Andre Nel and sledging

[Son Of Coco]

Dude, microphones or not, the sledging out there is getting far more personal, abusive and plain ol uncouth.
If you cant see that, i suggest you go watch the standard-fare matches from the 80s, particularly involving the windies....several opposition players are on record saying that the WI went through their matches HARDLY uttering a word towards the opposition.
Thats a far more classy and respectabel stance than a buncha hooligans in the middle of the pitch.

That's not really something you can know if you weren't either on the pitch or have access to footage with sound.

Several players have said they barely said a word....several others have been extensively quoted as saying quite a few words (Richards, Haynes, et al). So it's all about the he says, she says I guess (that's a song isn't it?).

I think it's quite funny the direction this thread is taking...

 

[Smudge]

So it's all about the he says, she says I guess (that's a song isn't it?).

I think GoT_SpIn will be able to tell us the artist...

 

[Son Of Coco]

it is. You are confusing sledging with good humoured banter, which is always fine. But the line HAS to be drawn somewhere. The Aussies asking the stump mics to be turned off so that they can sledge as much as they want is ridiculous to say the least.

And you're defining things as you will. I think the biggest problem here is that sledging means different things to different people. People that are defending sledging on here aren't generally defending abuse. To you sledging means abuse so you think they are. Maybe a common definition should be arrived at first.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

May be because they dont have a very good reputation when it comes to sledging. You wont believe a notorious thief when he says that he didn't steal something, would you ?

What next, there is no sledging in cricket, Merv Hughes is a saint and that David Boon only drinks Apple Juice ?

Err. So because you know that Ian Chappell and Rod Marsh sledge, you assume it to be a fact that Rod Marsh made a joke about being the father of Ian Botham's children, even though Marsh denies it and nobody who was actually involved in the match says that he did say it?

If Botham for example claimed that Marsh said it, your skepticism towards Marsh might be perfectly valid. As it is, you're just blaming him for something you have no reason to believe ever even happened.

 

[archie mac]

So it's all about the he says, she says I guess (that's a song isn't it?).

Is that the one that goes 'he says, she says, your not listening'?

 

[Son Of Coco]

I can't find the post to quote, but posters talking about setting an example to kids...kids have parents. If they set a good enough example it won't matter what some bloke on a sports field says. The comment did set off the violins though...let's all band together and start 'Child Aid 2006' - we can raise money to send a set of earmuffs to every child in the world so they never hear a naughty word.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Is that the one that goes 'he says, she says, your not listening'?

The one I was thinking of went something like "It's all about the he says, she says (something or other).

We could turn this thread on its ear and convert it to the "Guess that song lyric" thread!

I have no idea what the song is called, so this could take some time.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

The one I was thinking of went something like "It's all about the he says, she says (something or other).

We could turn this thread on its ear and convert it to the "Guess that song lyric" thread!

I have no idea what the song is called, so this could take some time.

The song is Break Stuff, by Limp Bizkit.

I am ashamed that I know that.

 

[archie mac]

In fact most players who played with and against Ian Chappell say he rarely sledged opponents. Although Turner may remember things a little differently

 

[Son Of Coco]

Look, swearing at a guy personaly is not the same as swearing at him in some cricketing context. Richards calling McDermott a f*cking coward for the way he played bouncers is acceptable, but Richards calling McDermott a f*cker who can only f*ck (that is, nothing to do with cricket, just downright personal insults) SHOULD NOT be allowed.

I'm sorry, but that is fantastic!

 

[andyc]

I'm sorry, but that is fantastic!

It sounds like something an 11 year old would say, but it's gold

 

[Son Of Coco]

The song is Break Stuff, by Limp Bizkit.

I am ashamed that I know that.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!

It can't be, can I say I was thinking of another song. I don't even know a song called Break Stuff. I don't even like Limp Wristed. How can I possibly be quoting them? It's Barbra Streisand goddammit!

 

[C_C]

There is no logical continuity. Your example is absurd.

oh but there IS logical continuity.
The same logical continuity in threatening to harm a player by conking him in the head - the threat of physical injury if one keeps performing.

I am saying that there is some validity to the argument that mental strength is an important part of cricket.

Ofcourse, mental strength has a part in cricket. However, what means you choose to test such strength is very much a question of case by case analysis.
I can test your mental toughness threatening to slow roasting yer mom on a spitfire after the match. Or i can just shut up and come up with class deliveries and plan to throw you off yer game and if i fail, accept that you had the better of me and thats that. If opposition wants to test it verbally, there shouldnt be ANY crude language or uncouthness about it.
thats where i draw the line. You draw the line at threatening physical abuse with anything but the ball. But your definition is just as arbitary as mine. Only difference is, i want a lot less nastyness than you do.

Telling someone that if they did not get themselves out you would kill them is in fact already illegal both through criminal law and through the laws of the game, as it basically amounts to match fixing, as well as blackmail and a few other things.

It is utterly irrelevant what is illegal and what isnt. For one, threatening you with personal injury is NOT illegal in all nations and cricket isnt played in Austrlia only.
FYI, you can legally threaten a person in UAE and the nothing happens to you unless you carry out the threat.
You seem to assume that just because something is legal, its automatically right and just because its illegal, its automatically wrong.
You forget- there is no fundamental right or wrong. Your judicial legal rulebook is taken a lot more seriously and a lot of it makes sense, but a lot of it is simply just as arbitary as cricketing laws.
And as such, we are discussing cricketing laws here,which does not equate directly with national laws.

