Spirit of Cricket

[Matt79]

Players not turning around to appeal when they think a batsman is out (unless it was blatanly obvious he/she was out).

Yeah that ****es me off too.

 

[Dasa]

I can see the argument people make with cricket being a professional sport and all, but I just despise sledging of any sort....I'm with Archie and Matt79 in a way, I suppose. It's never going to happen, but I'd much rather that the game is played to show players' skills in the game of cricket, not their skill in coming up with some insult...
I don't have a problem with preparing wickets to suit the home bowlers (or to nullify the opposition bowlers) though.

 

[cameeel]

(they seem to annoy the opposition) but I never had a problem of shaking the 'enemies' hand at the end of a game or having a beer with the foe.

Same with footy. They can be dirty *******s during the game, but as soon as the siren goes you forget about and shake their hand

 

[silentstriker]

People are talking about tradition, but fail to realize that those traditions died a long time ago. These days, they exist in name only, if that. When a ball hits within 15 yards of the stumps, warne/murali appeal like their life depends on it, knowing the batsman isn't out. Where's the 'spirit' in that?

Steve Waugh really advanced the art of sledging. He got under people's skin so they would make a mistake. If it was 'all in good fun', then it wouldn't have worked, as the batsman wouldn't be as affected by it. Where's the 'spirit' in that?

There are hundreds of other examples in the modern game, where teams do anything to win (as they should). The traditions might have worked fifty years ago, before professional cricketers came about, but they are not relevent today. Anything that does exist, exists mainly in name, and is nothing but a farce. People need to wake up and come into the 21st century. Traditions are dead.

 

[Matt79]

People are talking about tradition, but fail to realize that those traditions died a long time ago. These days, they exist in name only, if that. When a ball hits within 15 yards of the stumps, warne/murali appeal like their life depends on it, knowing the batsman isn't out. Where's the 'spirit' in that?

Steve Waugh really advanced the art of sledging. He got under people's skin so they would make a mistake. If it was 'all in good fun', then it wouldn't have worked, as the batsman wouldn't be as affected by it. Where's the 'spirit' in that?

There are hundreds of other examples in the modern game, where teams do anything to win (as they should). The traditions might have worked fifty years ago, before professional cricketers came about, but they are not relevent today. Anything that does exist, exists mainly in name, and is nothing but a farce. People need to wake up and come into the 21st century. Traditions are dead.

I think there are examples that show that the traditions of cricket aren't dead, but I guess this whole thread is how they're taking a beating. This sort of trend has happened before, people though Bodyline was the end of cricket. I hope this longer slower trend also reverses, because if the traditions go, cricket is in dire trouble as a sport. I don't think people will want to watch a bunch of *******s trying to win at all costs, not for their country but for their bank balance - when that happens the audience will leave and so will the money. It's the same reason lots of people like college basketball or football more than the pros.

 

[GIMH]

silentstriker - so you would rather Freddie have not consoled Brett Lee after Edgbaston 05? That's what you seem to imply.

 

[silentstriker]

silentstriker - so you would rather Freddie have not consoled Brett Lee after Edgbaston 05? That's what you seem to imply.

I don't really care what happens there...I just don't think we should pretend that it matters. I wouldn't care if Freddie was gloating in his face after they won.

 

[silentstriker]

I think there are examples that show that the traditions of cricket aren't dead, but I guess this whole thread is how they're taking a beating. This sort of trend has happened before, people though Bodyline was the end of cricket. I hope this longer slower trend also reverses, because if the traditions go, cricket is in dire trouble as a sport. I don't think people will want to watch a bunch of *******s trying to win at all costs, not for their country but for their bank balance - when that happens the audience will leave and so will the money. It's the same reason lots of people like college basketball or football more than the pros.

People don't like college basketball and football because of the sportsmanship. If you look at some of the football factory schools, you'll know that the desire to win there is the SAME as the desire to win in the pro's. More money into the school, higher draft selection for the players.

Why do you think players are enticed by promises of favors, money, women? Just a couple months a go, a story came out that a college was recruiting potential football players by inviting them from their high school, and getting college girls to sleep with them, and promising many more if they came. (BTW, I think thats awesome, I wish they recruited me like that).

But in any case, American pro sports are ridiculously popular, so I don't think following the model of the NFL for example is a bad thing.

 

[silentstriker]

Same with footy. They can be dirty *******s during the game, but as soon as the siren goes you forget about and shake their hand

Yea but thats just a farce then. If you don't respect the opponent or the game enough not to be a dirty ******* during the game, what's the point in shaking the hand after? It's all for TV, and thats what I mean by it being a load of BS.

 

[C_C]

But in any case, American pro sports are ridiculously popular, so I don't think following the model of the NFL for example is a bad thing.

