Bill Walker
Well-Known Member
does this thread last 5 days and break for tea ?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
******Cricket Thread******
- Thread starter bernabias home shirt
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Paul Lake's Left Knee
Well-Known Member
nimrod said:does this thread last 5 days and break for tea ?
No but if the light gets bad we all fuck off for the day.
without a dream
Well-Known Member
JoeMercer'sWay said:without a dream said:The cookie monster said:Tbh i will be buying it and it will be a good read i reckon......
Only if he has a good ghost writer and editor, the man's a moron. It will be interesting to see his side, I hope he's open and frank rather than sticking to the snide hints he's gone for. If he is we might actually get some closure.
see, I just don't understand this point of view. Arrogant, yes, twattish, sometimes (well he hangs around with Piers Morgan so that's enough in anyone's book), but a moron? well we'll have to read his book, but up to now I don't see where's he been a moron. As for snide hints, well the ECB tried a hatchet job earlier in the year, and to be honest I don't think KP has said much untoward, in fact he's received credit from a fair amount of people, including journalists and the likes of Michael Vaughan (who has sense), for some of his articles and opinions on the England side since, so moron I don't get.
It's more of a general sportsman thing than a KP thing. I very rarely read autobiographies, they tend to be horribly written unless they aren't actually written by the 'author'. He's quite good on commentary or analysis, moron was a bit harsh, but I don't think he writes very well.
I'd like the ECB to be open as well, it's become obvious they aren't going to be through choice. If KP gives an honest account of what happened they'll be forced to respond.
Bill Walker
Well-Known Member
Paul Lake's Left Knee said:nimrod said:does this thread last 5 days and break for tea ?
No but if the light gets bad we all fuck off for the day.
is there some creepy fucker called a night watchman ?
without a dream said:JoeMercer'sWay said:without a dream said:Only if he has a good ghost writer and editor, the man's a moron. It will be interesting to see his side, I hope he's open and frank rather than sticking to the snide hints he's gone for. If he is we might actually get some closure.
see, I just don't understand this point of view. Arrogant, yes, twattish, sometimes (well he hangs around with Piers Morgan so that's enough in anyone's book), but a moron? well we'll have to read his book, but up to now I don't see where's he been a moron. As for snide hints, well the ECB tried a hatchet job earlier in the year, and to be honest I don't think KP has said much untoward, in fact he's received credit from a fair amount of people, including journalists and the likes of Michael Vaughan (who has sense), for some of his articles and opinions on the England side since, so moron I don't get.
It's more of a general sportsman thing than a KP thing. I very rarely read autobiographies, they tend to be horribly written unless they aren't actually written by the 'author'. He's quite good on commentary or analysis, moron was a bit harsh, but I don't think he writes very well.
I'd like the ECB to be open as well, it's become obvious they aren't going to be through choice. If KP gives an honest account of what happened they'll be forced to respond.
I would think given their conduct so far they'll have plenty of compliant journalists to airbrush everything away.
Paul Lake's Left Knee
Well-Known Member
nimrod said:Paul Lake's Left Knee said:nimrod said:does this thread last 5 days and break for tea ?
No but if the light gets bad we all fuck off for the day.
is there some creepy fucker called a night watchman ?
Erm, yes, you.
JoeMercer'sWay
Well-Known Member
It's Agnew v Morgan on twitter, couldn't care less about their squabbling 2bh, but this piece by the author I quoted in the original KP piece is interesting:
As we discussed earlier today, Jonathan Agnew is an angry man. It is an emotion that does not suit him. He is angry with me and he is angry with Piers Morgan. But most of all he is angry at a perceived injustice he feels has been dealt to Andy Flower.
Regular The Full Toss readers may recall an article I posted here at the beginning of May. No? Well, that would not surprise me since, by all accounts, it was read by the proverbial one man and his dog.
In round terms ‘Inside The Turtle Tank’ looked at how the ECB measured up as it went about fulfilling its duty of care to its employees, and Kevin Pietersen’s relationship with the ECB was offered up as a case study.
The strand that has most offended Jonathan Agnew is a paragraph which suggested that Flower, as architect of Pietersen’s humiliating “re-integration” after text-gate, had exacted a form of revenge for events going back to 2009. To remind you, as Maxie mentioned earlier, the phrase which particularly irked Agnew came a little earlier in the piece when I suggested, “Flower comes across as a manager long on memory and short on forgiveness…”
So why does any of this matter? It is an old article by a blogger known to no one; an opinion piece based on information in the public domain at that time. It attempts to draw together nuggets of information through educated assumptions in an effort to establish a narrative that halfway made sense.
There are two main reasons why it matters to Jonathan Agnew.
First, Piers Morgan somehow picked up on the article on Sunday morning and Tweeted this:
The Tweet gave my article an audience it never enjoyed when first published.
Secondly, Pietersen’s autobiography is being published on 9 October, and I have read recently that Flower’s role will be very much in the cross hairs. If this is true, then I imagine that the ECB will be in full rebuttal mode, and this virtual storm may be an early skirmish in that battle.
