Sangakkara and Gilchrist: some thoughts on sportsmanship
vdeol...@hotmail.com
I am an admirer of both Adam Gilchrist and Kumar Sangakarra. Both are
incredible keeper-batsmen who would walk into any side as pure
batsmen. Gilchrist is a phenomenon and we are privileged to watch him
perform. Later generations of cricket fans will only read, with awe,
about him. Sangakkara is still growing as a player and has given proof
of his class with his performances against South Africa and New
Zealand in the past 2 seasons.
Yesterday, there was an incident that raised my respect for Sangakkara
even further. After getting to a very difficult leg side deflection of
Gilchrist just after the latter had got his 100, the ball dislodged
from his left glove, and he then held it with his right hand as it
came into the camera's view. Malinga thought the catch had been taken,
and celebrated for a couple of seconds. But immediately Sangakkara
signalled that the catch had been grassed. He did this immediately,
with no hesitation or delay, and while still sprawled on the ground as
a result of his dive. This, at a time when Gilchrist was on rampage.
Adam Gilchrist, of course, is known for his sportsmanship, and is
widely respected for the same. Fans will recall his sportsmanship in
the semi final of the 2003 WC - against the same opponents Sri Lanka,
when he walked inspite of being given not out by the umpire.
Yesterday Sangakkara proved to be in the same league. It is these
sportsmen who win universal admiration and are the role models for the
young children all over the world who are learning how to play this
game.
Kumar Sangakkara and Adam Gilchrist - cricket fans are proud of
players like you. To me, how you play the game is as important (if not
more) than who wins in the end. I stood up with pride as an Indian and
applauded a young Indian batsman who walked without any hesitation
caught by the keeper at 95 on his test debut at Lord's a decade back.
Had he got his hundred, it would have been only the first time in
history two debutants had made centuries in the same test. There was
no hesitation, although the edge was sufficiently thin that there was
a chance the umpire might have missed it. That is how people should
play this great game.
amm...@yahoo.com
Agreed. They're both fantastic players and even better sports.
Watching the SL-WI game, it piqued my suspicion when
Sangakkara wafted at a nothing delivery outside off, tucked his bat
under his arm and walked off even before the bowler appealed,
while the umpire stood there shaking his head.
However, yesterday's incident and his innings later in the day
shed more light on the character of the man.
May his tribe grow.
- SLS
Rod
>Adam Gilchrist, of course, is known for his sportsmanship, and is
>widely respected for the same. Fans will recall his sportsmanship in
>the semi final of the 2003 WC - against the same opponents Sri Lanka,
>when he walked inspite of being given not out by the umpire.
>
>Yesterday Sangakkara proved to be in the same league. It is these
>sportsmen who win universal admiration and are the role models for the
>young children all over the world who are learning how to play this
>game.
I have to disagree completely.
To wave off a catch you know you haven't taken isn't even in the same
planet as walking, knowing you got a tickle on the ball and have
just been given not out by the umpire.
Full credit to Sangs for not wanting it referred to the third ump and
waste time but hardly revolutionary sportsmanship.
Cheers,
Rod.
Mike Holmans
and brought forth:
I presume you extend the same admiration to Sangakkara the Sledger. He
is well-known as one of the more aggressively-mouthed keepers around.
It doesn't bother me all that much that he's a sledger; I'm much more
impressed by the sort of thing that you're praising, or by applause or
acknowledgement of great batting by an opponent. Others, though, seem
to take much greater umbrage about it.
Cheers,
Mike
--
David W
news:1177885389.6...@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
I'm not a believer in "walking", for which Gilchrist's sportsmanship is best
known, but he is certainly as fair a sportsman as you'll ever come across.
As you say, Sangakkara is to be admired for not hesitating to rule out that
catch. He might have got away with it had he claimed it too.
Uday Rajan
> Full credit to Sangs for not wanting it referred to the third ump and
> waste time but hardly revolutionary sportsmanship.
Which is a little along the lines of my own reaction. If Sangakkara
had persisted with the appeal, it would have been referred to the
third umpire, and would have been ruled not out. This was an instance
in which everyone watching on TV would have seen the ball come of his
left glove as he rolled over, and we'd all have wondered why he
appealed, since it would have been obvious to him as well that the
ball had touched the ground. It was a case of not displaying bad
sportsmanship, rather than necessarily displaying good sportsmanship.
I'm not implying that Sangakkara is a less-than-worthy sportsman;
perhaps he is indeed a wonderful gentleman on the field, but this
incident on its own is not sufficient evidence for that.
adder...@hotmail.com
> <vdeolali...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Gilchrist walking off when he wants to not at all spotsmanship, it is
showmanship. He claims and intimidate umpires for cheeky and insincere
ats behind the stumps.
adder...@hotmail.com
Funniest thing I ever here in this forum is that accusation SL players
are sledgers. If Sanga's constant jabbering in his own native language
is decsribed as sledging, you must be nuts.
ants...@xtra.co.nz
> To wave off a catch you know you haven't taken isn't even in the same
> planet as walking, knowing you got a tickle on the ball and have
> just been given not out by the umpire.
>
> Full credit to Sangs for not wanting it referred to the third ump and
> waste time but hardly revolutionary sportsmanship.
>
> Cheers,
> Rod.
Rod, I call bullshit on that one - his teammate Murali claimed he
caught Oram in the semi-final and as a result Oram had to walk.
Replays showed Murali's hand on top of the ball, with his other hand
to the side, and the ball clearly touching the ground. Moments like
that win and lose games.
If the lankans had been chasing 30 less runs because of sanga claiming
that catch, then it would've changed the final completely.
What sanga's catch did highlight is what a dirty player Murali is to
claim the catch against Oram. Sanga's action was a great one, by a
player who will be one of the greats.
dechucka
<adder...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177896005.1...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
just like Sangakkara?
>
Skootti
> It doesn't bother me all that much that he's a sledger; I'm much more
He falls several notches in my esteem then. Cricket is rapidly
slouching towards the low brow of thugery of soccer and basketball.
> impressed by the sort of thing that you're praising, or by applause or
> Others, though, seem
> to take much greater umbrage about it.
I am one of those "others". If a player's caught sledging -
unambiguously and beyond doubt - I favor something like a year's ban
from international and first class cricket. Sledging is not
involuntary, unconscious swearing (such as "damn it" or "bloody
hell"). The stuff that Aussies dish out routinely is on par with the
filth that American baseball roughnecks pour out on court.
What next - Sangakara head-butting Gilchrist?
I wonder if this has anything to do with the economic class of folks
that play the game. Up until the 70's most cricket players were
educated upper middle class (yes, there were several exceptions). More
to the point the tone, manners and mode of comportment were set by the
"educated" folks in the side. (Some politically correct moron will
rush in tell me that Eknath Solkar, Vishy, Alan Davidson etc. from
working class backgrounds were exemplars of good behavior and that
gentlemanliness has nothing to do with education or class - I will not
dignify such idiocy with a response, will merely anticipate it and
move on). For India the degeneration started with Bishen Bedi. And
Gavaskar - a nasty, cunning dwarf committed to his well being alone -
set it hurtling down towards new lows (his behavior in Melbourne gives
a new meaning to "walking"). Kapil was a generally decent bloke but
was pretty coarse with his language swearing in Haryanvi-Hindi mix.
