It could have been a wonderful test match, but the result was disappointing. New Zealand’s statement is a typical sport, while England has absolutely no interest in running and entertaining the public. This made David Lloyd lament “this is one of the worst test matches I have ever seen” while expanding the Centurion somewhat predictably. Therefore, it is a dark day for those who like to test cricket.
Why is England so negative? Part of the reason is that very few teams (no matter who they are) show a lot of adventurous spirit in this situation. Having said that, 60 of Dom Sibley’s 207 balls have maximized his passiveness. I don’t want to go to Sibley, because it’s great to have such a player around. However, once the game is actually safe, then he should raise one or two gears. The stadium is very good, and the opportunity is there.
In the end I turned to the English football friendly match. Jack Greerish brought me more joy in 45 minutes than the England batsman did in 70 minutes. When a meaningless football friendly match is more interesting than a live test match, you know what went wrong.
At this point, we should not forget that the European Central Bank is one of the advocates of the 4-day cricket test. I can never understand their arguments. Taking time out of the game will not encourage active play. This is likely to cause more snooze. If the weather does not spoil Friday’s game, this game may become a classic. On the contrary, the shortened time provides an easy way out for England’s negative hitters. The confidence level must indeed be very low.
So what is the positive meaning of this game? I will give you two. The first is Rory Burns (Rory Burns), he played the outstanding performance of this century in the first game. Some people began to question his position. I never buy it. Burns has proven that he is a brave opening remark in family conditions. He is a good test opener. Except for the subcontinent, where his weaknesses against rotation will be exposed, he should perform well in other places.
The other front is a certain Ollie Robinson. What a debut. Unlike Toby Roland Jones (Toby Roland Jones) and other pitchers who performed well in their debut, I actually think Robinson has a bright future. He is very accurate and also shows a lot of aggressiveness. I think he seems to be more than just a stopgap for “family conditions”. In my humble opinion, he looks like a natural substitute for Stewart Broad.
Of course, the only problem is that his short-term future has now been destroyed by something that happened in the past. Just after stumps was called, the European Central Bank suspended him from all international cricket matches for his racist and misogynistic tweets in 2012. Well, you think the European Central Bank will not miss the golden opportunity to show its inherent virtues to the world, do you? ?
Don’t get me wrong now. I can understand the plight of the European Central Bank. There is obviously a problem with the game in cricket. This is a serious problem. It needs to be resolved. For example, black cricket players are clearly under-represented in county-level teams.Referees John Holder and Ismail Dawood are currently involved in a game Dispute with the European Central Bank And firmly believe that the organization is “systematic racist.” I strongly recommend that you look into this. At the same time, we all know about Azeem Rafiq’s experience in Yorkshire.
Given the current climate and the existing allegations against them, I expect the European Central Bank to hit Robinson like a ton of bricks. If they brush this under the carpet, it will indeed make their anti-discrimination campaign look very hollow. However, all this is a prank to me. How about acknowledging your role in this incident that damaged the reputation of cricket?
When racist and misogynistic tweets related to him (no matter how long ago they were written) appeared in Ethereum, I still doubted that the cricket player would make his debut in the test. Why are they not fulfilling their duties? Companies everywhere make sure that their new employees are not controversial, especially when they assume a role or assume responsibility in the eyes of the public. I found that the European Central Bank did not take the same steps, which is absolutely extraordinary. Social media is a fact in life. It has been with us for ten years. But the European Central Bank still hasn’t seen such a thing happen? !
My interpretation of this situation is: the European Central Bank has lost the ball again, and now they are following Robinson as an example, desperately trying to (a) make them look tough on racism, (b) turn their attention away from the facts , When such tweets first appeared, they let Robinson play for the England team, which surprised them.Too reactionary
Given the European Central Bank’s reputation for inertia and the current racist problems in British cricket, one might argue that the European Central Bank has no choice but to suspend Robinson’s position. However, this has not changed all these facts that should have been dealt with long ago. This player has been in the eyes of England for a long time. It is no secret that he worked hard to keep his nose clean early in his career. The warning sign is there.
I would prefer the board to conduct due diligence to find potential problems and delete tweets-because in any case, all offensive material should be regularly deleted from Twitter (it makes no sense to leave them there permanently)-then Perform any disciplinary action against players publicly or privately. In other words, the European Central Bank should be proactive, avoid the media storm, and educate participants a long time ago, so that things will be very different.
More importantly, banning Robinson now almost ten years after the incident seems harsh to me. Is it really fair to give someone an example in these specific situations? He is obviously an extremely ignorant teenager-those tweets are terrible-but is he the same person now? People hope not.
My concern is that Robinson may eventually pay an exorbitant fine because of the board’s own mistakes. This would be unfair. This will not be justice. Why would a person be punished higher than he would have been, because the wider background was not caused by him-especially when the background was mainly created by the person who punishes him now?
We will have to wait and see what the final sanctions are. However, as I said above, if the European Central Bank overreacted by issuing penalties to explain more of the chaos they are in as an organization, I would not be surprised: racism rather than Robison as an individual.