• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

2017 Ashes

Stokes - personally, I don't care how good he is (and he is very good) he simply isn't fit to represent England. You're England vice captain presumably with a view to becoming England captain, for a young England cricketer surely a situation to be relished. Now I can excuse getting into a punch up outside a night club but can't excuse filming himself mocking a disabled child.
I would have left him at home after the night club episode and asked him to reflect on his future but after this, I don't see anyway back. The ECB should grow a back bone and announce that Ben Stokes will not be considered for England selection for the foreseeable. I wouldn't even bother informing him before hand - let him find out watching Sky Sports News.
You can not act like Stokes has and not suffer consequences.
 
Stokes - personally, I don't care how good he is (and he is very good) he simply isn't fit to represent England. You're England vice captain presumably with a view to becoming England captain, for a young England cricketer surely a situation to be relished. Now I can excuse getting into a punch up outside a night club but can't excuse filming himself mocking a disabled child.
I would have left him at home after the night club episode and asked him to reflect on his future but after this, I don't see anyway back. The ECB should grow a back bone and announce that Ben Stokes will not be considered for England selection for the foreseeable. I wouldn't even bother informing him before hand - let him find out watching Sky Sports News.
You can not act like Stokes has and not suffer consequences.

I presume you was there at the incident and understand why the fight occurred if so the police will look forward to your report.
The papers love to build up people and knock them down, so unless the full facts come out maybe just maybe he was bullying a bully who got his desserts.
If guilty then I agree but only when the full facts come out can one comment on his future

Presume you feel Ranger shouldn’t play football for Southend though sevedserved his time
 
This is a tough one.

He wouldn't be the first cricketer to be involved in an "incident".

A lot depends on the circumstances and whether the police want to proceed. I see they want to interview more witnesses, so that suggests there's a lot more to the build up of the incident.

One thing, I think the England Management have a lot to answer for. England players should not be allowed out that late during a series of International matches. They are under the control of the ECB and under contract. They were quick to "rest" him for the T20 match at Durham, much to the annoyance of many, as they wanted to protect his fitness levels, but then allow late nights out.
 
One thing, I think the England Management have a lot to answer for. England players should not be allowed out that late during a series of International matches. They are under the control of the ECB and under contract. They were quick to "rest" him for the T20 match at Durham, much to the annoyance of many, as they wanted to protect his fitness levels, but then allow late nights out.

I've not really heard enough of that argument and I agree completely. Never any danger of Alastair Cook getting embroiled in something like this, is there?
 
Absolutely not.

Surrey had a serious drink/drugs culture for a while and ended up coming down tough on certain individuals and either got rid of them or dealt with them internally.

We all know what happened to one of the players, sadly, before this happened.
 
This is a tough one.

He wouldn't be the first cricketer to be involved in an "incident".

A lot depends on the circumstances and whether the police want to proceed. I see they want to interview more witnesses, so that suggests there's a lot more to the build up of the incident.

One thing, I think the England Management have a lot to answer for. England players should not be allowed out that late during a series of International matches. They are under the control of the ECB and under contract. They were quick to "rest" him for the T20 match at Durham, much to the annoyance of many, as they wanted to protect his fitness levels, but then allow late nights out.

Slavery was supposed to have been abolished several centuries ago.

Now England management have a lot to answer for regarding the ridiculous schedule that means England players are in hotels something like 330 days out of 365 and England are to blame for mucking with their sleep patterns by changing their shifts, but if that wasn't what you were inferring it is outrageous to suggest that an adult shouldn't be allowed out by their employer for 11 months at a time.

If you want to make it a performance thing I get that drinking probably isn't conducive to performance but if you want to make it a performance thing you're going to have a hard time convincing me that drinking on a Sunday night would impair Stokes' performance on a Wednesday day-nighter (and note the change in body-clock required of the player by their employer) sufficiently for Stokes not to be worth a place in the team. Stokes may get paid a lot, but he gets paid to perform not to abstain. And he delivers.

Stokes was out celebrating an England victory. He wouldn't have had training the day after a match and England's next match wasn't for 3 days.

I'm always surprised by how quick people are to demand sacrifices from sports stars that they don't seem willing to make themselves. I know a few people aren't allowed by their employer to drink the night before duty, but how many would not drink Friday night or at all through the weekend if their employer told them they needed to be at their best Monday (and not even Monday morning but Monday afternoon)? I don't know who you are or what you do for a living. I think you play(ed) club cricket from your posts on here, but I will take my hat off to you in you made half the sacrifices, were half as dedicated in either your sport or employment as Ben Stokes is to his career. But if you didn't work as hard as you could at school, if you didn't abstain from alcohol from the start of the cricket season to the end, if you don't dedicate yourself entirely to your employer is it not a little hypocritical to expect that of Stokes? His wage doesn't mean ECB own him. If he doesn't live up to it on the field then the ECB can drop him.
 
Blimey, that took a while to read and to understand. You actually made some decent points, apart from the "slavery" bit.

I'll allow the inferences to pass me by. After all, as you say, you don't know anything about me.

What we both know is that Ben Stokes is a Professional sportsman and, as such, is part of a contracted set-up where diet, fitness, practice regimes are monitored and controlled to be at the peak of mental and physical fitness.

My post said that players shouldn't be out "that late" not "never". There's nothing wrong with celebrating at the right time and in the right place or on holiday or whenever there is unmonitored down-time.

My point is, the players are in a squad, working towards winning a one-day series. They are not on personal down-time.

There's a big difference, in my view.
 
Blimey, that took a while to read and to understand. You actually made some decent points, apart from the "slavery" bit.

I'll allow the inferences to pass me by. After all, as you say, you don't know anything about me.