American sporting public are ridiculously uncouth too ( makes all but the soccer hooligans look like tree-hugging hippies). Dont think i'd want to gear a sport to foister such an antagonistic fanbase.
Simply because you are competing, doesnt equate to uncouth and antagonistic behaviour.
Which is why i liked the WI team of the 70s and 80s - they rarely sledged- and when they did, it was mostly witty stuff rather than simply hurling abuse.
Any venture that encourages antagonistic behaviour should be thoroughly discouraged.
Even if it means reducing sports to amatuer status - thats a very very small price to pay for not encouraging totalitarian or fanatic perspectives in the society ( and yes, sporting rivalries spill out in real life cultural realms all the time).
The quality of sports is insignificant compared to the quality of human behaviour.
Sport splayers should remember one fundamental fact- their main purpose( whether they like it or not) is to entertain the public, not to solely focus on winning.

 

[silentstriker]

American sporting public are ridiculously uncouth too ( makes all but the soccer hooligans look like tree-hugging hippies). Dont think i'd want to gear a sport to foister such an antagonistic fanbase.

Why? NFL fans (and I am one) are amazingly involved with their team, and absolutely love it and follow it with a passion thats rare. Yes, that means I hate the damn cowboys and the giants, but thats a GOOD thing. It adds emotion to the game that wasn't there previously. It makes even a boring game exciting, and it allows you to have a much greater emotional stake in the otucome.

Sport splayers should remember one fundamental fact- their main purpose( whether they like it or not) is to entertain the public, not to solely focus on winning.

And the best way to entertain me is to consistently win.

 

[C_C]

And the best way to entertain is to consistently win.

Entertainment is not tied to the outcome. If a match is a cracker of a match, then its a cracker of a match, regardless of the outcome. The public must also remember that they are there to see two teams (or players) compete and provide a good competetive match, not just to see their favourite side win.

Yes, that means I hate the damn cowboys and the giants, but thats a GOOD thing. It adds emotion to the game that wasn't there previously. It makes even a boring game exciting, and it allows you to have a much greater emotional stake in the otucome.

Anything that foisters negetive emotions such as anger,hatred, etc etc. is NOT a good thing.
If you find the game boring, there are plenty of other interesting things to do in life without debasing yourself by foistering negetive sentiments stemming from an utterly menial activity such as sports.
A buncha guys whack a ball with a stick. Another buncha guys throw a ball towards the stick and then run around chasing the ball. Or a buncha guys run with a ball and another buncha guys tries to stop em. And yet, something as utterly insignificant and menial as that is turned into yet another excuse to foister hatred and divisive mentality.
I think thats a sad testament to the human society than anything else - that most would look for any menial excuse to spread crap while overlooking far more compelling reasons to irradicate such stupidity.
It is far better to have zero emotions than negetive emotions. You dont spice your food with cyanide or turpentine if nothing else is available and those stuff taste jolly good IIRC( particularly cyanide, which tastes sweeter than sugar). You eat it just totally unspiced because the alternative is much much worse. Similar scenario here - the only diffference is, you dont realise the consequences on yourself from foistering hatred as easily.

 

[silentstriker]

Entertainment is not tied to the outcome. If a match is a cracker of a match, then its a cracker of a match, regardless of the outcome. The public must also remember that they are there to see two teams (or players) compete and provide a good competetive match, not just to see their favourite side win.

Sure, but if you notice, attendence is almost always tied to your team winning.

It is far better to have zero emotions than negetive emotions. You dont spice your food with cyanide or turpentine if nothing else is available and those stuff taste jolly good IIRC( particularly cyanide, which tastes sweeter than sugar). You eat it just totally unspiced because the alternative is much much worse. Similar scenario here - the only diffference is, you dont realise the consequences on yourself from foistering hatred as easily.

You won't feel euphoria when your team wins the Super Bowl if you don't feel dispair and hatred when your team loses by three points in that same super bowl. I'm sorry, but if you are emotionally invested in a team, there's nothing quite like it. Thats why sports are so universally loved, the emotion. And it goes both ways. You can't just have positive emotions associated with something, its just not human nature.

 

[archie mac]

I just can't come at this hate, and if Freddie would have jumped in Blee's face he would have been ridiculed (and rightly so).

Nasser Hussain wrote in his bio, words to the effect, that when they were losing in Aust. the Aussies really wanted them too lift their game, to give the Aussies a contest.

Now I don't think you will find a much more competitive nation than Australia.

I hate losing but I don't hate the opposition if they were the better side they deserve to be congratulated.

 

[C_C]

Sure, but if you notice, attendence is almost always tied to your team winning.

Perhaps in total money-hog materialistic-enshrinng nation like America. But in most parts of the world, people come to enjoy the sport, regardless of winning or losing. I can garantee you that if you plop down an NHL team in Manitoba or Saskatchewan, even a total bottom of the table team, you'd sell out every single game in the year but you wont generate corporate tax worth squat.

You won't feel euphoria when your team wins the Super Bowl if you don't feel dispair and hatred when your team loses by three points in that same super bowl. I'm sorry, but if you are emotionally invested in a team, there's nothing quite like it. Thats why sports are so universally loved, the emotion. And it goes both ways. You can't just have positive emotions associated with something, its just not human nature.

