Sledging or an excuse to get personal?

I have heard a lot of talks about sledging and how some people consider it the part of the game, etc.
But most of the times players use it as an excuse to hide their over aggressiveness and out of control behavior.

As we all know cricket is a high pressure game and a lot of individuals are mentally not good enough to keep their emotions in control. Nowadays the term sledging is just used by ill tempered players to hide their lack of control and poor temperament.

Clarke got fined for that "broken arm" sledge which was funny because that was nothing as compared to the send offs that the bowlers/fielders give after a wicket is fallen. If a bowler/fielder is actually playing mental games to get the batsmen out than he shouldn't be saying much to him once he gets his wicket. Shouldn't there be stricter rules for players who give ugly send offs to the batsmen? Dravid called it an act of cowardice recently and he was completely right in saying that, once a batsmen is out, you have no right to say things or pass ugly gestures.

A bit of a banter is fine, but things like players getting personal, being disrespectful to each other, etc. are covered with the word sledging which is totally wrong.

Sledging? Yes, no problem with that, but how much is enough? there has to be a boundary. You don't want to see people misbehaving on the name of sledging.


Should the ICC take a tough approach towards the over aggression and abuses hurled at each other on the name of sledging?

Sorry for the double "or"s in the title, dont know how to fix it.

Fixed it for you

We have already had this out before and it turned into me against the Aussie posters. The answer you will get depends on where you grew up playing cricket. People like me believe there is no place for sledging ever. Some people get confused on this topic and think sledging means gentle calls like "Ohh that's 12 dot balls in a row and you havn't scored a run yet" - which it isn't. Sledging is basically swearing like a sailor at the other person and running them down.

Sledging is here to stay because the players like it. Stephen Fleming a kiwi of all people addressed it in his book where he wrote down Sledging is fine unless it is personal. WTF does personal mean? Who knows? But I presume he means researching someone and finding out they were raised by a solo mother and bringing that up in the sledge. So according to Fleming calling someone a ****wit is personally fine but just don't customize the sledge with personal insider information.

He also continues with a story that in one test match they decided to match the aussies word for word sledge for sledge and the aussies were taken aback.

Other players are quoted as saying it just never effected them, or it only impacted lesser players but not the good players.

I played with Larry Gomes once, mild mannered fellow and I saw him mouth **** you to the opposition player and then get him out next ball with his tripe medium pacers.

In my grade there is no sledging. It is all "that's more dots than a dalmation boys" and crappy calls like that.

If I were a player I would put it up with it as well at International level because I would be representing my country. However I would not play in the BBL as I wouldn't be prepared to put up with it for dollars and I would be well off anyway..

As for your specific question is some sledging worse than others. Probably. I thought Shane Watson was ridiculous to Chris Gayle with that send off and that he should have been stood down for several games.

The ICC have defined a boundary as Clarke found out. Sledging is a non issue.

Hurricane played a game with Gomes. Now that is interesting. What level and whereabouts?

I ****ing hate sledging, just completely demolishes the "gentleman's game" aspect of cricket for me, a bit of crappy humour that isn't directed at the batsman, or even some playful banter directed at the batsman that doesn't get derogatory is fine, but I can't stand ****s who go around getting personal and insulting people

Yup depends on your definiton of sledging. I certainly think mental games are crucial to the game, such as a fast bowler giving a huge stare, or giving the batsman a few words on how he's a lucky bastard to still be in. Calling someone's female caregiver a loose individual, however, is poor and should be stamped out of the game.

Btw, Karan, do you feel Intrepid, per chance?

the big bambino said:

Hurricane played a game with Gomes. Now that is interesting. What level and whereabouts?

Click to expand...

I played in Vancouver 1st grade which would probably be equivalent to 2nd grade in most cricket playing cities around the world. He came over to do some coaching for the Canadian national team and we had connections to him so he played 3 games for us. He scored the best 22 I have ever seen in my life. He used his bottom hand like a guidance device to place the ball 3 or 4 yards wide of the fielder and his top hand for all his power.

We discussed sledging with him as well as it was topical in our grade at the time as some fights had broken out. He just told us that since he had played with Chappel brothers at 1st and 2nd slip and Rod Marsh as the wicket keeper we should count ourselves lucky and not get so worked up about it.