What we both know is that Ben Stokes is a Professional sportsman and, as such, is part of a contracted set-up where diet, fitness, practice regimes are monitored and controlled to be at the peak of mental and physical fitness.

My post said that players shouldn't be out "that late" not "never". There's nothing wrong with celebrating at the right time and in the right place or on holiday or whenever there is unmonitored down-time.

My point is, the players are in a squad, working towards winning a one-day series. They are not on personal down-time.

There's a big difference, in my view.

When is the right time in the non-stop international schedule if he isn't allowed out three days before a game?

Because the West Indies one day series followed on from the West Indies test series which followed on from the South Africa test series which followed on from the South Africa T20I series which followed on from the Champions Trophy which followed on from the South Africa ODI series which followed on from the Ireland ODI series which Stokes missed as Strauss wanted him playing in the IPL, which followed the ODI series in West Indies which followed some warm-up games in the West Indies which takes you up to then end of February, when England returned from an ODI series in India which ended early February.

You can't just let players have two weeks off in October and two weeks off in February.

And he needed to be up late as he was attempting to switch from working day shifts to working night shifts.

The slavery comment is apt as the ECB don't own these players outside of their work.
 
When is the right time in the non-stop international schedule if he isn't allowed out three days before a game?

The slavery comment is apt as the ECB don't own these players outside of their work.

I'll say it again, I haven't got an issue with players being allowed out, but the ECB would be well within their rights, under contract, to ensure players who are part of a squad have curfew times whilst in the middle of a series of matches. Trevor Bayliss relaxed these rulings. Rightly or wrongly. However, since this incident Andrew Strauss and the management team have spoken with players regarding upcoming events and suggested they do not attend them. Jos Buttler's stag weekend being one of them.

The slavery comment still has no grounds on this discussion. It's not even in the ball-park.
 
I'll say it again, I haven't got an issue with players being allowed out, but the ECB would be well within their rights, under contract, to ensure players who are part of a squad have curfew times whilst in the middle of a series of matches. Trevor Bayliss relaxed these rulings. Rightly or wrongly. However, since this incident Andrew Strauss and the management team have spoken with players regarding upcoming events and suggested they do not attend them. Jos Buttler's stag weekend being one of them.

The slavery comment still has no grounds on this discussion. It's not even in the ball-park.

It completely is when you take away adults' rights for months on end.

Their lives don't belong to the ECB.
 
No it isn't.

Slavery is the procurement of people as property, forcing them, against their will, to work, often without remuneration. They have no rights or considerations.

Players under ECB contract have rights and privileges. Are remunerated handsomely and are treated with respect and a fair amount of freedom. However, within those contracts, they will/should have certain restrictions placed upon them. For example, Jonny Bairstow wanted to play for Yorkshire against Middlesex last season in the final county championship game. There was no major reason why he shouldn't. However, the ECB told him he couldn't. They have that right under contract. Likewise, if they wanted to impose a curfew during a tournament or series they can do this, as well.

Bottom line is, the player has a choice. They don't have to sign the contract and can walk away from it. Like Graeme Swann did in Australia in the middle of an Ashes series.

What slave could walk away from their contract?
 
No it isn't.

Slavery is the procurement of people as property, forcing them, against their will, to work, often without remuneration. They have no rights or considerations.

Players under ECB contract have rights and privileges. Are remunerated handsomely and are treated with respect and a fair amount of freedom. However, within those contracts, they will/should have certain restrictions placed upon them. For example, Jonny Bairstow wanted to play for Yorkshire against Middlesex last season in the final county championship game. There was no major reason why he shouldn't. However, the ECB told him he couldn't. They have that right under contract. Likewise, if they wanted to impose a curfew during a tournament or series they can do this, as well.

Bottom line is, the player has a choice. They don't have to sign the contract and can walk away from it. Like Graeme Swann did in Australia in the middle of an Ashes series.

What slave could walk away from their contract?

We can use the phrase servitude if you'd rather: "the state of being under the control of someone else and of having no freedom" (Cambridge Dictionary).

There are up to 48 hours a week an employee acts under their employer's instructions (which can include a direction not to play against Middlesex) and cannot use that time freely to pursue their own interest. The rest of the time belongs to the employee as they - and not their employer - see fit. When their employer transgresses into their down time outside of their employment this would hardly be treating them with respect and a fair amount of freedom.

It's one thing imposing a curfew for a short defined period e.g. during a test match (up to 5 days), maybe even a world cup but England play back-to-back-to-back-to-back-to-back series. It is not feasible nor humane to exercise such control over them for such extended periods. Signing a contract doesn't mean signing away their life (until they break and walk away).
 
Nope, not "servitude" either, as that suggests they have no freedom as indentured servants.

Ben Stokes, under a curfew ruling, could have had a restriction in place to be back at the hotel by midnight whilst the series is ongoing. Then, once the series is complete and they are not called to re-convene until a certain date ahead of the Ashes, like now for instance, he is free to do whatever he pleases.

England players have a duty of responsibility to the paying public. My point is that England management should be allowed to exercise some control over their social habits within a series of matches.

If people had a ticket for The Oval, expecting to see Alex Hales and Ben Stokes, they are being short-changed if neither are fit to play due to excesses on a night out a couple of days before. They would rightly ask why those players didn't have rules they should be abiding by.

The players do have freedoms within their contracts, anyway. Alex Hales chose not to tour Bangladesh. He still has a central contract to this day.

Bottom line is, it's not unreasonable to expect England cricketers to act sensibly and within certain rules and regulations and it's not an infringement of their human rights to expect them back at a hotel by a certain time, when they are representing their country in a tournament or series of matches.
 
LOL .. I wouldn't employ you.

You're too argumentative! :winking:
 
Back
Top