Says who ??!?
I often feel extremely good for the person who's achieved something special (like Steve Waugh and his 200+ epic vs the WI, Lara and his 153 epic, Laxman and his 281, Walsh and his demolishions etc etc) and i often feel sorry for the guy who bolloxed up from teams i like- i've never experienced hatred or anger towards any team in any sport purely from their performance ( i find the Aussie cricket team to be uncouth for eg. so i dont particularly care for them to win- but i dont hate em for whacking every team to kingdom come).
If something is stirring hatred or anger in you, thats definately not a good sign for you.
If you view sports as purely entertainment ( ie, its entertaining to see a good batsman murder a good bowler or a good bowler making good batsmen dance to their tune) then there is no need to get the negetive effects.
It just is another form of entertainment dude- do you feel '****ed off' after watching an episode of simpsons or watching some obscure team win some obscure event in the Olympics ?!?

 

[vic_orthdox]

You want players to have respect for each other and some manners because after the stupid game on the scoreboard is over, you, or they as human beings will have hopefully got something worthwhile out of the game. I guarantee you talk to any elderly former sportsman and, if he's not a total tool, the fondest memories he'll have of his sport are the fun and the friendships - not how many wickets he took, not how many games he won, nor how big the sponsor's cheque was.

Exactly. Over the past two years, the most enjoyable part of cricket for me is when the team I'm playing on is batting, and you sit around talking tripe for a whole day about whatever you like, and just stuffing around while watching (hopefully) your mates make some runs.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Why? Its YOUR pitch, you prepare it in a way that will give YOU an advantage. It would be absolutely ludicrous to prepare a pitch that suits fast bowlers if you are playing England, regardless of what you usually do at your home (unless of course, your bowling attack was similar). If you don't like this, then pass a law mandating how every pitch should be prepared.

I disagree, I think you go to certain areas with an expectation of how that pitch will play. The home ground advantage comes from knowing the conditions and picking your team accordingly, not from looking at who's playing in the other team and changing the pitch to suit each time. I preferred it when a test match was payed at a certain venue and you knew what to expect from the pitch as it traditionally played that way. If you prepare your ptiches according to your strengths I think the whole think becomes a bit monotonous...and we're seeing that with pitches today.

 

[Smudge]

Yea but thats just a farce then. If you don't respect the opponent or the game enough not to be a dirty ******* during the game, what's the point in shaking the hand after? It's all for TV, and thats what I mean by it being a load of BS.

It's called leaving your best on the field. Often it's your good mates that you try hardest against - I know when I came up against guys I knew in the opposition, I'd be trying that little bit harder to get them out.

It sounds to me like you haven't played much competitive sport.

 

[GIMH]

I'd say it extends to the stands. I go watch Tranmere Rovers (football, and I mean real football) everywhere, and from one terrace to another us fans are screaming blue murder at one another. But we'll have a pint and a chat with them after the game. if you deny that, then it ceases to be sport, which is sad, sad, sad.

 

[silentstriker]

Perhaps in total money-hog materialistic-enshrinng nation like America.

Welcome to sports buddy. And what's with this hatred of America?

But in most parts of the world, people come to enjoy the sport, regardless of winning or losing.

BS. What was the status of fan following and fan interest in their international squad during the 90's?

I often feel extremely good for the person who's achieved something special (like Steve Waugh and his 200+ epic vs the WI, Lara and his 153 epic, Laxman and his 281, Walsh and his demolishions etc etc) and i often feel sorry for the guy who bolloxed up from teams i like- i've never experienced hatred or anger towards any team in any sport purely from their performance ( i find the Aussie cricket team to be uncouth for eg. so i dont particularly care for them to win- but i dont hate em for whacking every team to kingdom come).

Sure, I like watching people do well. But when I watch a match, I always pick a team to root for, otherwise I can't stand watching a match. I pick a team, and I am dissapointed or elated when they do well or bad. For example, I was rooting for WI during the NZ tour, and I was rooting for Australia during the Ashes (because after the second game, they were clearly outmatched, and I like rooting for that).

Would I have been able to enjoy the Ashes if I didn't have a side? Probably not, and even if I did, it wouldn't be much.

If something is stirring hatred or anger in you, thats definately not a good sign for you.
If you view sports as purely entertainment ( ie, its entertaining to see a good batsman murder a good bowler or a good bowler making good batsmen dance to their tune) then there is no need to get the negetive effects.

Unless you are watching a good batsman from the otherside murder your crappy bowler. Or a mediocre batsman murdering our crappy bowler (like the WI series).

It just is another form of entertainment dude- do you feel '****ed off' after watching an episode of simpsons or watching some obscure team win some obscure event in the Olympics ?!?

Except the point of sports is to win. And you aren't emotionally invested in other things like you are in sports. It's unique in that regard.