We also asked him what it was like to face the fastest bowlers in the world and who had been the fastest. His answer was brief and to the point and went thus:

"Lillee is fast, Hadlee is fast, Willis is fast. They are just fast."

Cheers for that. At that level I suppose there is little difference btwn the faster bowlers. I remember that guidance system driving me crazy when he played Oz. We couldn't get the bloke out and he single, double and tripled us to death.

I've never really understood the hangup over some words - not of the directly personal, racist or otherwise bigoted kind, mind - in a game where trying to decapitate a batsman with a rock-hard leather ball is a legitimate and celebrated tactic. How, for example, is Clarke said any different from actually bowling to hit the batsman?

It's basically for people who don't have the temperament to stand in the field when nothing's happening, it has various shapes and forms but the main objective is to keep themselves involved in the game without drifting off

I think the main problem with sledging is the struggle to define what it actually is, and where the line is then drawn. It's been going on since the game was first played, and while it's nice to think cricket was once a 'gentleman's game' the truth is probably more that it was once a game without stump mikes.

Obviously anything personal should be out, along with anything of a racial or discriminatory nature. I've rarely come across sledging that isn't just glib repeats of what people think players on TV say anyway. It's rarely very funny/cutting.

Spark said:

I've never really understood the hangup over some words - not of the directly personal, racist or otherwise bigoted kind, mind - in a game where trying to decapitate a batsman with a rock-hard leather ball is a legitimate and celebrated tactic. How, for example, is Clarke said any different from actually bowling to hit the batsman?

Click to expand...

There's about ten different responses I could give to this - some of them deliberately provocative, others less so. I will go with a conciliatory one -

I don't think bowlers mean to hit people. I am sure there have been some that have meant to,but most mean to frighten the living bejesus out of you. I would think that MJ, if he killed someone with a bouncer would be mortified. When Larwood hit Oldfield on the head he was really concerned about it. I really don't think that MJ would be such a psychopath that he would want to break Anderson's arm.

I have hit people in the nets and I feel pumped after they fall over holding their ribs sure, but I would be devastated if I actually broke a rib and inflicted more than a bruise.

Therefore I don't think in 99% of cases that there is real intent behind those bouncers.

What Clarke did was uttering threats under the legal definition of the term and he is lucky that the English team (just like they did with the Warner assault) did not press charges.

Hurricane said:

There's about ten different responses I could give to this - some of them deliberately provocative, others less so. I will go with a conciliatory one -

I don't think bowlers mean to hit people. I am sure there have been some that have meant to,but most mean to frighten the living bejesus out of you. I would think that MJ, if he killed someone with a bouncer would be mortified. When Larwood hit Oldfield on the head he was really concerned about it. I really don't think that MJ would be such a psychopath that he would want to break Anderson's arm.

Click to expand...

Eh? Of course they mean to hit people. That's the whole point - you either get in line and risk being hit, or you back away and risk the dismissal. Short leg and leg gully are entirely based around the batsman trying to defend themselves from physical injury - if the threat of inflicting physical injury wasn't a legitimate part of the game, why are those fielding positions allowed at all? The threat is only justified if the possibility is there, if potentially hurting people isn't part of the game then neither should short pitched bowling.

"Gee, I'm trying to get you out by aiming this ball at your neck but I really hope I don't hit you otherwise!" Come on.

What Clarke did was uttering threats under the legal definition of the term and he is lucky that the English team (just like they did with the Warner assault) did not press charges.

Click to expand...

This is absurd. Anderson is aware that Johnson will be bowling at his body and that there's a risk of getting hurt.

Hurricane said:

What Clarke did was uttering threats under the legal definition of the term and he is lucky that the English team (just like they did with the Warner assault) did not press charges.

Click to expand...

Oh come on, if we're to go that far then Australia is equally within their rights to sue England for fraud. They've been impersonating a cricket team since late November.

Spark said:

Eh? Of course they mean to hit people. That's the whole point - you either get in line and risk being hit, or you back away and risk the dismissal. Short leg and leg gully are entirely based around the batsman trying to defend themselves from physical injury - if the threat of inflicting physical injury wasn't a legitimate part of the game, why are those fielding positions allowed at all? The threat is only justified if the possibility is there, if potentially hurting people isn't part of the game then neither should short pitched bowling.

