Custom Bats Cricket Forum
General Cricket => Players => Topic started by: potzy248 on December 02, 2014, 06:01:18 PM
-
This Author is generally a right tool, but you can't really argue with this.
Sad day as Phil is laid to rest.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/opinion/63759297/Reason-Phillip-Hughes-death-highlights-hypocrisy (http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/opinion/63759297/Reason-Phillip-Hughes-death-highlights-hypocrisy)
-
I agree with the author.
Cricket is no longer a gentleman's sport. I don't like that.
-
Unfortunately this article is spot on. It just shows how everything is ok until it happens to you directly.
-
What if Johnson had broken Anderson's arm? Aussies would have been laughing. I hate how they always say "No bowler deliberately goes out there to hurt a batsman". Thats absolute rubbish.
-
Extremely interesting and informative article. Like it or loathe it, people have always sledged and slated and people have always used pace and short pitched deliveries to unsettle batsmen and get under their skin, often resulting in getting them out. Both are topics that will split public opinion and it's just unfortunate that it's taken an incident like this to get so many people talking about it!
-
What if Johnson had broken Anderson's arm? Aussies would have been laughing. I hate how they always say "No bowler deliberately goes out there to hurt a batsman". Thats absolute rubbish.
I suspect some of the Aussie batsman wanted blood and especially Clarke for taking a barrage of short balls in the last ashes here, but I doubt Johnson did he seemed to be under captains orders.
However I do agree some bowlers look to take out the odd batsman here and there. The Dentist wasn't called the Dentist for nothing he collected body parts!
-
What if Mitchell Johnson actually had maimed a batsman? With his pace and dangerous style of bowling, it is highly probable.
I know, and I understand that these things have happened before and they will continue to happen. However, that does not make it right! Field umpires should have the authority to issue color cards for on-field offenses. Yellow card for warning, red card for score/run deduction, add the black card for ejection.
-
He could have, but whilst it is highly probable that he would hit someone, it's very unlikely and highly improbable that he would maim them.
There are already rules about intimidating the batsman. Use these properly on field rather than introducing a whole load of pointless new rules.
-
I do agree it's hypocritical of Clarke to sledge like he does etc. However, I blame the batsmen more nowadays. They don't need to take on the short bowling, they could just get out the way but it seems to be expected by the public and coaches that they attack the short ball. If you are going to attack it then I sort of think the bowler should be able to 'attack' you. After all, it's biff cricket already let alone if we told bowlers they had to bowl x length or more.. might as well just sack off bowling, use a machien and have a baseball style slog fest.
If batsmen ducked/swayed then the umpires could call a halt to the bouncer barrage as it's not softening them up etc, it's just being intimidating. However, if the batsmen is taking it on, then I'm all for the bowler having a go at them, the modern game with flat tracks, short boundaries is too batsmen friendly already.
-
He could have, but whilst it is highly probable that he would hit someone, it's very unlikely and highly improbable that he would maim them.
Really?! At 90+ mph?
There are already rules about intimidating the batsman. Use these properly on field rather than introducing a whole load of pointless new rules.
I would love to see somebody using those rules about "intimidating the batsman". I would rather that new ones are introduced and strictly enforced. It seems that there is a generation of cricket fans out there who doesn't know that they are actually rules about intimidating the batsman.
-
Really?! At 90+ mph?
I would love to see somebody using those rules about "intimidating the batsman". I would rather that new ones are introduced and strictly enforced. It seems that there is a generation of cricket fans out there who doesn't know that they are actually rules about intimidating the batsman.
Simply using empirical evidence, the windies bowlers and lillee would surely have killed someone were maiming common place. That they didn't tells you what you need to know about not getting badly damaged by a bowler.
-
Problem is it's also a legitimate tactic for getting people out by catching them by surprise.
-
I do agree it's hypocritical of Clarke to sledge like he does etc. However, I blame the batsmen more nowadays. They don't need to take on the short bowling, they could just get out the way but it seems to be expected by the public and coaches that they attack the short ball. If you are going to attack it then I sort of think the bowler should be able to 'attack' you. After all, it's biff cricket already let alone if we told bowlers they had to bowl x length or more.. might as well just sack off bowling, use a machien and have a baseball style slog fest.
If batsmen ducked/swayed then the umpires could call a halt to the bouncer barrage as it's not softening them up etc, it's just being intimidating. However, if the batsmen is taking it on, then I'm all for the bowler having a go at them, the modern game with flat tracks, short boundaries is too batsmen friendly already.