But the poison by then had set in. Azza sledged his own team mates
usually in press conferences ("it was Laxman's catch," "Shastri batted
too slowly," "Prasad bowls too many loose balls" and the priceless
"the whole team is against Kambli" this was in Sharjah after he had a
scrap with Kambli). Tendulkar of course, is a shining exception ( soon
to be "was a shining exception").
As for Australia - it was the transition from Ian Chappel to Greg
Chappell that saw a sharp decay in the quality of behavior. Their foul
mouths opened up sometime around Clive Lloyd's tour of Australia when
they won 5 - 1 (Thommo and Lillee got going against Kallicharan,
Fredricks and co,). For the Windies, Viv Richards got the sledge
hammer swinging.
For Pakis - sy no more than Javed Miandad. Exceptions such as Wasim
Raja notwithstanding, they wallow in slush pond. Bit of a pity because
the early 80's Pakis were perhaps the only side with the depth and
firepower to be able to take on Lloyd's team anf give them a close
game.
For a long time England used to be an exception. Even as late as Gower
they were a gentlemanly lot. Don't know what they are like now -
exceptions like John Snow notwithstanding, I suspect that they are
best behaved side still. Their Cricket team probably makes up for brit
football hooliganism. And that's saying quite a lot I suppose. My
grad pop still goes on and on about the "Captain of the English
Cricket Team" being more than a Cricket player - whatever that may
mean (these days he's not even much of a cricket player and is mostly
on the injured list). I expect to see Helen Mirren to play Vaughn
soon.
-SB
What are the Kiwis like? And Windies these days? Poor guys an ill wind
blowth their way these days (probably the one team that's worse than
India).
Declan Murphy
Call me nuts then. Sangakkara is just as capable of sledging in
English as he is in Sinhalese.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlFF98dM8sA
I don't have any problem with a keeper trying to distract a batsman
from concentrating, and a bit of banter has always been part of the
game in my opinion.
Regards Declan,
Okazaki, Japan
eusebius
What a bizarre post. Do I understand you correctly, that there is some
socioeconomic connection to sledgers? Poor people are less well
educated, therefore sledge more? What a genius conclusion. Do you keep
your mensa entry certificate on the mantle? A player who sledges
(once, presumably) is to be banned for a year? Are the mushrooms
strong in your locale? I hope my language isn't too 'sledgy' for your
delicate sensibilities. I note that these do not stop you from
labelling others 'politically correct morons' and calling Gavaskar a
'nasty, cunning dwarf'. But nooo, sledging is baaaaad.
Not that the examples you provide make any sense either. Sledging
becoming worse AFTER Ian Chappell?
Keep taking whatever psychotropic drugs you are enjoying, at least
this can continue to give you a welcome freedom from reality.
Skootti
Sure enough. It took only a shade under 7 hours for a snarl of protest
to be heard. Up workers, up poor. To the barricades, to the
barricades comrade.
> What a bizarre post. Do I understand you correctly,
You'd have a problem understanding nursery rhymes correctly.
> that there is some socioeconomic connection to sledgers?
> Do you keep your mensa entry certificate on the mantle?
Try this: take a deep breath, exhale, now bend down and touch your
toes and hold it for a couple of seconds - until the chip on the
shoulder falls off.
>I note that these do not stop you from
> labelling others 'politically correct morons' and calling Gavaskar a
> 'nasty, cunning dwarf'. But nooo, sledging is baaaaad.
If Ponting, Boucher, Sangakara et al. were to sledge *only* on RSC,
I'd be delighted.
-SB
Salil
> I wonder if this has anything to do with the economic class of folks
> that play the game. Up until the 70's most cricket players were
> educated upper middle class (yes, there were several exceptions). More
> to the point the tone, manners and mode of comportment were set by the
> "educated" folks in the side. (Some politically correct moron will
> rush in tell me that Eknath Solkar, Vishy, Alan Davidson etc. from
> working class backgrounds were exemplars of good behavior and that
> gentlemanliness has nothing to do with education or class - I will not
> dignify such idiocy with a response, will merely anticipate it and
> move on).
I'd have to say that much of that is a fallacy. Sledging didn't start
after the 70s, and wasn't a class issue.
In 1957, there were some extremely unsavoury incidents detailed in
Simon Rae's "It's Not Cricket" when Surrey played a touring West
Indian team, who while doing well in the game were the recipients of a
fair few verbals. Quoting Rae/Worrell: 'For the first time in my life
I went through an innings without talking to any of the fielding side
and things got so bad that I did not even exchange any conversation
with Clyde Walcott... We wwere abused when the players were changing
ends at the finish of each over, and while few of the remarks were
addressed directly to either Walcott or me, the Surrey players made
certain we heard them and that we knew whom they were talking about.
The incessant talking even went on among the close-in fielders while
the bowler was running in to bowl. ... Worrell describes the remarks
as 'colourful and much more violent than anything that we had ever
heard before during a game.'
And for that matter, the Grace brothers - most certainly not at the
bottom of the social ladder, and not without some education
(particularly for that time) - were known for similar behaviour for
much of their careers as well, WG and EM being particularly culpable.
It's been around in cricket for much longer than you seem to think,
and despite your objections, it'll remain.
> For a long time England used to be an exception. Even as late as Gower
> they were a gentlemanly lot. Don't know what they are like now -
> exceptions like John Snow notwithstanding, I suspect that they are
> best behaved side still.
Indeed, gentlemanly like the Surrey team Worrell wrote of (a number of
whom played international cricket for England)? Constantly hurling
invective (rude, violent and quite likely racist, given some of the
descriptions) at the opposition, and that too with a chucker in Lock?
> What are the Kiwis like? And Windies these days? Poor guys an ill wind
> blowth their way these days (probably the one team that's worse than
> India).
Kiwis are certainly quite colourful. Stephen Fleming's been known to
dish out a bit here and there (notably at Eden Park to Graeme Smith a
few years ago), Craig McMillan's always a big talker and Brendon
McCullum can compete with Paul Nixon or Sangakkara at the best of
times.
The Windies don't seem to get into the entire sledging issue as much
as most other teams do - although it's probably harder to run your
mouth when you're losing most games you play.
Salil
Bob Dubery
> On Apr 29, 4:28 pm, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > It doesn't bother me all that much that he's a sledger; I'm much more
>
> He falls several notches in my esteem then. Cricket is rapidly
> slouching towards the low brow of thugery of soccer and basketball.
I don't know about "rapidly". Viv Richards remarked in 1976 that it
was difficult enough facing Lillee and Thompson in regular
circumstances, but a little harder still when the slips were telling
you to "fuck off you black bastard."
Going a bit further back - and there's plenty in between - we have the
various shenanigans caused by the Grace brothers. And there were
occasions when having a word with EM or WG would prompt a visit from
Fred - who was the pugilist amongst the Grace brothers.
Cyril Mitchley played league cricket in Johannesburg in the 60s and
was famous for being a particularly mouthy keeper. His nickname
"squire" is derived from the Southern Suburbs slips who used to take
their queue from their vociferous captain and 'keeper and were thus
known as "Cyril's choir".
Sledging is not new - it's just in the spotlight a lot more these
days. There weren't any stump mikes until recently.
> I wonder if this has anything to do with the economic class of folks
> that play the game. Up until the 70's most cricket players were
> educated upper middle class (yes, there were several exceptions).
I don't think so. There have been instances of toffs with university
educations being shits and men from humble backgrounds being fair and
civil.
Firstly sledging is more discernable these days with stump mikes, and
more cameras per match and with greater power.
Secondly it might be argued that the key difference is not necessarily
one of background, but that international players today spend so much
more time playing cricket or travelling between tournaments and less
time having a "life". What do they know of cricket that only cricket
know?
