Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
Nothing wrong with sledging, it what makes cricket such a great game.
Nothing wrong with sledging, it what makes cricket such a great game.
I always said you two were similar.Regarding the topic at hand, Goughy's posts are a decent representation of my thoughts on the matter.
It would certainly make cricket unique if you were banned from talking to the opposition. Can't think of another team sport with that rule.
Except in the NFL, if you say something that the other person doesn't like, you can blow their knees out the next play, so there is a strong incentive not to go too far. And golf is a sport that has very little talk. I haven't heard Tiger ragging on Mickelson's mother.Would certainly reinforce the notion that cricketers are wimps if we have rules about what opposition is allowed to say to each other.
Regarding the topic at hand, Goughy's posts are a decent representation of my thoughts on the matter.
Now that I would watch. How many fights would Nel get into in one season? I'm picking two a match.Except in the NFL, if you say something that the other person doesn't like, you can blow their knees out the next play, so there is a strong incentive not to go too far. And golf is a sport that has very little talk. I haven't heard Tiger ragging on Mickelson's mother.
If we legalize fighting on the cricket field, like ice hockey, then it would work. Otherwise, its pretty much the sign of a wimp to talk trash when you know he won't come after you.
Two an over would be a better estimate tbh.Now that I would watch. How many fights would Nel get into in one season? I'm picking two a match.
Cricket would be the same if quicks weren't restricted in bowling bouncers, though. A bowler might sledge a batsman but if he knew that the opposition's quicks could bounce a few off his helmet, he might tone it down. I don't remember Gordon Greenidge or Dessie Haynes getting too many words coming at them.Except in the NFL, if you say something that the other person doesn't like, you can blow their knees out the next play, so there is a strong incentive not to go too far. And golf is a sport that has very little talk. I haven't heard Tiger ragging on Mickelson's mother.
You mean if he *can't* come after you? If someone chooses not to come after you, different story but if you give stick when you know the rules prevent your opposition from doing anything about it, then yeah that's pretty low. Still, I've always said that the best way to shut up an errant batsman is to get him out so I always just concentrated my efforts there.If we legalize fighting on the cricket field, like ice hockey, then it would work. Otherwise, its pretty much the sign of a wimp to talk trash when you know he won't come after you.
West indian batsmen got all sorts of abuse from english and australians in the 80's which has been confirmed by garry sobers and larry rowe .But they themselves believed in answering by the bat and ball.Cricket would be the same if quicks weren't restricted in bowling bouncers, though. A bowler might sledge a batsman but if he knew that the opposition's quicks could bounce a few off his helmet, he might tone it down. I don't remember Gordon Greenidge or Dessie Haynes getting too many words coming at them.
As for golf, we'll let's just say it's not exactly a sport to inflame the passions. I still can't think of it as a sport. It's more like a televised past-time.
.You mean if he *can't* come after you? If someone chooses not to come after you, different story but if you give stick when you know the rules prevent your opposition from doing anything about it, then yeah that's pretty low. Still, I've always said that the best way to shut up an errant batsman is to get him out so I always just concentrated my efforts there
Except probaly Ameriacan sports ther are not many sports where personal abuse and foul mouthedness is allowed.Even in soccer using foul mouthed language and swearing is not allowed but the referees in some countries take a liberal view of it.And besides like golf cricket is supposed to be the "gentleman's game"A blanket ban is just dumb. Firstly in most sports there is verbal interaction between players and it is part of the mind games. Secondly, it would be difficult to enforce and thirdly there is the language issue. Will it only be English that is outlawed? Will cursing and talking in Afrikaans or any other language be permitted? Will umpires have to be multi-lingual or will interpreters be there listening to all the stump mics? There are logistical nightmares. Fourthly and finally, something like sledging is impossible to define with any clarity.
The problem there is that the onfield umpires may regard what is sledging in relative termsThere is no doubt that sledging can go too far and can be overly vulgar and insulting. However, Id far rather it be left upto the Umpires on the field to assess and evaluate the situation and comments. Just like they are left to evaluate Dangerous and unfair bowling
(Bowling of fast short pitched balls).
To me a blanket ban is like a complete ban on bouncers. Left unchecked the situation can be nasty and wrong but outright banning them takes an important part of the mental aspect of the game away.
Again a grey area in this is the different cultural history of umpires.Like the repetition and danger outlined in the laws for Umpires to interpret for bouncers I would be happy to see a similar framework applied to sledging.
I stand by my orignal sentiments on a full ban. Though Im not opposed to rules being in place to prevent it rampaging unchecked.
The 1964 Justice Potter Stewarts quote over defining what is obscene is relevant here. "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . but I know it when I see it"
Context, intent and content are all important in evaluating what should be outlawed in cricket and umpires on the field are best placed to make that decision.
Absolutely agree with this.There is clear difference between general banter and an out and out personal attack on another player. Personally I think the latter has no place in the game. The sooner that type of sledging gets banned from the game the better. Unless there is ban on sleadging that aspect of that game will never be taken out.
The thing many people forget is sledging isn't part of the game in a lot of countries. I doubt you will hear any sledging at all in FC game in Sri Lanka. I hate stupid arguement you hear from the former Australian player, "its part of game." It is not part of game in most countries, just cus thats the way you like to play your cricket, doesn't mean that is the way it is meant to be played.
There is clear difference between general banter and an out and out personal attack on another player. Personally I think the latter has no place in the game. The sooner that type of sledging gets banned from the game the better. Unless there is ban on sleadging that aspect of that game will never be taken out.
The thing many people forget is sledging isn't part of the game in a lot of countries. I doubt you will hear any sledging at all in FC game in Sri Lanka. I hate stupid arguement you hear from the former Australian player, "its part of game." It is not part of game in most countries, just cus thats the way you like to play your cricket, doesn't mean that is the way it is meant to be played.
Is that what happened to Bond, the NZ rugby fans called him soft, so he joined the rebel league?BCCI ask for a ban on sledging: Who cares? I certainly don't. Its all a load of hot air and a complete ban is completely ludicrous, unenforcible, and will kill the game. TBH if someone says you suck and you can't handle it then you do suck, now go join the rebel league.