Spirit of Cricket

[silentstriker]

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

Not beyond the high school level, no. But what's that got to do with anything? There are a lot more fans than there are players in any sport.

 

[C_C]

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

'Not hatred- just dislike...primarily because there is so few things to like about America from my perspective.
And no, it isnt 'welcome to sports mate' - i noticed you conviniently ignored my example of a ****-poor hockey team in a backwater Canadian town.

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.

No- the point in sports is to give the crowd a good show. Sportsmen exist to entertain-no different than movie stars or talk show hosts. And i see no point in emotionally investing in something as menial as sports- especially when your chances of feeling disappointed/angry etc. are just as likely as feeling elated(unless you always pick the worldbeating sides). I see no reason as to why you are in support of a philosophy that inspires hatred and narrowminded ' ha! i told ya so- in yer face' kinda juvenile behaviour.
Which is why i am all in favour of reducing sports to amatuer status worldwide.

 

[silentstriker]

'Not hatred- just dislike...primarily because there is so few things to like about America from my perspective.
And no, it isnt 'welcome to sports mate' - i noticed you conviniently ignored my example of a ****-poor hockey team in a backwater Canadian town.

Sure, some die hard fans will sport the team no matter what. Eagles games have been sold out even when we sucked. But the total amount of fans is directly related to winning or losing. You have to remember, it includes everynoe who buys merchandise, watches on tv, listens on radio, as well as those who attends. And I would ask you to ask 100 fans :

A) Would you want your team to play competitively, and play close exciting games all the time, but win only half of them?

B) Play like the WI of the 70's and 80's and dominate everyone...winnign everything but turning games one sided?

I think you know the answer to that.

No- the point in sports is to give the crowd a good show. Sportsmen exist to entertain-no different than movie stars or talk show hosts.

And the best way to entertain your fans is by winning.

Which is why i am all in favour of reducing sports to amatuer status worldwide.

So the owners would make billions while the players would have to work day jobs.

 

[C_C]

Sure, some die hard fans will sport the team no matter what. Eagles games have been sold out even when we sucked. But the total amount of fans is directly related to winning or losing. You have to remember, it includes everynoe who buys merchandise, watches on tv, listens on radio, as well as those who attends. And I would ask you to ask 100 fans :

Its not a question of diehard fans. Its a question of the sporting culture. Like i said- you plop down a NHL team in winnipeg or Quebec City and you will sell out merchandise and the tickets FAR better than the Rangers or the Avalanche can dream of - they just wont have as much corporate clout because of much smaller telecast audience(which is the reason they dont have teams in those small towns).

A) Would you want your team to play competitively, and play close exciting games all the time, but win only half of them?

B) Play like the WI of the 70's and 80's and dominate everyone...winnign everything but turning games one sided?

I think the answer has a direct correlation with maturity and years following the sport.

And the best way to entertain your fans is by winning.

That is such a sad perspective to have. What exactly are you gaining/losing by your favourite team winning/losing ?
Some worthless bragging rights that are best left for grade seven students ?
Giving yourself some sorta validation or consolation to your ego ?

You see a good encounter and its entertaining. I certainly would rather have an India-Pakistan in Chennai any day of the week ( and i am an Indian team fan) over some victories they had against Bangladesh.

So the owners would make billions while the players would have to work day jobs.

No no no. Amatuerisation doesnt mean towards the players alone. I mean taking the bling bling out of sports- at all level.
You gotta wonder about the priorities of an economic system that rewards a numbnut whacking a ball 100 days a year and taking it easy the rest of the year 10x better than some guy who busted a gut to go through school so he could figure out how to save human lives on the operation table.
I think our arguments are different- you are justifying something based on the system in place. I am challenging the very system itself.

And i find the fact that there are so many people willing to fight and hate upon others(and sometimes, even kill) because of an utterly menial venture as sports to be a sad testament to the depravity of the human species. If such mentalities keep proliferating at the alarming rate it is, i would have very little problem ( and in a way, i'd welcome it) if mother nature unleashed a killer bug to wipe out the scourge called humans from the face of this planet.

 

[silentstriker]

Its not a question of diehard fans. Its a question of the sporting culture. Like i said- you plop down a NHL team in winnipeg or Quebec City and you will sell out merchandise and the tickets FAR better than the Rangers or the Avalanche can dream of - they just wont have as much corporate clout because of much smaller telecast audience(which is the reason they dont have teams in those small towns).

Yes, some places have higher fan interest than others. Though I bet even there, you will see a siginificant increase in interest if they start winning.

That is such a sad perspective to have. What exactly are you gaining/losing by your favourite team winning/losing ?

