Lloyd critical of 'rude' Vaughan

[Kirsty Harris]

The thing that is so bad about all this is the hypocrisy of it all - whatever the rights and wrongs of what Vaughan may have said at his hearing, it was confidential. Plus the comments that he made that landed him in hot water were pretty mild, but Lloyd seems to think he can make highly rude comments about Vaughan (about the outcome of a private hearing) publically with no come back to himself. If I did something like that in my line of work, I'd be in BIG trouble!!!


I too am rather puzzled at why he should make such a statement, as it does seem a little out of charactor for him..

[Alison]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

Clive Lloyd, owing to the curious arrangements of the ICC's disciplinary code, acted in Vaughan's case as counsel for the prosecution (in that it was Lloyd himself who hauled Vaughan into a hearing following Vaughan's remarks on umpiring consistency), jury (he found that Vaughan had committed an offence) and judge (he passed the sentence).

In my opinion that arrangement is very very dodgy, to have the same person acting as prosecutor, jury and judge surely is counterproductive to justice. If the prosecutor is judging your case what hope have you of being cleared even if you are completely innocent?

[Alison]

I've just been reading the various reports about this again, and, assuming his comments have been reported correctly, Clive Lloyd appears to be contradicting himself, and I think not telling the truth at one point.

I would have given him a lesser fine if it were not for that, but I stopped short of banning him for the last Test.

I took all that into consideration and gave him the least of three possible penalties

Now if he gave Vaughan a higher fine than he could have, how can he have given him the least of the possible penalties? Also, the smallest penalty for a Level 2 offence is a fine of 50% of the players match fee, to my mind this doesn't all add up.

Unless I've missed something here, I can see only two explanations for this, either he doesn't know the very rules he is supposed to be enforcing, in which case why is he a match referee? Or, he is deliberately lying, in which case how can we trust his word on anything else regarding this particular case?

[Occasional Fan]

A third possibility, Alison, is that he was making up his comments as he went along, realising that he had dug himself into a hole in the first place and trying (and failing) to dig himself out. I can think of occasions when I have started to say things, then realised I shouldn't have started. Sometimes it is very difficult to stop the conversation dead when you have that realisation - and I imagine that is particularly so if you are talking to journalists - and you start digging. It seldom works for me, and I don't think it has worked all that well for Clive Lloyd, but I don't think he is really a liar (quite a strong accusation to make, really). He certainly has contradicted himself though - well spotted! Are you planning to be a barrister, or will you take over Jeremy Paxman's job when he retires?

The ICC apparently will investigate Clive Lloyd's reported comments. This article from the Daily Telegraph doesn'd add much to our discussion other than confirming that, but I'll put a link here for anyone who is interested.

[Alison]

I guess that makes sense, but he really should have known better.

I learned to pick text apart in Theology actually, trying to work out what someone meant 2000+ years ago, when they wrote stuff in another language really trains you in noticing what texts say!

[Kirsty Harris]

On a slightly lighter note on this topic...I also note that the SA team feel that Vaughan is 'dramatically changed from the likeable charactor they emcountered on their last tour to England'.Has he been spending too much time around Graham Smith?

[Occasional Fan]

Maybe nice guys just don't win cricket series?

[Glamorgan Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Zainub Razvi

I'm sure he must have been a whole lot more civilised and well mannered then some of the present crop who tend to think swearing is just fine.

Don't you believe it ZR! Sledging (and swearing) has always been part of the game. It's not possible to hark back to halcyon days when such things did not go on because no such days existed. The difference today is that such issues are highlighted as a result of the increased coverage of the game.

[Pabs]

I've always been a huge fan of Big Clive, but to characterize him as some sort of effete Edwardian gentleman is wide of the mark. As a captain, his brutal use of intimidatory bowling and abuse of the over rate laws marked him out as a ruthless leader who would do whatever it took to win.

There's a good article about his playing career at http://www.gnubies.com/tributes/lloyd/lloyd.htm - from which the following extract is particularly telling:

Lloyd's tactic of unrelenting use of pace has also had its critics, with Gavaskar once accusing the West Indies captain of "barbarism." But to that, it must be said that any captain who had such bowlers at his command would use them; they did get carried away on occasion but Lloyd justified the use of the short-pitched delivery by pointing to the fact that there were laws against intimidation and the umpires were there to lay down the law. In short, if one does not want to feel the heat one should get out of the kitchen; cricket, at the highest level, is a tough game and those who cannot take the pace should not attempt to play. Lloyd was not prepared to be Mr Nice Guy and go home the loser; by his logic if one sent in a bowler at number three then that player should also be prepared to face bowling of the sort which a number three usually did.

As regards the current furore, it seems to me he has a bee in his bonnet about discipline and respect, two vital elements which he brought to Windies cricket and which have been sorely missed since his retirement.

[Ernest]

And don't forget GW, that there never used to be microphones hidden in the stumps, so sledging would hardly be audible, if at all.