Andrew Dunford
"Salil" <salilb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177922717.6...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
NZ players were mostly fairly quiet until the 1980/81 tour of Australia,
during which some of the younger players learned rather a lot from the
locals. The single biggest contributing factor was probably John Bracewell,
who was said to be a loud-mouthed so-and-so for a kid who'd only just
arrived in Test cricket. Being the baby of the team he fielded in close,
taking some fantastic catches, and apparently he just couldn't keep his
mouth shut.
<snip>
Andrew
Mike Holmans
keyboard and brought forth:
>I wonder if this has anything to do with the economic class of folks
>that play the game. Up until the 70's most cricket players were
>educated upper middle class (yes, there were several exceptions).
Oh yeah? Does that mean that all those working-class professionals who
formed the majority of most county sides before 1963 were a figment of
everyone's imagination?
The rest of your post exhibits a similarly fantastical notion of what
the past was like. If you were to ban all the players who sledge, you
would be left with a few school teams supervised by particularly
strict teachers.
What has caused the decline in the standard of manners on the cricket
field is not an invasion of oiks but a decline in the standard of
manners in society at large: cricket merely reflects the fact that
people today are ruder than they used to be, all over the world.
Cheers,
Mike
--
Rod
>What sanga's catch did highlight is what a dirty player Murali is to
>claim the catch against Oram. Sanga's action was a great one, by a
>player who will be one of the greats.
...and had he claimed the catch, it would have highlighted
Sangs as being a dirty player.
Sportsmanship to me is to put the game ahead of the individual
and often at a disadvantage to the individual being the 'sportsman'.
Gilchrist didn't need to walk and the cricketing world wouldn't have
batted an eye-lid when an umpire gave him not out and he didn't walk.
Had Sangs claimed the catch and Gilchrist took his word for it and
walked, could you imagine the headlines if SL went on to win the cup?
Sangs would have been crucified, and likely have to front the beak
and penalised.
It was an excellent move by him to wave off the catch quickly and any
close calls in the future by Sangs would carry a lot more weight with
me, but again, not even in the same realms of reality compared to
Gilchrist's walk.
Cheers,
Rod.
Rod
>Funniest thing I ever here in this forum is that accusation SL players
>are sledgers. If Sanga's constant jabbering in his own native language
>is decsribed as sledging, you must be nuts.
You're easily amused then, many examples of Sangs sledging but
I'm one of those that accepts sledging as part of the game and
have no problem with it.
Cheers,
Rod.
Skootti
> What has caused the decline in the standard of manners on the cricket
> field is not an invasion of oiks but a decline in the standard of
> manners in society at large: cricket merely reflects the fact that
> people today are ruder than they used to be, all over the world.
You make an interesting point there. So let me ask - is there any
writing on what "Cricketing manners, mores and behavior" were like in
the 50s and 60s? Is there some standing classic on the topic (much
like the 'company man' that described American corporate life in the
60s). I have browsed through Edrich and Barrington's books without
encountering Oiks or toffs. On the other hand, even in spite of the
ghost writing John Snow - of cricket rebel fame - came across as well,
a bit thuggish.
There was a Pom / Aussie dude called E W Swinburn (or something like
that) that Gavaskar particularly disliked. Supposed to be a decent
writer. Perhaps that's why Gavaskar disliked him.
I have heard Tony Lewis, Brearly, Gower and Trevor Bailey. They
sounded quite polite and 'clean'. One gentleman of course does not
make an English team. Did Tony Grieg get nailed for saying something
nasty to the umpire during the Lever and Vaseline incident? I was like
4 or 5 years old then and don't really recall who said what. But then
Grieg is not quuite English right? He did a Kevin Peiterson?
-SB
Vishwanath in an interview to the Indian Express or TOI - about 6 or 7
years ago - called the English team "his favorite team" and said he'd
never heard them use bad language. The interview was about the
centenary test when he recalled the Wicket Keeper and handed the match
to Botham who got a 100 and a couple of 5 fers.
vigne...@hotmail.com
But, he did not have enough time to think all those. The value of the
man just showed up there.
Vicky:
Mike Holmans
keyboard and brought forth:
>On Apr 30, 2:59 am, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> What has caused the decline in the standard of manners on the cricket
>> field is not an invasion of oiks but a decline in the standard of
>> manners in society at large: cricket merely reflects the fact that
>> people today are ruder than they used to be, all over the world.
>
>You make an interesting point there. So let me ask - is there any
>writing on what "Cricketing manners, mores and behavior" were like in
>the 50s and 60s? Is there some standing classic on the topic (much
>like the 'company man' that described American corporate life in the
>60s). I have browsed through Edrich and Barrington's books without
>encountering Oiks or toffs. On the other hand, even in spite of the
>ghost writing John Snow - of cricket rebel fame - came across as well,
>a bit thuggish.
No, there isn't.
You will find players of former eras saying that what goes on out in
the middle these days is far worse than what went on in their day, but
at least in England it's demonstrable that that is not confined to
cricket.
"Fuck" usually goes out unbleeped on prime time TV and newspapers
print it en clair (at least those catering to the educated middle
class: the papers catering to the more prudish working-class still do
the coy F*** thing). Forty years ago, it was a major scandal with
questions in parliament and BBC switchboards jammed with people
phoning to complain when Ken Tynan once said "fuck" on a late-night TV
arts review show.
It's as well to remember that when perusing reminiscences published in
or about eras long past. Not only were the reminiscences themselves
ruthlessly purged of obscenity because publishers wouldn't publish
them otherwise, but what was considered rough and offensive language
in 1957 or 1927 would sound extremely mild today: you need to apply
the standards prevalent in 1957 or 1927 before passing it off as
anodyne. "Damn you to Hell" may now sound a rather twee bit of
melodrama from an Edwardian novel, but it was a potent insult in
decades long gone.
>There was a Pom / Aussie dude called E W Swinburn (or something like
>that) that Gavaskar particularly disliked. Supposed to be a decent
>writer. Perhaps that's why Gavaskar disliked him.
You mean EW "Gloria" Swanton. Very much an Establishment man.
>I have heard Tony Lewis, Brearly, Gower and Trevor Bailey. They
>sounded quite polite and 'clean'. One gentleman of course does not
>make an English team.
You have also not heard them out in the middle playing cricket, but
commentating or being interviewed off the field. If you listen to a
Glenn McGrath interview, he will also come across as polite and clean,
as he is by all accounts a perfect gentleman when he isn't out in the
middle. I doubt that the stuff he shouts at batsmen who hit him for
boundaries is quite so refined.
Cheers,
Mike
--
linus
Infact during the S8 game against WI, Sangs walked off without waiting
for the umpire's verdict after being caught by the keeper or the slip.
It was a very faint nick, he could have waited to see what the ump.
was going to say.
In the last NZ tour he had a chance to run out someone who had
wandered off the crease before the ball was dead but elected to warn
the guy first. His voice comes through the stump mike often on
telecasts and I have never heard anything close to a bad word (in
Singhalese).
So I do think we have ample eveidance: He is a class act.
Rod
>Infact during the S8 game against WI, Sangs walked off without waiting
>for the umpire's verdict after being caught by the keeper or the slip.
>It was a very faint nick, he could have waited to see what the ump.
>was going to say.
>In the last NZ tour he had a chance to run out someone who had
>wandered off the crease before the ball was dead but elected to warn
>the guy first. His voice comes through the stump mike often on
>telecasts and I have never heard anything close to a bad word (in
>Singhalese).