Happiness or sadness.

You see a good encounter and its entertaining. I certainly would rather have an India-Pakistan in Chennai any day of the week ( and i am an Indian team fan) over some victories they had against Bangladesh.

OK, well let me ask you something then. What do you mean when you say you are an Indian team fan, if you are not emotionally invested in the team?

No no no. Amatuerisation doesnt mean towards the players alone. I mean taking the bling bling out of sports- at all level.
You gotta wonder about the priorities of an economic system that rewards a numbnut whacking a ball 100 days a year and taking it easy the rest of the year 10x better than some guy who busted a gut to go through school so he could figure out how to save human lives on the operation table.

How? Then the television companies will make millions off advertising. Unless you want no TV or radio coverage either.

 

[C_C]

Yes, some places have higher fan interest than others. Though I bet even there, you will see a siginificant increase in interest if they start winning.

The Quebec Nordiques or the Winnipeg Jets were not winning much and despite that they had total sellouts and perpetual merchendise shortages due to high demand.
When it comes to hockey for example, Vancouver is the most apathetic town in Canada by a countrymile and half and we still sell out 90% of our games or so- thats in the top 5-6 teams in the entire league.

Happiness or sadness.

The question is, why ?

OK, well let me ask you something then. What do you mean when you say you are an Indian team fan, if you are not emotionally invested in the team?

As in I prefer the Indian team to win than lose but i didnt lose a moment of sleep because of 2003 world cup finals result.

How? Then the television companies will make millions off advertising. Unless you want no TV or radio coverage either.

I dunno. Havnt thought much about it in detail.
I just think its screwed up thats all.

 

[silentstriker]

The Quebec Nordiques or the Winnipeg Jets were not winning much and despite that they had total sellouts and perpetual merchendise shortages due to high demand.
When it comes to hockey for example, Vancouver is the most apathetic town in Canada by a countrymile and half and we still sell out 90% of our games or so- thats in the top 5-6 teams in the entire league.

Yes, but if you win, the interest would be even higher. Even if it is high now.

As in I prefer the Indian team to win than lose but i didnt lose a moment of sleep because of 2003 world cup finals result.

So you are emotionally invested because you 'prefer' them to win. So when your 'preference' becomes a reality, you experience satisfaction, or even happiness. Then the only difference is the degree of emotional involvement,

I dunno. Havnt thought much about it in detail.
I just think its screwed up thats all.

Its simple capitalism. If there's enough demand for a certain skill, the value of that skill will go up. If there were only eleven surgeons in the US, they would make a lot more than the atheletes.

 

[C_C]

Yes, but if you win, the interest would be even higher. Even if it is high now.

Mate, thats not possible in Canada and hockey. Ottawa,Toronto, Edmonton, etc. have zero impact from fan-following despite winning or losing. Canucks just love hockey, period.

So you are emotionally invested because you 'prefer' them to win. So when your 'preference' becomes a reality, you experience satisfaction, or even happiness. Then the only difference is the degree of emotional involvement,

Fair enough. What i meant to say is there is no point in investing emotions in a sport to a degree where people actually turn abusive.

Its simple capitalism.

I know. But then again, capitalism is pretty screwed up as it is.

 

[silentstriker]

Mate, thats not possible in Canada and hockey. Ottawa,Toronto, Edmonton, etc. have zero impact from fan-following despite winning or losing. Canucks just love hockey, period.

Fine, I haven't been to Canada, so I'll take your word for it. Regardless, some exceptions do not mean the general trend is not accurate.

I know. But then again, capitalism is pretty screwed up as it is.

I guess we'll just agree to disagree on that.

 

[C_C]

Fine, I haven't been to Canada, so I'll take your word for it. Regardless, some exceptions do not mean the general trend is not accurate.




I guess we'll just agree to disagree on that.

You will find that this 'trend' is there only because of the money involved. Media puts pressure on the team to win and play the public because brand names dont want toassociate with a losing team.
You'll find that before all this money got into sports,sports was unaffected by winning or losing. And that is still valid in areas of the world where sports doesnt attract big bucks.

I guess we'll just agree to disagree on that.

Fair enough. I just cant respect a system that rewards a menial entertainer way more than a lifesaver.

 

[Goughy]

I am fairly down the middle with this one.

Mr. Striker is going far to far into the realms of the extreme but also I have never believed the propaganda of cricket as the 'gentlemans game'

I have problems with remarks regarding race or religion as those are slippery slopes and can lead to hostility not only between the players, but outside of that as well. But calling the batsman's mother a stinking whore? That's all fine, if it gives you an advantage.