"Gee, I'm trying to get you out by aiming this ball at your neck but I really hope I don't hit you otherwise!" Come on.



This is absurd. Anderson is aware that Johnson will be bowling at his body and that there's a risk of getting hurt.

Click to expand...

Good response - but I still disagree - I will just end up repeating myself if I give my reasons why - they are basically linked to the genuine remorse I witnessed in a case in Canada where a bowler really did kill a young 18 year old boy who was batting without a helmet with a bouncer.

I had to play in the game the following week against his twin brother so this example is etched in my brain.

Horrible thing to carry around with you killing someone by bowling a bouncer. Basically you just expect that the person will duck out of the way or get some glove on it and have it pop up to short forward square leg like you say. But that you won't injure them.

Interestingly enough Spark, there are some rather antiquated laws about not allowing intimidatory bowling and they are still in place. If someone really was a Chris Martin with the bat and looking like getting hurt the umpires (and I am not an expert on the rules) may be allowed to intervene.

Also btw, most teams when they played Chris Martin just tried to bowl him rather than hit him now that I think about it.

Cheers

Hurricane said:

Good response - but I still disagree - I will just end up repeating myself if I give my reasons why - they are basically linked to the genuine remorse I witnessed in a case in Canada where a bowler really did kill a young 18 year old boy who was batting without a helmet with a bouncer.

I had to play in the game the following week against his twin brother so this example is etched in my brain.

Click to expand...

Just for the end of this story. The "Killer" was an Australian bloke who was an absolute trundler no faster than 110ks. But he bowled a very heavy 110ks - I can't explain why it really hit your bat hard. After the death he couldn't deal with the fact it had happened. So rather than hang up his boots and quit cricket like most people would he insisted on finishing off the season. A few of us were a bit miffed with him for wanting to play on but I was told by the older blokes on my team that "he probably doesn't want to deal with it and just wants everything to be normal".

I am sure the death hit him hard.

Horrible thing to carry around with you killing someone by bowling a bouncer. Basically you just expect that the person will duck out of the way or get some glove on it and have it pop up to short forward square leg like you say. But that you won't injure them.

Click to expand...

Well, we have helmets now so that's hardly a problem we're going to encounter.

I mean, the logic here is a little weird. "I don't want to hurt you, so could you please just fend one to short leg and sod off so we don't risk an injury?"

No. The short pitched ball makes the batsman's choice that between preservation of wicket and preservation of body. The former is obviously preferable as the bowler's job is to take wickets, and the thrill of the short-pitched attack is that the latter is a legitimate threat - hence giving a legitimate test of the batsman's courage and technique. The question "how much pain are you prepared to endure to keep your wicket" is only valid if there's the clear possibility of pain.

So, again, there really isn't that much difference between implying that you might be wearing a few bruises and actually bowling short.

Spark said:

Well, we have helmets now so that's hardly a problem we're going to encounter.

I mean, the logic here is a little weird. "I don't want to hurt you, so could you please just fend one to short leg and sod off so we don't risk an injury?"

No. The short pitched ball makes the batsman's choice that between preservation of wicket and preservation of body. The former is obviously preferable as the bowler's job is to take wickets, and the thrill of the short-pitched attack is that the latter is a legitimate threat - hence giving a legitimate test of the batsman's courage and technique. The question "how much pain are you prepared to endure to keep your wicket" is only valid if there's the clear possibility of pain.

So, again, there really isn't that much difference between implying that you might be wearing a few bruises and actually bowling short.

Click to expand...

Well we agree on one thing - since the batsman is wearing a large amount of protection including a helmet the bowler isn't really thinking at the top of this mark I am going to knock this bloke's head off with the next one. In fact he is probably thinking it will be very unlikely he will cause the guy the pain and the most that will happen is his will fend one off to the waiting fielders. There is no intent of actually hitting the guy. Now if you want to be a literal person and say well Johnson is bowling the ball deliberately at the guys body and and aiming it at his body so therefore there is intent of him hitting him then this conversation isn't going to go very far. He may be aiming it at him but he is NOT expecting to really strike the guy a) due to all his equipment like you have pointed out and b)because he has a bat in his hand.

I don't think we can convince each other because we different interpretations of the word intent.