I do not know Piers Morgan and I have not read Pietersen’s book, but I would be fairly sure that Morgan has had the full benefit of Pietersen’s interpretation of events, and I am equally certain that Little Brown’s lawyers will have cleared the book for publication.
During a TMS conversation on Friday, Jonathan Agnew slipped in a titbit of new information about Andy Flower that was largely missed. On Saturday, he gave the blogger Dmitri Old a Twitter nudge pointing him in the direction of the revelation, which was – as you have probably now read – that it was Flower, not Cook, who was largely responsible for reintegrating Pietersen back into the team after text-gate.
I joined the conversation and asked Agnew for his source. He wouldn’t tell me, which is fair enough, but when asked why he and others in the press originally credited Alastair Cook for bringing Pietersen back into the fold, he replied that the early view was a best guess, quickly revised to reasonable assumption, based on information available at the time.
In many ways, this opens up a can of worms. Why did the press not check the facts before bigging up Cook? Why has it taken to the eve of Pietersen’s book coming out before this new information is released? Why is it OK for the press to make best guesses or reasonable assumptions, an approach that Agnew has now chosen to use as a stick with which to beat me and the Turtle Tank piece? The press, after all, has a direct route to all the key protagonists, which is something bloggers like me do not have in their armoury.
Did Jonathan Agnew and other journalists ever check the anti-Pietersen briefings coming out of Lord’s with Pietersen? If Agnew’s informant was the ECB or an employee of the ECB, then surely it also represents a further breach of the confidentiality agreement?
I have no reason to disbelieve Agnew’s information, and none of this would have mattered but for the coincidence of Piers Morgan discovering the Turtle Tank piece. Agnew’s central charge is that based on the information he had released, I should have told Morgan that nothing I wrote was true, which is a bit of a sweeping indictment. He then issued this order:
We then exchanged these Tweets:
As you can see above, I also suggested he might consider writing a Flower piece here on The Full Toss in order to redress the balance as he saw it. After all, this blog encourages a wide spectrum of views. Agnew declined.
His point is that, far from being an unforgiving character, Flower was very forgiving of Pietersen and responsible for giving him another chance. This, of course, attempts to oversimplify an extremely complex narrative that was playing out at the time.
From my point of view, the humiliating terms of reintegration were far from forgiving and there were also compelling cricketing reasons for keeping Pietersen in the team. After the Ashes whitewash, those reasons were probably less compelling, which partly explains his sacking. But I will let others make up their own minds whether or not Agnew’s point fundamentally undermines the central themes of the piece.
What shocks me a little is not just that Jonathan Agnew has chosen to get involved in a trifle, but that he has done so with such aggression. He has been abusive to me in a way that he would never countenance if something similar had been directed at him.
Furthermore, his slightly hysterical defence of Flower hardly reinforces his position as an impartial journalist and broadcaster. In many ways, his response more strongly supports the view that the press are too close to the ECB, the players and coaches.
I do not always agree with Jonathan Agnew’s opinion on things, but I am happy to defend his right to express it and to disagree with mine. I guess I am just a little surprised and disappointed that he did not go about it a little more calmly and with a little more civility.
The tweets don't show up but they're easily accessible on Twitter. In reality we all know that whatever KP writes, the ECB will be straight out in full rebuttal with their usual media backing. For me the telling responses will be later down the line, when the pro's, like Bairstow etc. have their say, and if their experiences can tally with what KP says then there will be some validity. We know that Cook and Strauss are ECB men so will defend them to the hilt, and on the flip side people outside like Vaughan aren't in the best place to judge the facts. For me the most interesting part is the culture of the ECB, and I think we're getting a very clear picture of how they run their ship, and I think KP will only expand on that with his experiences.
As we discussed earlier today, Jonathan Agnew is an angry man. It is an emotion that does not suit him. He is angry with me and he is angry with Piers Morgan. But most of all he is angry at a perceived injustice he feels has been dealt to Andy Flower.
Regular The Full Toss readers may recall an article I posted here at the beginning of May. No? Well, that would not surprise me since, by all accounts, it was read by the proverbial one man and his dog.
In round terms ‘Inside The Turtle Tank’ looked at how the ECB measured up as it went about fulfilling its duty of care to its employees, and Kevin Pietersen’s relationship with the ECB was offered up as a case study.
The strand that has most offended Jonathan Agnew is a paragraph which suggested that Flower, as architect of Pietersen’s humiliating “re-integration” after text-gate, had exacted a form of revenge for events going back to 2009. To remind you, as Maxie mentioned earlier, the phrase which particularly irked Agnew came a little earlier in the piece when I suggested, “Flower comes across as a manager long on memory and short on forgiveness…”
So why does any of this matter? It is an old article by a blogger known to no one; an opinion piece based on information in the public domain at that time. It attempts to draw together nuggets of information through educated assumptions in an effort to establish a narrative that halfway made sense.
There are two main reasons why it matters to Jonathan Agnew.
First, Piers Morgan somehow picked up on the article on Sunday morning and Tweeted this:
The Tweet gave my article an audience it never enjoyed when first published.
