• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Andre Nel and sledging

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Son Of Coco said:
No, I said to bend your elbow and then straighten it again is chucking by the the cricketing definition of chucking as far as I interpreted it, nothing about Murali as far as I can recall. Are you talking about the Hyperextension thread? How far back are we going? I did originally think Murali's action was dodgy, but I've been proven incorrect by a great number of tests.
I thought I was posting Kazo's post there. It was not directed at you. Sorry. :)
 

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
honestbharani said:
I thought I was posting Kazo's post there. It was not directed at you. Sorry. :)
haha, you were! I didn't read it very well!:blink:
My fault mate, my apologies!
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
honestbharani said:
weren't you speaking about stuff like "Murali's action is chucking by the cricketing definition of chucking" or something of that sort? And weren't you saying that you were speaking for the whole cricketing community back then, seeing how you took it upon yourself to "define" something called "cricketing chucking" or something like that.
HB, my generalisations pertained to what is taught here. As you can see by the large majority against Murali's actions in Australia. It was an assumption we were all playing Cricket here. Comparing my statement and C_C's is an incorrect juxtaposition. As I questioned in that thread, who before these scientific backings thought Murali's action wasn't dodgy. I'd be VERY surprised to find any kind of majority saying it was a perfectly legit action back then without proof.

In this context we're discussing people's position on a moral issue. I'd have to be out of my mind to assume I represent any majority in that aspect. Especially if, like someone here, I contemplated sledging and murder in the same breath.
 

C_C

International Captain
Especially if, like someone here, I contemplated sledging and murder in the same breath.
What is the difference between wanting to cause harm and killing someone ?
Answer - only the intensity. The radio analogy is apt here - you are tuned in the same station- just that the latter is playing at a higher volume.

If you cared to read properly ( and not to mention, learn the nuances of English-such as telling the difference between a statement and an illustration- i know it is a pretty wonky language in its construction, but its still pretty easy to learn) you'd realise that i said that the only difference between the uncouth behaviour you are so keen on upholding and far sinister action is intensity.
And the slide is on its way- in almost all sports, thanks to the apologists like you who keep justifying barbarity because it helps to win.

Competetive sports is sanitised combat - and once you take away the sanitized aspects of it, it might as well involve grenades and rifles.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
C_C said:
What is the difference between wanting to cause harm and killing someone ?
Answer - only the intensity. The radio analogy is apt here - you are tuned in the same station- just that the latter is playing at a higher volume.

If you cared to read properly ( and not to mention, learn the nuances of English-such as telling the difference between a statement and an illustration- i know it is a pretty wonky language in its construction, but its still pretty easy to learn) you'd realise that i said that the only difference between the uncouth behaviour you are so keen on upholding and far sinister action is intensity.
And the slide is on its way- in almost all sports, thanks to the apologists like you who keep justifying barbarity because it helps to win.

Competetive sports is sanitised combat - and once you take away the sanitized aspects of it, it might as well involve grenades and rifles.
Uh, do you realise for you to have a point one has to take you literally. Otherwise you can generalise and theorise, on ANYTHING and justify it on intensity. It's like trying to compare a cricket ball with a Aussie Rules ball and saying: "I have a point, they're both red balls". You don't seem to be stating anything here beyond the comprehension of anyone. What common-sense dictates though...

C_C said:
and once you take away the sanitized aspects of it, it might as well involve grenades and rifles.
8-)
 

C_C

International Captain
I dont care to argue semantics with you- point out the flaw in my reasoning please.

You don't seem to be stating anything here beyond the comprehension of anyone.
I obviously seem to've stated quite a few things beyond your comprehnsion for you to confuse between a statement and an illustration.

PS: as per yer '8-) ' smiley - would you care to argue against the point that only difference between sports and warfare is the former is just a sanitised version of it with rules and regulations while the latter has neither in reality ?
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
C_C said:
I dont care to argue semantics with you- point out the flaw in my reasoning please.



I obviously seem to've stated quite a few things beyond your comprehnsion for you to confuse between a statement and an illustration.

PS: as per yer '8-) ' smiley - would you care to argue against the point that only difference between sports and warfare is the former is just a sanitised version of it with rules and regulations while the latter has neither in reality ?
Holy crap...:laugh: I gotta stop arguing with you, you're too smart.
 

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
C_C said:
PS: as per yer '8-) ' smiley - would you care to argue against the point that only difference between sports and warfare is the former is just a sanitised version of it with rules and regulations while the latter has neither in reality ?

I think you've had one too many cones today, Joy.
 

lurchn

Cricket Spectator
test cricket is called test for a reason. It tests everything about a player, if a sledge gets under his skin, he looses. Steve Waugh, Adam Gilchrist, SR Tendulkar & B Lara are 4 playaer that the sledge makes them a better player. ie they win the test.
 

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
lurchn said:
test cricket is called test for a reason. It tests everything about a player, if a sledge gets under his skin, he looses
Okay, Please explain why they sledge in ODIs then ?
 

Top