>So I do think we have ample eveidance: He is a class act.
I never said he wasn't. The example chosen to highlight it
wasn't a good one and not comparable to walking after being
given not out (which the OP did).
Cheers,
Rod.
Ian Galbraith
> On Apr 29, 4:28 pm, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> It doesn't bother me all that much that he's a sledger; I'm much more
>
> He falls several notches in my esteem then. Cricket is rapidly
> slouching towards the low brow of thugery of soccer and basketball.
Hilarious, I guess you've never read about WG Grace and how he conducted
himself.
--
"The problem with both libertarians and communists is that they both fail
to appreciate the sweet spot between anarchic liberty and absolute
central control." - Justin Alexander
cricd...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Are you saying that Sangakkara isn't a swift thinker?
You Australians are always trying to put down Sri Lankans.
kenh...@hotmail.com
That's hardly fair.
Sangakarra made a sporting gesture
Since then, several people have attempted to portray him as less than
sporting.
Evidence seems to show that is incorrect.
The OP used the most recent example, I don't see what the problem was.
Higgs
amm...@yahoo.com
> On 29 Apr 2007 16:15:29 -0700, amm...@yahoo.com tapped the keyboard
> and brought forth:
>
>
>
> >On Apr 29, 3:23 pm, vdeolali...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> Kumar Sangakkara and Adam Gilchrist - cricket fans are proud of
> >> players like you. To me, how you play the game is as important (if not
> >> more) than who wins in the end. I stood up with pride as an Indian and
> >> applauded a young Indian batsman who walked without any hesitation
> >> caught by the keeper at 95 on his test debut at Lord's a decade back.
> >> Had he got his hundred, it would have been only the first time in
> >> history two debutants had made centuries in the same test. There was
> >> no hesitation, although the edge was sufficiently thin that there was
> >> a chance the umpire might have missed it. That is how people should
> >> play this great game.
>
> >Agreed. They're both fantastic players and even better sports.
> >Watching the SL-WI game, it piqued my suspicion when
> >Sangakkara wafted at a nothing delivery outside off, tucked his bat
> >under his arm and walked off even before the bowler appealed,
> >while the umpire stood there shaking his head.
> >However, yesterday's incident and his innings later in the day
> >shed more light on the character of the man.
> >May his tribe grow.
>
> I presume you extend the same admiration to Sangakkara the Sledger. He
> is well-known as one of the more aggressively-mouthed keepers around.
It's unclear why someone would presume thus...
>
> It doesn't bother me all that much that he's a sledger; I'm much more
> impressed by the sort of thing that you're praising, or by applause or
> acknowledgement of great batting by an opponent. Others, though, seem
> to take much greater umbrage about it.
I certainly don't regard that among his more endearing qualities,
but you'll have to do better if you're to convince me that he's more
than a standard deviation nastier than the median sledger in the
game today.
- SLS
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
> --
Skootti
>
> Hilarious, I guess you've never read about WG Grace and how he conducted
> himself.
A formative years of the game factor. When tennis originated in France
(when they used to hit the ball on roofs and walls and volley the
ricochets), I believe the winners often spat on the losers.
Furthermore, when you lost a sequence of five matches the chamber pots
were often emptied (by madams watching from the upper floors' windows)
on the losing team. Game, set and pot of shit. Even after making
allowance for French (c)rudeness it is clearly an early years
phenomenon.
Over a period of time as the game moves from chamber pot throwing
madams to more mature audiences, a code of conduct emerges. From the
30's to the later 70's boorish behavior was frowned upon by all.
McEnroe became public enemy number one at Wimbledon and Roland Garros
for doing far less than what modern cricketers do. Illie Nastase,
Connors et al. were never popular in Paris and only barely tolerated
in Wimbledon. Clearly the game had become a lot more polite since its
shit throwing origins in Paris. Try this - if somebody were to say to
Marcello Rios or to Blake "go back black bastard" or were to dish out
something along those lines to the Williams sisters do you think it
would be acceptable? Even in Australia they will probably find this
offensive. Yet, this is what Viv Richards was reportedly told by the
Aussie slip cordon - read one of the earlier posts.
I tend to think that test cricketers in the 50s, 60s and early 70s
were a lot more polite. Yes, there were no hyper sensitive mikes near
the stumps picking up everything, but surely there would have been
reports of this kind of behavior. Can you imagine Hutton's / Hobbs's
sides or Bradman / Simpson's sides or Sobers's / Worrel's Windies or
Pataudi/Wadekar's India dishing out this kind of talk? Even at the
height of the bodyline controversy there were no reports of Larwood,
Voce and Jardine abusing Bradman and company. Perhaps these folks were
rude - but do we have any evidence of this? I think the tone of what
was acceptable was set by the "educated / refined" few in the side.
The plebs walked within the guide rails. Or so I think. Hey I could be
very wrong and workers of the world did unite and they had nothing to
lose but their manners and they lost them real fast.
So perhaps I am wrong and this is the way it has always been. Somehow
I don't think so. There are certainly no reports of sledging if you
read the books written by cricketers in the 40s through 70s (SMG,
Edrich, Barrington, Bradman, Davidson, Trevor Bailey, EAS Prasanna,
Mak Pataudi, Sobers, Worrel, Ray Robinson etc.).
-SB
Sometime ago I watched a match in one of the DPS grounds in which a
cousin of mine played. I was appalled at the language that 11th and
12th grade kids were using - what we in India call 'maa bahen ki
gaali' - for the air was thick with dirty words being served and
returned. The asst. PT master of the visiting school stood upon a
bench and made pelvic thrusts towards the other side. He must have
been French.
Salil
> Pataudi/Wadekar's India dishing out this kind of talk? Even at the
> height of the bodyline controversy there were no reports of Larwood,
> Voce and Jardine abusing Bradman and company.
Actually, Jardine had such a dislike for Bradman that on the 1932-33
tour, he wouldn't refer to him by name, but with his team would
constantly refer to him as "the little bastard".
And wasn't it Woodfull who threw out that famous "Which one of you
bastards called this bastard a bastard?" line to DRJ?
> So perhaps I am wrong and this is the way it has always been. Somehow
> I don't think so. There are certainly no reports of sledging if you
> read the books written by cricketers in the 40s through 70s (SMG,
> Edrich, Barrington, Bradman, Davidson, Trevor Bailey, EAS Prasanna,
> Mak Pataudi, Sobers, Worrel, Ray Robinson etc.).
See my earlier comment on Worrell's take on the Surrey game in 57. Nice,
civilised folk, as I said.
Salil
Rod
>That's hardly fair.
>Sangakarra made a sporting gesture
I don't really consider it a sporting gesture though. How is it
sporting to do the right thing when the wrong thing would have gotten
you chastised and likely penalised?
>Since then, several people have attempted to portray him as less than
>sporting.
>Evidence seems to show that is incorrect.
All I've seen is evidence that he sledges. He does, so does Gilchrist
and I don't see a problem with it.
>The OP used the most recent example, I don't see what the problem was.
That not claiming a catch you haven't taken puts you in the same
sportsmanship league as walking after being given not out after edging
the ball. IMO, it doesn't.
Gilchrist has adopted a walk immediately on an edge, regardless of the
umpire's decision. That's about as sporting as it gets in cricket but
it's not something I particularly agree he should do.
Cheers,
Rod.
kenh...@hotmail.com
> On 30 Apr 2007 20:54:08 -0700, kenhig...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >That's hardly fair.
