This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2014/aug/19/england-benefit-jimmy-anderson-confrontation-india
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| England benefited when Jimmy Anderson showed his malevolent side | England benefited when Jimmy Anderson showed his malevolent side |
| (about 2 hours later) | |
| Personally I had no time for sledging. Get hit for four or six and the riposte was to try to do better with the next delivery. Beat the bat or find the edge and that was sufficiently eloquent. There just seemed no point in mouthing off for the sake of it, beyond self-berating, which, contrary to general perception, is what Jeff Thomson, to use an extreme example, actually did for the most part. | |
| But all cricketers are different. Some require calming down, others revving up, and how they achieve this is very personal. Mike Atherton felt he needed to be on edge so that once, he told me, against Pakistan at Lord’s, when he walked out to bat feeling quite chipper, it felt wrong. | But all cricketers are different. Some require calming down, others revving up, and how they achieve this is very personal. Mike Atherton felt he needed to be on edge so that once, he told me, against Pakistan at Lord’s, when he walked out to bat feeling quite chipper, it felt wrong. |
| For no apparent reason he picked a fight with a bemused short-leg fielder, the adrenaline flowed and he got runs. Sometimes Robin Smith was so sleepy that he allowed the ball to hit him just to wake him up. And anyone who has read Christian Ryan’s wonderful piece on Thommo in the 2013 Wisden will understand that you really didn’t want to face him when he had a whisky hangover. | For no apparent reason he picked a fight with a bemused short-leg fielder, the adrenaline flowed and he got runs. Sometimes Robin Smith was so sleepy that he allowed the ball to hit him just to wake him up. And anyone who has read Christian Ryan’s wonderful piece on Thommo in the 2013 Wisden will understand that you really didn’t want to face him when he had a whisky hangover. |
| In the case of Jimmy Anderson, it would appear that hitherto, in order to crank himself up to what he felt was fighting pitch, he needed confrontation. He is old school when it comes to bowling, grumpy in the great tradition, hates batsmen, even his own unless they do their job properly and give him time to put his feet up. Off duty, though, he is quiet and thoughtful and humorous. Only when he crosses the boundary rope does his character change and it is this that helped create the biggest sideshow of the past month or so. | In the case of Jimmy Anderson, it would appear that hitherto, in order to crank himself up to what he felt was fighting pitch, he needed confrontation. He is old school when it comes to bowling, grumpy in the great tradition, hates batsmen, even his own unless they do their job properly and give him time to put his feet up. Off duty, though, he is quiet and thoughtful and humorous. Only when he crosses the boundary rope does his character change and it is this that helped create the biggest sideshow of the past month or so. |
| For some years now, Jimmy’s backchat to batsmen has been relentless, and not very edifying. Neither Oscar Wilde nor Dorothy Parker would have needed to worry about being challenged when it came to the bon mot. If a batsman was treated to death by a thousand cuts, as he sliced and diced them with inswing, outswing, orthodox, reverse and anything in between, then verbally it was the equivalent of being repeatedly beaten over the head with a large mallet. And probably to the extent that in the end, the words themselves become devalued. Maybe it is time someone invented a new totally filthy word. | For some years now, Jimmy’s backchat to batsmen has been relentless, and not very edifying. Neither Oscar Wilde nor Dorothy Parker would have needed to worry about being challenged when it came to the bon mot. If a batsman was treated to death by a thousand cuts, as he sliced and diced them with inswing, outswing, orthodox, reverse and anything in between, then verbally it was the equivalent of being repeatedly beaten over the head with a large mallet. And probably to the extent that in the end, the words themselves become devalued. Maybe it is time someone invented a new totally filthy word. |
| Until the first Test against India at Trent Bridge, this is what Jimmy felt he needed in order to raise his game to another level. We all know what happened thereafter. Or rather, we know the two versions of events that took place in the corridor outside the visitors’ dressing room after the England team and two India batsmen, MS Dhoni and Ravindra Jadeja, left the field for the lunch interval. India said they were affronted by Anderson shoving Jadeja following an altercation that began as they left the field. | |
| England believed India’s was a massive overreaction to a very minor incident. What was it about? Well the conspiracy theory that Dhoni was attempting to get Anderson banned is, I believe, preposterous. But so too was the level-three charge India instigated, which meant that it could not be dealt with in-house. Instead, this was a clumsy device to highlight Anderson’s behaviour on the field, something they could have done through more straightforward means but chose not to. | |
| There is no question it rebounded on India, for England will tell of Dhoni’s distraction at Southampton after their win at Lord’s, his mind on the forthcoming judicial hearing. The outcome of this, besides Gordon Lewis, the Australian who conducted the hearing, exonerating both Anderson and Jadeja, and pretty much telling both sides to grow up and stop wasting time and money, was considerable when it came to Anderson. First, he stopped the verbal hammering (or at least appeared to do so, for which Dhoni subsequently vouched) and simply looked malevolent. Second, affronted by the nature of the accusations, he began to bowl as well as he has done in his life. The two things may not be unconnected. | |
| But there is another side to this which revolves around the notion that abuse and bad language on the field, verbal bullying in other words, is the exclusive domain of Anderson. It is a ridiculous idea, and one that will be challenged to the full over the course of the 17 Tests England play next year. | But there is another side to this which revolves around the notion that abuse and bad language on the field, verbal bullying in other words, is the exclusive domain of Anderson. It is a ridiculous idea, and one that will be challenged to the full over the course of the 17 Tests England play next year. |
| So, in his own way, Anderson, whether or not one finds it edifying, is offering a response against the barrage of invective that inevitably will come England’s way. | So, in his own way, Anderson, whether or not one finds it edifying, is offering a response against the barrage of invective that inevitably will come England’s way. |
| We have probably all used the cliche about letting the ball do the talking but that is simplistic, for there comes a time when you have to stand up and be counted. If Anderson does not take the lead in that then the chances are that no one will. They should make Tom Petty’s I Won’t Back Down the team song. |