To suggest that allowing a few words to the batsman to try and break their concentration is equivalent to allowing the threat of murder if a batsman doesn't throw his wicket is completely stupid, and there is no logical continuity whatsoever.

False.
The logical continuity is the threat to do harm. Only the means changed. I am pretty sure i would take any threat to kill me seriously ( well..apart from a threat to kill me through too much ***...which i dont think is possible), be it with a ball, a bullet, a landmine or duct tape.
Your arbitary linedrawing at the ball means nothing. It is still a legitimate threat and highly uncouth at that, regardless of the means.

My central argument is, if you wanna test a batsman's mental strength, at best, shut up, go about yer job and if he still is there at the end of the day, be man enough to admit that he was too much for you today. And at worst, say a few chosen words like Dilley-Viv or Merv-Javed incident. Step beyond that and be ejected from cricket for half a year or so.
Its just that bloody simple.

 

[Ikki]

I know. Go back to my first comment and read through until you get it. Its in there and quite explicitly so. And others here have gotten it. I am not particularly fond of you, so i am not gonna bend over backwards trying to explain something pretty elementary to you. This will be my last attempt to make something very simple clear to you ( which i am sure it is, your deliberate attempt to fog up the fundamental chain of thought is rather amusing and reasonably passable, i must admit).

My fundamental chain is amusing and passable? Haha, this coming from you? Who took sledging to murder? Puh-leeze.

i've said before, i have no problem with sledging per se .
However the BULK of sledging today, unlike in the past, is abusive and its getting more and more so. This is a general progression in ALL sports, simply because of yer 'end justifies the means' type warped philosophy, bucketload of money and resources all fuelling such rather meaningless and piffle vocations such as whacking a ball in various different ways with various differet objects which tends to warp the mind and lose focus on the original objective- to friggin entertain people who are too lazy or too inept in getting laid.
But then again, i wouldnt expect you to see the larger picture and see how things were, how things are and logically, what things are progressing towards.
Just remember- each time you provide an excuse to be an utter moron douchebag on the field, you just made the current offense seem 'not so bad afterall' and the next offence is gonna be slightly worse.
Before it was one frustrated player talking about black labias and monkeys. Now its the crowd.
But like i said, given the sporting culture in OZ, i would be highly surprised if you saw it any other way.
You afterall, are following the engineer's prime directive towards obtaining your goal : If it aint broken, dont fix it.

I think you're high, mate. Either that or your eyes are crossed when you're reading my posts. Who sai anything about 'ends justifying means'? Who said anything about players getting paid ridiculous amounts to play cricket? Where did you get these arguments from my posts?

I don't know about you C_C. You're telling me what the Aussie culture is? I'm an immigrant to this country, and I can assure you it's fine. It can be a hard process to the top, but it's all fair and equitable. The way you paint everytime is so extreme. With no indication of it happening or being probable. This is where I have a hard time understanding you. Just because an outcome is possible doesn't mean it's probable. In any event, not just sport, a physical altercation can happen. Now, what I ask you is: What is making you think that from a word here and there (which you can't prove has been said in the first place) is going to end up in someone murdering someone else?

This is where you have no 'logical continuity' as Faaip has said. How do you go from "Cricket is just a game to entertain us" to - "If we don't stop sledging, our players could stab each other and want to kill each other". Maybe you have a point, but please give me examples of this degradation so I should be worried too.

To suggest that allowing a few words to the batsman to try and break their concentration is equivalent to allowing the threat of murder if a batsman doesn't throw his wicket is completely stupid, and there is no logical continuity whatsoever.

Yes, I'm lost on that one too, I must have missed a page.

 

[archie mac]

The song is Break Stuff, by Limp Bizkit.

I am ashamed that I know that.

Ahh yes I have that CD.

The song that I now have stuck in my brain was by a band called Pseudo Echo, I think

 

[C_C]

That's not really something you can know if you weren't either on the pitch or have access to footage with sound.

Several players have said they barely said a word....several others have been extensively quoted as saying quite a few words (Richards, Haynes, et al). So it's all about the he says, she says I guess (that's a song isn't it?).

I think it's quite funny the direction this thread is taking...

Several past players, like Sunil Gavaskar, Ravi Shastri, Michael Holding, etc. are on record stating that sledging is far more derogatory in recent times ( which for our short-memory people doesnt mean the last few weeks or months but rather the last half decade or more) than before.
I will take their word for it.

 

[Ikki]

And you're defining things as you will. I think the biggest problem here is that sledging means different things to different people. People that are defending sledging on here aren't generally defending abuse. To you sledging means abuse so you think they are. Maybe a common definition should be arrived at first.

I think you're on the money. We're all obviously varying in our definition of a sledge.

 

[Son Of Coco]

It sounds like something an 11 year old would say, but it's gold

I can just imagine Craig McDermott coming back into the dressing rooms and the other players go - "What was Viv saying to you out there"

And Craig goes - "He said that although he thinks I'm gutless when facing the short ball, he thinks I'd be a wonderful f*ck"

Note: Apologies to the children out there.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!

It can't be, can I say I was thinking of another song. I don't even know a song called Break Stuff. I don't even like Limp Wristed. How can I possibly be quoting them? It's Barbra Streisand goddammit!

Don't you know I pack a chainsaw...?

 

[Son Of Coco]

Several past players, like Sunil Gavaskar, Ravi Shastri, Michael Holding, etc. are on record stating that sledging is far more derogatory in recent times ( which for our short-memory people doesnt mean the last few weeks or months but rather the last half decade or more) than before.
I will take their word for it.

He is probably right, but see my post re: the varying definitions of what sledging is.