> >Sangakarra made a sporting gesture
>
> I don't really consider it a sporting gesture though. How is it
> sporting to do the right thing when the wrong thing would have gotten
> you chastised and likely penalised?
>
Perhaps it's a sign of the times, but we see plenty of players
claiming catches like that, or at least waiting for the umpire to
decide.
I don't see any problem in applauding someone who does the right
thing.
Since the incident has been mentioned, everyone seems to want to
portray him in a negative light
> >Since then, several people have attempted to portray him as less than
> >sporting.
> >Evidence seems to show that is incorrect.
>
> All I've seen is evidence that he sledges. He does, so does Gilchrist
> and I don't see a problem with it.
>
And I don't see your problem.
You say you've got no problem with sledging, but you think Sangga
isn't sporting because he sledges.
> >The OP used the most recent example, I don't see what the problem was.
>
> That not claiming a catch you haven't taken puts you in the same
> sportsmanship league as walking after being given not out after edging
> the ball. IMO, it doesn't.
>
Apparently Sangga also does this, it's just that he didn't on this
occasion because he was keeping wicket.
> Gilchrist has adopted a walk immediately on an edge, regardless of the
> umpire's decision. That's about as sporting as it gets in cricket but
> it's not something I particularly agree he should do.
>
Well, I really fail to see your problem.
Sangga did the sporting thing, but all you want to do is tell us it
wasn't actually that sporting and then tell us how sporting Gilly is.
Perhaps we could have dispensed with any mention of Sangga and just
concentrated on how sporting Gilly is
Higgs
Bob Dubery
> On 30 Apr 2007 20:54:08 -0700, kenhig...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >That's hardly fair.
> >Sangakarra made a sporting gesture
>
> I don't really consider it a sporting gesture though. How is it
> sporting to do the right thing when the wrong thing would have gotten
> you chastised and likely penalised?
Would it have? He could have just acted dumb and left it to the
umpires and taken his chances. He ruled all that out and immediately
disclaimed the catch - and it would have been a pretty significant
dismissal for his team in a World Cup final.
We all know that doing the right thing is not in common in sports or
in any walk of life as it used to be. These days were much more
concerned with the score than with the way in which the game is
played.
I think he's to be not necessarily sanctified but certainly applauded.
> Gilchrist has adopted a walk immediately on an edge, regardless of the
> umpire's decision. That's about as sporting as it gets in cricket but
> it's not something I particularly agree he should do.
Oh? I hope you're not saying that when you know you've hit it and you
know it's been caught then it's OK to not do the right thing if the
chances are that you won't get chastised and/or penalised?
I think the evaluation of what is and isn't sporting might take into
account what is at stake for team or player. Brearley once observed
that most batsmen are more likely to walk on, say, 27 then they are on
0 or on 99.
Rod
>Would it have? He could have just acted dumb and left it to the
>umpires and taken his chances. He ruled all that out and immediately
>disclaimed the catch - and it would have been a pretty significant
>dismissal for his team in a World Cup final.
>I think he's to be not necessarily sanctified but certainly applauded.
Which was my original point. Thanks!
>> Gilchrist has adopted a walk immediately on an edge, regardless of the
>> umpire's decision. That's about as sporting as it gets in cricket but
>> it's not something I particularly agree he should do.
>Oh? I hope you're not saying that when you know you've hit it and you
>know it's been caught then it's OK to not do the right thing if the
>chances are that you won't get chastised and/or penalised?
How many examples in the history of cricket do we have a batsmen
walking after being given not out?
It would appear that the culture of cricket allows the batsmen to
not walk on caught behind or bat pad decisions in their favor and are
often explained with the excuse that they all even out in the end.
History also shows what happens when a keeper claims a catch that
he's clearly dropped.
Bowden ruled a caught behind appeal against Gilchrist when he didn't
walk, and that's my objection to walking. It places the umpire in a
difficult position when the opposing team appeals and the habitual
walker stands his ground. Bowden gave him out. Replays showed there
was no contact with the bat.
Cheers,
Rod.
Rod
>Perhaps it's a sign of the times, but we see plenty of players
>claiming catches like that, or at least waiting for the umpire to
>decide.
>
>I don't see any problem in applauding someone who does the right
>thing.
>
>Since the incident has been mentioned, everyone seems to want to
>portray him in a negative light
>And I don't see your problem.
>You say you've got no problem with sledging, but you think Sangga
>isn't sporting because he sledges.
I do? News to me. Care to point out where I even gave the slightest
hint of suggesting that he isn't sporting? Let alone the fact that
he isn't sporting because he indulges in sledging.
My original reply to the OP.
>>Adam Gilchrist, of course, is known for his sportsmanship, and is
>>widely respected for the same. Fans will recall his sportsmanship in
>>the semi final of the 2003 WC - against the same opponents Sri Lanka,
>>when he walked inspite of being given not out by the umpire.
>
>>Yesterday Sangakkara proved to be in the same league. It is these
>>sportsmen who win universal admiration and are the role models for the
>>young children all over the world who are learning how to play this
>>game.
>I have to disagree completely.
>To wave off a catch you know you haven't taken isn't even in the same
>planet as walking, knowing you got a tickle on the ball and have
>just been given not out by the umpire.
>Full credit to Sangs for not wanting it referred to the third ump and
>waste time but hardly revolutionary sportsmanship.
>Cheers,
>Rod.
Cheers,
Rod.
Mike Holmans
<salilb...@gmailminusthisbit.com> tapped the keyboard and brought
forth:
>Skootti wrote:
Skootti seems to think that books produced when players observed the
dictum that what goes on on the field stays on the field and did not
tell tales out of school, when the powers that be were extremely keen
to promote the idea that everything about sport was pure, noble, and
morally uplifting and would effectively ostracise anyone who revealed
anything seamy, and in a period when books were subject to
considerable censorship and would have been banned or prosecuted for
obscenity if they had contained swear-words - especially books about
sport which were assumed to be read avidly by small boys - are going
to give a detailed and accurate picture of what cricketers said to
each other on the field.
Skootti probably also believes that the works of PG Wodehouse are
gritty social realism, and that young men with an excess of
testosterone and adrenalin playing competitive sport quite naturally
observe the etiquette appropriate to teatime at the vicarage.
Cheers,
Mike
--
Skootti
> On Tue, 01 May 2007 13:36:19 +0800, Salil
> forth:
Snipped text.
You guys make a strong case for the "we were always barbarians
theory." I suppose I must concede. Albeit reluctantly. I was kind of
hoping that we weren't always like this. Oh well.
> Skootti probably also believes that the works of PG Wodehouse are
> gritty social realism,
Bertie Wooster and Co.? PGW's contrived characters that sounded like
they walked out of a bad burlesque show. Gimme a break will ya? (and
wasn't PGW a traitor or something during the WWII? I remember reading
in the TOI that he was a Nazi POW and was happily telling the brits
on the radio that Nazis were decent dudes and would treat them well if
the brits surrendered). No, I get my look into brit society through
Alan Hollinghurst. I am not sure that he is realistic. Nothing as
beautiful as his language could ever be gritty. Writing that sounds
like music (who cares if the Poms can't play very good cricket, or if
they are sledgers - as long as they produce a Hollinghurst and a
McEwan every 10 years they serve their purpose well).
-SB
Mad Hamish
>Skootti wrote:
>> Pataudi/Wadekar's India dishing out this kind of talk? Even at the
>> height of the bodyline controversy there were no reports of Larwood,
>> Voce and Jardine abusing Bradman and company.
