks like to me.

You're attacking a writer for CW, for a reason that you appear to have fabricated.

I'm not attacking BR at all, I find he has an excellent understanding of the game. In general. But I do feel he's utterly wrong to imply that most English spinners are "defensive" bowlers whereas Panesar might be a "wicket-taking" one.
Panesar is a fingerspinner, like most English spinners. Therefore he, and the other good bowlers (Giles, Croft, Udal) are wicket-takers only when the pitches allow. Panesar has hitherto played only domestic cricket, and his home ground is one which regularly produces spin-friendly pitches. Giles has played mostly international cricket, and is incorrectly referred to as a "defensive" bowler because he's rarely been given the chance to be anything other, playing mostly on pitches which don't suit him.

 

[steds]

The man has a point, but he pads it out with waffle.

 

[Richard]

Yes, that's a fair point, but it has nothing to do with race.

The point is, if a lad had had a career that mirrored Panesar's in every single thing and he was of Anglo-Saxon extraction, I very much doubt BR would've referred to him in the way he did.
People assume (and BR is certainly not the only one) that Panesar has some capability that Anglo-Saxons do not. And I find that wholly generalised. Fingerspinners are fingerspinners, whatever race they come from.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Basically you're making assumptions about everyone else without basis apart from what you think.

 

[Pratters]

Similarly I can make an asusmption that Richard has racist leanings because he thought up some thing even the writer didn't think of in his wildest dreams. Nor did any of the readers, even after re reading it after Richard pointing it out find it racially bending.

Maybe it was some thing to do in the sub conscious of Richard.

As you go into psychoanalysis Mr. Dickinson, so can some one else.

 

[Smudge]

Why would I want to clutch at straws? That would require me to find that Panesar's selection was wrong. I don't, I think it was quite justifiable.

Not it wouldn't. You're clutching at straws to find something to nitpick about. Nothing more. And it's tedious, to say the least.

 

[Barney Rubble]

I've not read this thread before. I now wish I hadn't. I had previously thought of Richard as a fairly respectable bloke who happened to have some rather odd opinions on cricket. I won't post what I think of him (/you) now.

I find the suggestion that there might have been any sort of racial implication to the phrase "wicket-taking" utterly, almost unbelievably ridiculous. This is the first time anything posted on CW or any other website - i.e. anything said by someone who's never so much as met me once - has genuinely offended me on such a personal level.

Thanks to every else for sticking up for me in my absence.

 

[PY]

Chin up mate, it's a disgrace he's even suggested it.

 

[Sanz]

Richards - Here is Monty's performance in England his performance on other grounds.
http://www.cricketarchive.com/Archive/Players/10/10641/First-Class_Matches.html

 

[James]

I've not read this thread before. I now wish I hadn't. I had previously thought of Richard as a fairly respectable bloke who happened to have some rather odd opinions on cricket. I won't post what I think of him (/you) now.

I find the suggestion that there might have been any sort of racial implication to the phrase "wicket-taking" utterly, almost unbelievably ridiculous. This is the first time anything posted on CW or any other website - i.e. anything said by someone who's never so much as met me once - has genuinely offended me on such a personal level.

Thanks to every else for sticking up for me in my absence.

As PY said, chin up mate.

As others have posted and I agree, there's nothing racial within your article at all! I know for a fact you're not that way at all

You have my total full backing, and Richard's post will be discussed by the moderator/administration team in the event of action being taken. The basis of attacking someone in that manner is completely un-called for and is just plain disgusting.

 

[luckyeddie]

Richards - Here is Monty's performance in England his performance on other grounds.
http://www.cricketarchive.com/Archive/Players/10/10641/First-Class_Matches.html

I wonder how much of Richard's anti-Panesar attitude is down to the fact that he took 10 wickets against Yorkshire?

By 'eck as like, 'appen I'm right, thee'll see.

 

[steds]

I wonder how much of Richard's anti-Panesar attitude is down to the fact that he took 10 wickets against Yorkshire?

By 'eck as like, 'appen I'm right, thee'll see.

I dunno, but it's the reason I love th'eld lad.

 

[Barney Rubble]

As PY said, chin up mate.

As others have posted and I agree, there's nothing racial within your article at all! I know for a fact you're not that way at all

You have my total full backing, and Richard's post will be discussed by the moderator/administration team in the event of action being taken. The basis of attacking someone in that manner is completely un-called for and is just plain disgusting.

Thanks James - if I'd given it ten minutes before replying, I'd not have been so bothered by it. Was just a shock, that's all.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I've not read this thread before. I now wish I hadn't. I had previously thought of Richard as a fairly respectable bloke who happened to have some rather odd opinions on cricket. I won't post what I think of him (/you) now.

I find the suggestion that there might have been any sort of racial implication to the phrase "wicket-taking" utterly, almost unbelievably ridiculous. This is the first time anything posted on CW or any other website - i.e. anything said by someone who's never so much as met me once - has genuinely offended me on such a personal level.

Thanks to every else for sticking up for me in my absence.

I think you'll find Richard was errant in his claims here my good chap! He thought 'wicket-taking' meant the stumps were stolen...the racist undertones were all of his own making.

 

[Barney Rubble]

I think you'll find Richard was errant in his claims here my good chap! He thought 'wicket-taking' meant the stumps were stolen...the racist undertones were all of his own making.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See that? ^^^

That's a line, drawn under this subject.

 

[Richard]

Maybe - but it still requires me to confirm the situation...
At no point ever was it my intention to accuse BR of racism. It was careless on my part to allow the slightest possibility of that being inferred, and I apologise unreservedly for leading him to believe, even if only fleetingly, that I had done so.
Now................
__________________________________________________________________________

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I'm not attacking BR at all, I find he has an excellent understanding of the game. In general. But I do feel he's utterly wrong to imply that most English spinners are "defensive" bowlers whereas Panesar might be a "wicket-taking" one.

I haven't seen Panesar bowl, but you'd have to be a complete fool to think that Giles (for example) is a particularly attacking bowler. The fact is, however much you might like to pretend that every fingerspinner is the same, there are different ways for them to bowl, and some are more aggressive than others. Just like Shaun Tait is a more attacking bowler than Stuart Clark, there are fingerspinners - like say Dan Cullen or Harbhajan Singh - who are much more aggressive and more focused on wicket taking than Giles is.

Giles usually bowls a negative line with a fairly defensive field. This is mostly because his role in the team is largely to contain and give the seamers a rest (unless the pitch is taking turn). Even when he is given more room to attack, he never goes around the wicket (generally considered one of the key attacking moves for a left-arm fingerspinner) like someone like Dan Vettori does. His trade is to pitch the ball outside the right-hander's leg stump and turn it across them, basically frustrating them and waiting for a mistake. This is not a particularly attacking mindset compared to that of other fingerspinners.

And in fact, to offer an Australian example to go along with Panesar, there is a reason that virtually every commentator who has discussed him so far in his domestic career has referred to Dan Cullen as an "aggressive" or "attacking" off-spinner. And I assure you that it's not because he's asian.


edit: having spotted the line, I will now shut up and wait for someone to make a thread on the subject.

 

[alternative]

I know i am giving a feedback pretty late on these articles, but it has been quite impressive.. very well done guyz..