I would personnaly take more offense to a comment about a family member than my race or religion. Im a big boy and can look after myself and comments about me do not bother me but it is far worse to insult a loved one who is not there to answer back or reply.

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.

Living in the US for many years and having a number of big NFL fans as friends I can reliably inform you that compared to Premier League football fans they have less passion. Sorry. In fact I dislike how English football fans are so it is not as if I am proud of it.

because as soon as he starts batting, there will be shouts of 'kill him...kill him'

?????? do people really act like that? Thats ****ed up.

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.

No it is not. Life is Life and the game is the game. Players can generally differentiate between the 2. Understand that players are part of the same profession and share a Union. There is no reason to hate each other and not shake hands or share a beer. In fact in the US sports you talk so much about the players are very close with each other and often hug each other fter games. As a proffesional, it is a players duty to understand that what happens on the field has nothing to do with real life and very few hate each other.

People need to wake up and come into the 21st century. Traditions are dead.

How can you talk about US sports and then make that statement? US sports are full of them. Retiring jerseys, no bunts during a no hitter, and a thousand others. Same as how tradition exists in cricket and will continue. People enjoy them and respect them.

I wouldn't care if Freddie was gloating in his face after they won.

I would. It comes down to how you want to be viewed as a person and what values you have. If FF had gloated in Lees face he would have shown the world what a prize **** he was. It is to his credit he acted like a decent human being.

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.

Of all the things you have said, this is the least accurate. People LOVE college sport because it is the kids who do it for the purity of the sport (90%+ do). Many, many people do not watch basketball or allow their children to play because of the characters that play at the pro level. If you are talking about a balance of trade between those that are tuned off or on because of sportsmanship then you are fighting a losing arguement.


On the Flip SIde
I do not believe a 'spirit of the game' is that important. You just act on the field like you would in real life. Acting like a **** on the field means everyone knows what a pain in the **** you are and that is enough punishment for my liking.

I believe treating you're opponents with respect. You do not have to be nice, but after spening a long day trying to **** each other up thenthere is nothing better than to sit back and share a beer.

The professional aspect of the sport is very important to me. Im all for cricketers getting theirs rather than a guy in a blazer and nice accent picking up the check. If you paly to watch then you must pay the players and as much as possible.

Ive got a fair bit more to add but my fingers are hurting.
Congrats and thank you to anyone that actully reads all this, oh and the post is too long to check through for spelling mistakes. If there are lots sorry.

 

[Goughy]

Much shorter post this time.

Just to show that what we think is a modern approch to sport is really not that new.

"Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealously, boastfulness and disregard for all the rules"

George Orwell

 

[Langeveldt]

I'm a bit of a purist in that I don't think there is any place for sledging in cricket.. The only time I have ever enjoyed watching it was when Allan Donald dished it out to Athers, but thats me being incredibly biased.. I just think it looks ugly, especially now you get half wits like Andre Nel who would be far better bowlers if they used their energy elsewhere..

I also dislike any form of mental disintigration, basically any form of chat before a series, or behind the scenes, that sets out to alter a players mindset when they take the field.. A true champion in my eyes lets his performances do the talking for him. Steve Waugh's Aussie's were good enough not to have to resort to being disrespectful.. Ditto Punters Aussies, any SA side, to name some poor teams for sportsmanship

The whole enjoyment of cricket comes for me from the social side of things, sharing experiences with those who you play with and against.. I lost a lot of admiration for Mark Boucher when he went sissying off to the media and said he didnt want to join the Aussies for a beer after the days play.. A beer is for sorting stuff like that over, not the papers..

Funnily enough though, I am totally against walking when you lose your wicket and the umpire hasn't given you out.. I don't see why it is cheating, because the man at the top has adjudged you as not being out?! I hate seeing the walking debate create bad blood, I thank the batsman if he walks, because I admire it, but I don't want someones moral high ground getting in the way of me prospering from a poor umpiring decison, because I know I'll get one that goes against me sooner or later.. And you can bet your bottom dollar that the guy on the end of that won't be walking in a hurry..

Anyway I have a lot of admiration for Zimbabwe, a team who pretty much always play/ed the game in the spirit that it deserves.. I guess that might be one of the reasons they have been at the bottom of the pile.. Jonty Rhodes/Shaun Pollock/Michael Vaughan/Andy Flintoff are some fantastic "old fashioned" cricketers who I admire for their attitude when competing at the highest level.

 

[Matt79]

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.

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

If American football, basketball, and baseball weren't such godawful boring sports, it probably wouldn't be necessary to hate your opposition to find them interesting. Any sport that requires cheerleaders to make it watchable is no good in my opinion...