>
>Actually, Jardine had such a dislike for Bradman that on the 1932-33
>tour, he wouldn't refer to him by name, but with his team would
>constantly refer to him as "the little bastard".
>And wasn't it Woodfull who threw out that famous "Which one of you
>bastards called this bastard a bastard?" line to DRJ?
>
More likely to be Vic Richardson.
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
newsunsp...@iinet.unspamme.net.au
Mike Holmans
keyboard and brought forth:
>On May 1, 1:51 am, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 May 2007 13:36:19 +0800, Salil
>> <salilbene...@gmailminusthisbit.com> tapped the keyboard and brought
>> forth:
>
>Snipped text.
>
>You guys make a strong case for the "we were always barbarians
>theory." I suppose I must concede. Albeit reluctantly. I was kind of
>hoping that we weren't always like this. Oh well.
If your only contention was that things were considerably worse today
than they used to be, I doubt we'd have been arguing.
But it is a bit unrealistic to believe that a lot of
highly-competitive young men playing a competitive sport on which
their livelihoods depend are not going to give vent to some pretty
highly-charged stuff. There are plenty of stories of witty though
barbed remarks; it is hard to believe that games were played in
otherwise total silence, so presumably a lot else was said which has
not been reported in detail.
In citing the reminiscences of players of the 1950s as evidence that
nothing like that ever went on, you are missing out on the fact that
these were people who would swear like troopers in the dressing room,
the public bar, the sergeants' mess and other places where they were
in the exclusive company of other adult males but would moderate their
language when there were ladies present. Outside the stag environment,
they would no more mention that someone had said "Shit" than that they
had performed the appropriate bodily function.
Fast bowling has always been with us. In the 1970s and 1980s, WI in
particular stepped up the pace, the amount and the intensity of it,
with a lasting effect on team tactics throughout the world. At the
same time, Ian Chappell's Australians did roughly the same with
sledging, with apparently similarly lasting effects.
Cheers,
Mike
--
Bob Dubery
> Hilarious, I guess you've never read about WG Grace and how he conducted
> himself.
Skootti has certainly never bothered to read Simon Rae's "It's Not
Cricket" or Sir Frank Worrell's "Cricket Punch" or he'd know about the
abuse dished out to Worrell's West Indies team in England in 1957.
If he read Rae's book he'd also be startled to hear or the Grace
brothers dishing out non-stop verbals when fielding close in. No Fs
and Bs of course, but as Mike has written elsewhere "damn" and "go to
hell" were considered pretty strong language once upon a time. There
was time when calling a bloke a "bounder" would get you an invitation
to a duel.
He'd know about Grace's unsporting luring of Sammy Jones out of his
ground followed by throwing down the stumps. This led to Spofforth
barging into the England dressing room to give Grace several minutes
of "the best Australian vernacular" and then bowling Australia to a
famous victory.|
Not nice. But not new either. It's a bit like the attention paid to
the Royal Family these days. Drunk and/or philandering princes are
nothing new, but one didn't talk about it in days gone by, and
certainly the media were less likely to report on it. Sledging's not
that new, it just gets more exposure these days. In 2007 Gibbs got
himself into serious trouble for uttering a racist remark about
spectators that had been given him a rough time. And he only got into
trouble really because the stump mikes picked his comments up. 50
years ago when Surrey were dishing it out to the West Indies there
were no stump mikes to pick up what Worrell says was a sustained a day-
long verbal onslaught.
Of course, when Worrell writes "one of the Surrey players said to me,
'Why don't you so-and-so's go when you play the ball'" he wasn't
quoting verbatim, he was sparing the more delicate sensibilities of
the late 1950s readership by NOT quoting verbatim.
Worrell also wrote "if we had behaved half as badly as Surrey behaved
on that last day we would have been dubbed as a lot of savages - and
deservedly so." And "Never in my life did I ever think I would
advocate giving to cricket umpires the power of a football referee -
the power to send a player off. But my experience at the Oval has
taught me that such a reform is necessary."
I would wager that what upset him so was more than advice about how to
play the forward defensive.
kipps
> On Apr 30, 9:42 am, "David W" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <vdeolali...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1177885389.6...@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > I am an admirer of both Adam Gilchrist and Kumar Sangakarra. Both are
> > > incredible keeper-batsmen who would walk into any side as pure
> > > batsmen. Gilchrist is a phenomenon and we are privileged to watch him
> > > perform. Later generations of cricket fans will only read, with awe,
> > > about him. Sangakkara is still growing as a player and has given proof
> > > of his class with his performances against South Africa and New
> > > Zealand in the past 2 seasons.
>
> > > Yesterday, there was an incident that raised my respect for Sangakkara
> > > even further. After getting to a very difficult leg side deflection of
> > > Gilchrist just after the latter had got his 100, the ball dislodged
> > > from his left glove, and he then held it with his right hand as it
> > > came into the camera's view. Malinga thought the catch had been taken,
> > > and celebrated for a couple of seconds. But immediately Sangakkara
> > > signalled that the catch had been grassed. He did this immediately,
> > > with no hesitation or delay, and while still sprawled on the ground as
> > > a result of his dive. This, at a time when Gilchrist was on rampage.
>
> > > Adam Gilchrist, of course, is known for his sportsmanship, and is
> > > widely respected for the same. Fans will recall his sportsmanship in
> > > the semi final of the 2003 WC - against the same opponents Sri Lanka,
> > > when he walked inspite of being given not out by the umpire.
>
> > > Yesterday Sangakkara proved to be in the same league. It is these
> > > sportsmen who win universal admiration and are the role models for the
> > > young children all over the world who are learning how to play this
> > > game.
>
> > > players like you. To me, how you play the game is as important (if not
> > > more) than who wins in the end. I stood up with pride as an Indian and
> > > applauded a young Indian batsman who walked without any hesitation
> > > caught by the keeper at 95 on his test debut at Lord's a decade back.
> > > Had he got his hundred, it would have been only the first time in
> > > history two debutants had made centuries in the same test. There was
> > > no hesitation, although the edge was sufficiently thin that there was
> > > a chance the umpire might have missed it. That is how people should
> > > play this great game.
>
> > known, but he is certainly as fair a sportsman as you'll ever come across.
>
> > As you say, Sangakkara is to be admired for not hesitating to rule out that
> > catch. He might have got away with it had he claimed it too.
>
> Gilchrist walking off when he wants to not at all spotsmanship, it is
> showmanship. He claims and intimidate umpires for cheeky and insincere
> ats behind the stumps.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I agree it is showmanship, for one thing he could be totally wrong!
They used to do this in tennis [give away points, but someone pointed
out that it is hard to see a moving ball hit the lines when you are
also moving], They dont do that in tennis any more, just let the umps
do the umping!!
eusebius
> On Apr 30, 2:59 am, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > What has caused the decline in the standard of manners on the cricket
> > field is not an invasion of oiks but a decline in the standard of
> > manners in society at large: cricket merely reflects the fact that
> > people today are ruder than they used to be, all over the world.
>
> You make an interesting point there.
And so do YOU, old fruit.
>So let me ask - is there any
> writing on what "Cricketing manners, mores and behavior" were like in
> the 50s and 60s? Is there some standing classic on the topic (much
> like the 'company man' that described American corporate life in the
> 60s). I have browsed through Edrich and Barrington's books without
> encountering Oiks or toffs.
In which public urinal were you reading them?