You can't play batsmen for taking on short pitched bowling, for some batsman it's a crucial party of their play. Take Ponting, he was a very good hooker/puller and used it to make the bowler pitch it further up. Some batsman would be more at risk to injury if they went against their natural game and tried to duck when their instinct and reaction is to take on the ball.
-
Simply using empirical evidence, the windies bowlers and lillee would surely have killed someone were maiming common place. That they didn't tells you what you need to know about not getting badly damaged by a bowler.
I disagree. More people are getting hit now than ever before, % means that at some point, something bad will happen. What the sport needs to look at is why are they getting hit more now than before?
-
You can't play batsmen for taking on short pitched bowling, for some batsman it's a crucial party of their play. Take Ponting, he was a very good hooker/puller and used it to make the bowler pitch it further up. Some batsman would be more at risk to injury if they went against their natural game and tried to duck when their instinct and reaction is to take on the ball.
You can blame them. Ponting is probably one of the few modern players who is actually good enough to pull/hook. As I've just said, there must be a reason why we are seeing more batsmen getting hit than ever, and it's certainly not because the bowling is better!
-
You can blame them. Ponting is probably one of the few modern players who is actually good enough to pull/hook. As I've just said, there must be a reason why we are seeing more batsmen getting hit than ever, and it's certainly not because the bowling is better!
Your point was wide sweeping, there are some very good hookers/pullers and there are also some bad granted who shouldn't touch the shot. But with T20/IPL etc the emphasis is on shot making and batsman taking more risks with all shots, which is a slippery slope for cricket.
-
I disagree. More people are getting hit now than ever before, % means that at some point, something bad will happen. What the sport needs to look at is why are they getting hit more now than before?
The real answer comes back to wearing protective gear, but just because batsmen get themselves in stupid positions taking on fast bowling is absolutely not a reason to stop a bowler having the deliveries in his arsenal. There isn't a requirement to hit short bowling. You are perfectly welcome to just get out of its way! It is as ineffective if a batsman gets out of the way as if they hit it.
-
There isn't a requirement to hit short bowling. You are perfectly welcome to just get out of its way! It is as ineffective if a batsman gets out of the way as if they hit it.
That's sort of my point. Batsmen are obviously being almost forced into taking it on when they aren't really good enough to (generally speaking). Hence getting hit more often.
-
They aren't forced into it, they just feel safe because the modern player has grown up with helmets. Techniques have changed because of this, I have always swayed out of the way because it allows you to keep an eye on the ball, too many players take their eyes off the ball. You can talk all you want about sledging and aggression but you can't help human nature with two players or teams trying to beat each other it will always happen.
-
Got a bit off topic there which is fine. The point I think is that while Clarke has been awesome about this tragedy, I believe he should look back on some of his past games with shame. Same goes for a lot of players who in my opinion are not the best sports, but are now piping up and being gentleman like.
On the topic about players being hit more often. When helmets were not around you either got out of the way or if you were good enough you pulled or hooked the ball. Now with helmets etc, even if you are are not 100% committed to the shot we believe that we will still be ok. You missed one back then and you were in hospital.
-
It's funny though, Warney was a massive bully and sledger, everyone loved him. Clarke is a choir boy compared, but has never really been loved by the people.
-
It's funny though, Warney was a massive bully and sledger, everyone loved him. Clarke is a choir boy compared, but has never really been loved by the people.
Warney was more upfront and open with it everyone could see and sometimes hear what was going on Clarke isn't.
-
Also Warne wasn't the captain!
-
They aren't forced into it, they just feel safe because the modern player has grown up with helmets. Techniques have changed because of this, I have always swayed out of the way because it allows you to keep an eye on the ball, too many players take their eyes off the ball. You can talk all you want about sledging and aggression but you can't help human nature with two players or teams trying to beat each other it will always happen.
As a Player who played in pre helmet days i know I was more conscious and alert to the bouncer and than I am this days under an helmet and so were my teamates i also believe i
used to get hit hooking more back then than I do now maybe it's just luck but
I know i am and do feel much safer playing the shot now we have helmets.
-
Hmmm.
I'm sure a lot of people look back on actions they have taken in life with regret. It's how they move forward to the life changing or 'lightbulb' moments that life throws their way which highlights the sort of person they are. I'm not sure hypocrite is the right word, if Clarke was to now tell someone to expect a broken arm from short pitched bowling anytime moving forward from the Hughes tragedy we could call him a hypocrite.
