Golf ain't exactly the bastian of sportsmanship you think it is. Plenty of mind games go on between the players and you're deluding yourself if you think otherwise. Ditto for any high-level competitive sport and I defy anyone to come up with an example otherwise. Sledging is a reality of sport and wishing it go away will achieve diddly-squat.Imagine two golfers abusing each other.
At even mid-level sport, it's not. Sorry.If I am good at my job, why should I need to abuse, insult an opponent. Shouldnt the craft be good enough?
At a professional level, it's far different to that. Even at club level, it's different. Trying your best is all well and good but if you invest heavily in physical and emotional terms in playing a sport by sacrificing much of the others things you might enjoy, putting-in on the training track, etc. do you seriously expect someone who has done all that to just accept when the opponent plays better and do nothing else? Professional sport is a battle of the minds and wills as much as the physical aspects of the game. You just characterising it as 'insecurity' shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what sledging actually is. It's not just two guys going at each other, screaming and spitting insults in various languages. It's about getting into the mind of your opponent too.Sport is all about trying your best and if the opponent plays better than you, appreciating that and trying your best again.
If you're playing against an opponent and see a technical weakness, you should be looking to exploit it. If you're playing against an opponent for the first time, you need to test out how his technique handles the outswinger, the yorker, the short ball.
If you're playing against an opponent and notice a mental weakness, you should be looking to exploit it. If you're playing against an opponent for the first time, you need to find out how willing he is for the battle, against the ball and against his own mind.[/b
It doesn't detract anything from it though.Lillian Thomson said:There's nothing wrong with the bowler and batsmen exchanging a bit of banter after a delivery - eg Randall and Lillee in the Centenary Test. But I don't think the constant baiting of the batsmen by the wicketkeeper and close fielders adds anything to the game.
open365 said:Ban it?
What cricket needs is more sledging,a lot more,i'm talking dressing rooms hanging funny pictures of the opposition over the balcony or ironing an insulting photo onto their whites.....
Why is sledging any more malicous than bowling a lethal bouncer at a tail-ender?C_C said:The entire objective of sports, ultimately is entertainment. It is irrelevant in large scheme of things- there are far more important things in life than whacking a ball with a wooden/aluminum/carbon fibre stick.
And malicious behaviour flies fundamentally in the face of entertainment. There is absolutely no place in sports for mental disintegration or sledging. It is entertainment, not warfare. And those who treat sports as warfare need to chill out and find better things to do in life.
The spread of maliciousness in professional era is a disturbing new western trend.
Well sports *ISNT* very important in the grand scheme of things. It is passtime and leasure and exists only to entertain humans.open365 said:Why is sledging any more malicous than bowling a lethal bouncer at a tail-ender?
Yes,sport is ultimately entertainment,but to me and a lot of people,sledging adds to the game,it creates an atmosphere,its makes it feel more intense and important.
My favourite cricketers are allways the ones up for a battle,ready to take on the challenge,not afraid of anything.
Why do you think that there is no place in sport for mental dis-intergration(not that i really believe it)? Cricket is a battle of the mind,not just a competition for text-book perfection.
If it doesn't add or detract anything from the game, surely that renders it rather pointless.andyc said:It doesn't detract anything from it though.
C_C said:Well sports *ISNT* very important in the grand scheme of things. It is passtime and leasure and exists only to entertain humans.
For two, there is a difference between testing someone's ability and being an obnoxious git.
Bowling bouncers is testing your ability and if you are found wanting, you are found wanting. But all the sledging and abuse in the sport makes it a toxic atomosphere and not a pleasant one- which is the entire purpose for the existance of sports- to be pleasing and entertaining. People keeping their yaps shut and just testing their abilities against each other without malicious behaviour is far more preferrable than barbaric behaviour.
You can do battle of the mind by pitting your analytical qualities vs another cricketer and leave out the negetive and malicious atmosphere.
Malcolm Marshall was one of the best planners and mentally strong players and he played without creating an abusive atmosphere by chatting *****.
I prefer players of that sort ( or Tendulkar for example) than the mouthy insecure ones who take it too seriously.
True. But it is unecessary and unwanted by large.open365 said:Oh give over,this is test cricket for christ sakes,and sledging isn't as bad as you say it is,i certainly don't see any professional players quitting cricket because Shane Warne thinks you can't bat.
I suppose. I just dont consider anatagonistic behaviour to be very endearing.Cricket is entertaining,but the competition and rivalry enhances it,as IMO does sledging.That is where we differ i suppose.
The question you should ask is, why do you enjoy that.When i hear players talking heatedly to each other or Andre Nel looking demented i enjoy it,i enjoy watching the charged atmosphere,but only as long as i know the players don't carry it off the pitch with them,which they don't.
Because i don't think it is very antagonising.C_C said:I suppose. I just dont consider anatagonistic behaviour to be very endearing.
The question you should ask is, why do you enjoy that.
If something extra is required to make you 'feel' its important, maybe then, it isnt important in the reality and you are deceiving yourself ?open365 said:Because i don't think it is very antagonising.
In my view,it adds to the drama of the match and makes it feel important.
The super series for example(just and example)on of the reasons it was a failure is because it didn't really have any importance and the world 11 weren't as commited as they would be for their countries. I enjoy watching different charcters with different personalities and ethics that they play the game by.
I find nothing realy more exciting or intriuging in cricket than Andre Nel bowling to Graham Thorpe. Nel beats his inside edge,runs down the wicket and stares manically at him,Thorpe looks at him in dis-dain and goes on to score a 100. It makes acheivements sweeter.