> On the other hand, even in spite of the
> ghost writing John Snow - of cricket rebel fame - came across as well,
> a bit thuggish.
A pox on his houses!
>
> There was a Pom / Aussie dude called E W Swinburn (or something like
> that) that Gavaskar particularly disliked. Supposed to be a decent
> writer. Perhaps that's why Gavaskar disliked him.
Oh my dear old fruit. One's jolly cricket knowledge is a bit sandaas,
isn't it?
You may have a point, somewhere, but your limitations render your
argument completely specious. Yes it would be nice if all sportspeople
were 'jolly nice fellows', but this has never been the case of society
at large, as far as I am aware (and have read quite reasonable amounts
of history), and certainly not the 20th cent. As Mike points out,
decline in on field behaviour reflects society well, in which 'rage'
of various kinds is de rigueur. Nevertheless, I find it unlikely that
sledging has become considerably worse in the last 30 years. But what
irks you more, a person calling you nasty names, or a person hurtling
a smallish projectile at your head with the plausible intent of
killing you? Maybe EW Swinburn might have the answer, perhaps you
should consult him. I believe he collated his expert and sanguine
proverbials in such tomes as 'Gavaskar- the hideously deformed and
malignant dwarf' and 'Why uncouthness reflects one's social status and
dare I say it, upbringing old chap'.
Although I believe that EW ('Jim') Swanton was a little more
broadminded than his plummy private school toff demeanour might have
conveyed.
eusebius
Do you realise that the nic you have chosen, is quite similar to a
highly 'pejorative' word in Tamil? Is this deliberate?
>
> I have heard Tony Lewis, Brearly, Gower and Trevor Bailey. They
> sounded quite polite and 'clean'.
I believe they bathed regularly.
> One gentleman of course does not
> make an English team. Did Tony Grieg get nailed for saying something
> nasty to the umpire during the Lever and Vaseline incident?
Who got nailed with a Lever and Vaseline incident?
>I was like
> 4 or 5 years old then and don't really recall who said what.
Are you older, now?
>But then
> Grieg is not quuite English right? He did a Kevin Peiterson?
>
> -SB
>
Grieg is Norwegian, Greig is English/Saffie/Scottish/whatever.
Of course, England Expects a Higher Standard than what the Plebs
(presumably on lesser wages and not having attended the Right Schools)
does Your Worship. (tugs forelock) And what be your pleasure guv'nor?
eusebius
wrote:
> On Tue, 01 May 2007 13:36:19 +0800, Salil
>
> >Skootti wrote:
> >> Pataudi/Wadekar's India dishing out this kind of talk? Even at the
> >> height of the bodyline controversy there were no reports of Larwood,
> >> Voce and Jardine abusing Bradman and company.
>
> >Actually, Jardine had such a dislike for Bradman that on the 1932-33
> >tour, he wouldn't refer to him by name, but with his team would
> >constantly refer to him as "the little bastard".
> >And wasn't it Woodfull who threw out that famous "Which one of you
> >bastards called this bastard a bastard?" line to DRJ?
>
> More likely to be Vic Richardson.
I think that story is likely to be apocryphal, sourced from the
'Bodyline' miniseries of the 80s.
Declan Murphy
Not quite apocryphal, in that the story is true, but the attribution
not. A bit of research will show that it was Vic Richardson in the SA
changing room in Adelaide during a tour match. The script writers for
the TV series weren't able to portray the full tour, so the exchange
was moved and the line delivered by the acter playing Woodfull
instead.
The timeline concerning cables from the Prime Minister of the time
(Lyons) to the Australian Board were also altered for TV, and such is
the state of education that only what is shown on TV is remembered as
"history". Nothing particularly unusual about that though IMO.
Tony Bryant
SultanOfSwing
> On 30 Apr 2007 20:54:08 -0700, kenhig...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >That's hardly fair.
> >Sangakarra made a sporting gesture
>
> I don't really consider it a sporting gesture though. How is it
> sporting to do the right thing when the wrong thing would have gotten
> you chastised and likely penalised?
There are many instances of people doing *wrong* things and
getting away without being penalised. For instance, in the
SL-NZ Super 8 match, Styris attempted to play a sweep of
a leg-side delivery from Vaas, and clearly edged it to the
keeper. The umpire incorrectly ruled it "not out", and we
then had a shameless Styris claiming for a wide down the
legside, when it was clear as daylight that he had edged it.
IMO, that was a case of "sharp practice" that went away
unpunished.
SultanOfSwing
>
> >That's hardly fair.
> >Sangakarra made a sporting gesture
>
> I don't really consider it a sporting gesture though. How is it
> sporting to do the right thing when the wrong thing would have gotten
> you chastised and likely penalised?
There are many instances of people doing *wrong* things and
kenh...@hotmail.com
>
Unfortunately, many Australian cricket fans use that series as the
touchstone for all that happened during the 1932/3 series.
Only yesterday I was reading the SMH tv guide's retrospective on
Australian tv and the series was described as 'brilliant' (http://
www.smh.com.au/news/tv--radio/those-were-the-days/2007/04/29/1177787956160.html?page=2).
It was inaccurate in so many aspects that I'm sometimes surprised they
managed to identify Bradman and Jardine as two of the major players
Higgs
alvey
> On May 2, 2:15 am, eusebius <eusebiu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 1, 8:28 pm, Mad Hamish <newsunspammel...@iinet.unspamme.net.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 01 May 2007 13:36:19 +0800, Salil
>>
>>> <salilbene...@gmailminusthisbit.com> wrote:
>>> >Skootti wrote:
>>> >> Pataudi/Wadekar's India dishing out this kind of talk? Even at the
>>> >> height of the bodyline controversy there were no reports of Larwood,
>>> >> Voce and Jardine abusing Bradman and company.
>>
>>> >Actually, Jardine had such a dislike for Bradman that on the 1932-33
>>> >tour, he wouldn't refer to him by name, but with his team would
>>> >constantly refer to him as "the little bastard".
>>> >And wasn't it Woodfull who threw out that famous "Which one of you
>>> >bastards called this bastard a bastard?" line to DRJ?
>>
>>> More likely to be Vic Richardson.
>>
>> I think that story is likely to be apocryphal, sourced from the
>> 'Bodyline' miniseries of the 80s.
>
> Not quite apocryphal, in that the story is true, but the attribution
> not. A bit of research will show that it was Vic Richardson in the SA
> changing room in Adelaide during a tour match. The script writers for
> the TV series weren't able to portray the full tour, so the exchange
> was moved and the line delivered by the acter playing Woodfull
> instead.
Ashley, Istr that it was the Richardson character who delivered it in the
mini-series. If I can find the dvds I'll check.
alvey
Hey Jude
There have been instances of toffs with university
> educations being shits and men from humble backgrounds being fair and
> civil.
Yes.
While sledging is a subjective term, and some people consider banter
to be the same thing, there is no ambiguity about what plain abuse is.
That is what Imran Khan used to dish out to his own team mates, even
openly on the field, telling them what they do with their mothers and
sisters. Imran being the almighty of Pak cricket, there was nothing
the players could do about it. In other words, abusing his position of
authority as well. Basically, having little regard for the human
dignity of the guys who were helpless to do anything about the abuse
they got (if they still wanted to stay in the team, that is). Not too
unlike the situation when children are abused.
No one would ever consider Imran to have come from a humble
background. He also went to Oxford.