Secondly, Pietersen’s autobiography is being published on 9 October, and I have read recently that Flower’s role will be very much in the cross hairs. If this is true, then I imagine that the ECB will be in full rebuttal mode, and this virtual storm may be an early skirmish in that battle.
I do not know Piers Morgan and I have not read Pietersen’s book, but I would be fairly sure that Morgan has had the full benefit of Pietersen’s interpretation of events, and I am equally certain that Little Brown’s lawyers will have cleared the book for publication.
During a TMS conversation on Friday, Jonathan Agnew slipped in a titbit of new information about Andy Flower that was largely missed. On Saturday, he gave the blogger Dmitri Old a Twitter nudge pointing him in the direction of the revelation, which was – as you have probably now read – that it was Flower, not Cook, who was largely responsible for reintegrating Pietersen back into the team after text-gate.
I joined the conversation and asked Agnew for his source. He wouldn’t tell me, which is fair enough, but when asked why he and others in the press originally credited Alastair Cook for bringing Pietersen back into the fold, he replied that the early view was a best guess, quickly revised to reasonable assumption, based on information available at the time.
In many ways, this opens up a can of worms. Why did the press not check the facts before bigging up Cook? Why has it taken to the eve of Pietersen’s book coming out before this new information is released? Why is it OK for the press to make best guesses or reasonable assumptions, an approach that Agnew has now chosen to use as a stick with which to beat me and the Turtle Tank piece? The press, after all, has a direct route to all the key protagonists, which is something bloggers like me do not have in their armoury.
Did Jonathan Agnew and other journalists ever check the anti-Pietersen briefings coming out of Lord’s with Pietersen? If Agnew’s informant was the ECB or an employee of the ECB, then surely it also represents a further breach of the confidentiality agreement?
I have no reason to disbelieve Agnew’s information, and none of this would have mattered but for the coincidence of Piers Morgan discovering the Turtle Tank piece. Agnew’s central charge is that based on the information he had released, I should have told Morgan that nothing I wrote was true, which is a bit of a sweeping indictment. He then issued this order:
We then exchanged these Tweets:
As you can see above, I also suggested he might consider writing a Flower piece here on The Full Toss in order to redress the balance as he saw it. After all, this blog encourages a wide spectrum of views. Agnew declined.
His point is that, far from being an unforgiving character, Flower was very forgiving of Pietersen and responsible for giving him another chance. This, of course, attempts to oversimplify an extremely complex narrative that was playing out at the time.
From my point of view, the humiliating terms of reintegration were far from forgiving and there were also compelling cricketing reasons for keeping Pietersen in the team. After the Ashes whitewash, those reasons were probably less compelling, which partly explains his sacking. But I will let others make up their own minds whether or not Agnew’s point fundamentally undermines the central themes of the piece.
What shocks me a little is not just that Jonathan Agnew has chosen to get involved in a trifle, but that he has done so with such aggression. He has been abusive to me in a way that he would never countenance if something similar had been directed at him.
Furthermore, his slightly hysterical defence of Flower hardly reinforces his position as an impartial journalist and broadcaster. In many ways, his response more strongly supports the view that the press are too close to the ECB, the players and coaches.
I do not always agree with Jonathan Agnew’s opinion on things, but I am happy to defend his right to express it and to disagree with mine. I guess I am just a little surprised and disappointed that he did not go about it a little more calmly and with a little more civility.
The tweets don't show up but they're easily accessible on Twitter. In reality we all know that whatever KP writes, the ECB will be straight out in full rebuttal with their usual media backing. For me the telling responses will be later down the line, when the pro's, like Bairstow etc. have their say, and if their experiences can tally with what KP says then there will be some validity. We know that Cook and Strauss are ECB men so will defend them to the hilt, and on the flip side people outside like Vaughan aren't in the best place to judge the facts. For me the most interesting part is the culture of the ECB, and I think we're getting a very clear picture of how they run their ship, and I think KP will only expand on that with his experiences.
jay_mcfc
Well-Known Member
Just read that. It is interesting. Agnew is a right pompous twat that absolutely is part of the establishment. And he's a massive hypocrite.
nijinsky's fetlocks
Well-Known Member
It's all gone way beyond boring now - there were faults on both sides - KP acted like a dick, but the cricketing hierarchy handled the whole thing incredibly badly.
It's time to move on, not reopen old wounds to score brownie points, and to be perfectly honest I'm sick of hearing what is becoming increasingly reminiscent of a playground spat.
It's time to move on, not reopen old wounds to score brownie points, and to be perfectly honest I'm sick of hearing what is becoming increasingly reminiscent of a playground spat.
bernabias home shirt
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 Nov 2010
- Messages
- 14,916
Exactlynijinsky's fetlocks said:It's all gone way beyond boring now - there were faults on both sides - KP acted like a dick, but the cricketing hierarchy handled the whole thing incredibly badly.
It's time to move on, not reopen old wounds to score brownie points, and to be perfectly honest I'm sick of hearing what is becoming increasingly reminiscent of a playground spat.
They are all as bad as each other..
- Status
- Not open for further replies.