Hey Jude
> Bowden ruled a caught behind appeal against Gilchrist when he didn't
> walk, and that's my objection to walking. It places the umpire in a
> difficult position when the opposing team appeals and the habitual
> walker stands his ground. Bowden gave him out. Replays showed there
> was no contact with the bat.
>
> Cheers,
> Rod.
I don't think it places the umpire in any difficult position. He just
have to make the decision like any other. It is part of his job not to
presume anything (that is, whether the batsman is a walker or not) and
make the decision based on merit.
The other argument given against walking is precisely the situation
above - when the honest batsman is sawed off by the umpire. So why
walk when you know you will be judged out incorrectly a fair few
times? The answer to that lies in the fact that not everyone goes
through life on the usual principle of debit and credit. Some people
try to aspire to values which transcend such accounting. It is not
easy and being human they don't always succeed. But at least they try.
eusebius
Definitely by the actor playing Richardson- Woodfull's famous quote
(used in the series) was (in part) 'there are two teams out there, and
only one of them is playing cricket'
Declan Murphy
I haven't seen the series except when it was first broadcast 20(?) or
so years ago. If it was by the actor playing Richardson, then I tip my
hat to the screenwriters. Wasn't the Richardson comment made at a tour
game though involving SA (captained by Richardson), not in a test as I
think the TV series portrayed?
Declan Murphy
For most of the world, and not just in regards to sport, "what
happened" is "what we saw on screen". This is why the American
submarine S33 captured Engima from the U571, and not the Bulldog from
U-110. And don't you go claiming otherwise.
Back in 1932/3, even radio was still not a common household good at
the time. Most of what Australian cricket fans would have seen would
have been newsreels. Naturally about 3 million boring old farts seem
to claim to have been physically at the game where Oldfield was hit.
> Only yesterday I was reading the SMH tv guide's retrospective on
> Australian tv and the series was described as 'brilliant' (http://www.smh.com.au/news/tv--radio/those-were-the-days/2007/04/29/11777879...).
But it *was* brilliant drama. Rated through the roof IIRC. Hugo
Weaving's Jardine was a scenery chewer.
> It was inaccurate in so many aspects that I'm sometimes surprised they
> managed to identify Bradman and Jardine as two of the major players
I don't worry too much about historical accuracy in "historical
drama". Its difficult to have both and satisfy the commercial
imperatives involved. At least it was good to have a reasonably decent
drama based (kind of) on cricket. Made a change from soapies etc.
sdavmor
As a mini-series drama it's quite good. As a broad-stroke look at
"Bodyline" as an international incident it's also quite good. It gets
the large issues presented in an understandable way, and gives a good
sense of the general character of the players, their perspective on
how the game should be played, and the stakes for the ACB, MCC, etc.
It does leave viewers with the idea that Jardine hatched his fast-leg
theory attack plan in complete secrecy, and gives no indication that
English fast-bowlers had been warming it up for a couple of seasons of
county cricket. It also leaves viewers with the erroneous impression
that the memorable injuries to Oldfield and Woodfull came off
"bodyline" bowling. But if one can get past distortions like that,
it's a pretty entertaining few hours.
Maybe the characterizations of the cricket-fan-recognizable names
(Jardine, Bradman, Fender, Larwood, Woodfull, etc) are a bit pointed
-- Jardine "the authoritarian Public School martinet", Bradman "the
gee-whizz boy(-scout) wonder from Ballarat", Percy Fender "the
gentleman dandy Public School fop", Harold Larwood "the stalwart and
loyal to the end working class professional", Bill Woodfull "the
honest as the day is long backed into a corner by events noble
captain", etc. But even so I wouldn't brand them as two-dimensional
presentations. They all work, within the context of the TV drama being
offered. As you have pointed out, Weaving's Jardine really is a
marvelous piece of work -- a role he really sinks his teeth into,
regardless of how true to life it may (or may not) be.
I'm not one to dismiss "Bodyline" on the basis of having little value
to cricket fans seriously interested in understanding what it was all
about. I thought it did a decent job in showing how Jardine and
(especially) Larwood were hung out to dry as scapegoats by the MCC
Lords -- within the context of it being TV and "dramatic".
As with all things presented as "docudrama", one must take it with a
large grain of salt and then go do some reading. For that I highly
recommend "Bodyline Autopsy" by David Frith -- a first-rate book that
is very even-handed while not pulling any punches about all aspects of
"Bodyline". IMO it should be in the reading library of every cricket
obsessed fan.
--
Cheers,
SDM -- a 21st century schizoid man
Systems Theory internet music project links:
official site <www.systemstheory.net>
soundclick <www.soundclick.com/systemstheory>
garageband <www.garageband.com/artist/systemstheory>
"Soundtracks For Imaginary Movies" CD released Dec 2004
"Codetalkers" CD coming very soon
NP: Tangerine Dream "Phaedra"
Salil
> As with all things presented as "docudrama", one must take it with a
> large grain of salt and then go do some reading. For that I highly
> recommend "Bodyline Autopsy" by David Frith -- a first-rate book that
> is very even-handed while not pulling any punches about all aspects of
> "Bodyline". IMO it should be in the reading library of every cricket
> obsessed fan.
Agreed, even though it isn't presently in my library as I lent it to a
good friend. It's a superb read though, incredibly well researched and
very neutral and focused.
Jack Fingleton's "Cricket Crisis" though may be the best book I've ever
read on the subject (and definitely is among the best pieces of cricket
literature I've come across). While nowhere near as neutral, it does go
into some events with far more detail, with a far more poignant tale
from the Australian viewpoint.
Re. the Richardson/Woodfull debate on the statement to Jardine I brought
up earlier - I hadn't cross-checked with the book(s) I mentioned, and
incorrectly remembered the quote as having been made by Woodfull. My
mistake.
Salil
sdavmor
Thanks for the HU! re: "Cricket Crisis". I'll put that on my to buy
list.
--
Cheers,
SDM -- a 21st century schizoid man
Systems Theory internet music project links:
official site <www.systemstheory.net>
soundclick <www.soundclick.com/systemstheory>
garageband <www.garageband.com/artist/systemstheory>
"Soundtracks For Imaginary Movies" CD released Dec 2004
"Codetalkers" CD coming very soon
NP: Porcupine Tree "Fear Of A Blank Planet" (new, very good)
kenh...@hotmail.com
snip
>
> I'm not one to dismiss "Bodyline" on the basis of having little value
> to cricket fans seriously interested in understanding what it was all
> about. I thought it did a decent job in showing how Jardine and
> (especially) Larwood were hung out to dry as scapegoats by the MCC
> Lords -- within the context of it being TV and "dramatic".
>
I take your point that, taken as a piece of tv, it rated through the
roof, contained some very good acting and entertained the audience it
was designed for.
I just get slightly irritated when people start quoting events to me
that they saw in the series and claim that's how it happened.
I'm also aware of how movies distort real events to the end of a
better storyline, such as the example given about Enigma.
> As with all things presented as "docudrama", one must take it with a
> large grain of salt and then go do some reading. For that I highly
> recommend "Bodyline Autopsy" by David Frith -- a first-rate book that
> is very even-handed while not pulling any punches about all aspects of
> "Bodyline". IMO it should be in the reading library of every cricket
> obsessed fan.
> --
Hmm,
I quoted quite extensively from the book on this forum a few years
ago, and got involved in quite a few arguments over it.
As you say, it pulls no punches and challenges some conventional
wisdom on the subject, which obviously upsets some people, especially
those who don't like the way it differs from the tv series portrayals!
Higgs