I'm sure there are plenty of players looking back on past actions who 100% regret their actions and wish they could have that time over again.
Just my 2 cents worth.
-
the article itself is interesting, perhaps with a slight bias towards Pakistan but he most definatley has a point
Personally I thought Clarke overstepped the mark in his remarks to Anderson, he was unlucky in the sense the stump microphone picked up his words when the same thing has almost certainly been said by any number of players over the years.Anderson is a brilliant bowler and chief sledger in the England side.It may be worth re-confirming Anderson and England did not make any complaints about Clarke,it was all done by the media.
You do wonder if Cook or any other England Captain had threatened to break someone's arm what the reaction of us England fans would be, and how our media would of reacted.
Personally speaking,having followed England for nearly 40 years-I don't want to see that said in a test match-play hard yes,but not that.
And we(England) should cut out the garbage we chat to opposition players, it's complete drivel-Anderson/Broad/THE LOT OF THEM
maybe cricket now will have a re-think about how it conducts itself.........hard on the field yes but let's not get carried away.
-
maybe cricket now will have a re-think about how it conducts itself.........hard on the field yes but let's not get carried away.
I agree with this. My worry is that it will build up over a period of time and get back to the levels. I'm hoping this tragic incident really can help cricket into a better place
-
I think it's a good point about other lesser known players being killed whilst playing recently, and the case of the Israeli umpire just after Hughes.
There was little to no coverage about those players, a bit about the umpire but probably due to the timing (nothing you can do about that case anyway to be honest, just 100% bad luck).
I do also find the reaction a bit, I don't want to say over the top because it was a terrible tragedy, but slightly over-hyped.
Some people would have had no idea who Hughes was before this, yet are crying/tweeting about it. I have nothing against getting upset over it, but it almost seems like another trend that people want to get involved with (regarding tweeting).
Apologies if that offends anyone.
-
Good article. Cricket is probably a safer game than 30 years ago thanks to protection but it still carries risks. We take on the risk and minimise it but it's still tragic when that 1 in a million incident happens.
Will be interesting to see if the Aussies pull back from the verbals, particularly things like "breaking arms" comments.
-
It's funny though, Warney was a massive bully and sledger, everyone loved him. Clarke is a choir boy compared, but has never really been loved by the people.
Warne was very clever with some of his sledging and played on the mind. I don't think Clarke or the current Australian team are nearly that clever.
-
I don't mind a little clever banter. "Tino, mind the windows." That was just brilliant. But this whole "F this", "F that", "you fat blank" is all poor sportsmanship.
-
When England where beating Australia and Anderson was dishing it out, no one batted an eye lid. Yet when the ladyboy was on the receiving end it, Clarke was hung out to dry. Hypocrisy is right...just aimed in the wrong direction.
-
When England where beating Australia and Anderson was dishing it out, no one batted an eye lid. Yet when the ladyboy was on the receiving end it, Clarke was hung out to dry. Hypocrisy is right...just aimed in the wrong direction.
Clever banter.. not aggressive banter. TBH, if you have to be all aggressive then it's sad. I'd rather see no team do it, regardless of how good or bad they are.
-
When England where beating Australia and Anderson was dishing it out, no one batted an eye lid. Yet when the ladyboy was on the receiving end it, Clarke was hung out to dry. Hypocrisy is right...just aimed in the wrong direction.
Any chance to bash the English and Gerry appears, as if by magic ;)
-
Our game has a history of being a gentleman's game. I think, generally speaking, the current state of the game, in terms of sportsmanship and gentlemanly conduct, is a disgrace. By all reports, however, Phil Hughes was a gentleman.
It's equally as tragic that the other cricketers mentioned in the article died playing the game we love. They deserve as much recognition as Phil.
-
When it comes down to it, a lot of us have engaged in a bit of banter on the field and there is nothing wrong with that - anyone who tells me its against the spirit of the game is, in my opinion, a bit of a numpty.
Of course, banter should be witty and aimed as much at geeing your own team up as anything. Threats...well, they don't really do that do they?
But....I have to say that I have little problem with any of it. Its international sport, its supposed to matter and Clarke's comment to Anderson was made by a man who sensed the tide turning after five years of being ground relentlessly into the dirt. How was he supposed to feel about it? And in any event, there is a massive difference between saying it and wanting it to happen...
-
I guess the other thing we forget is that international sportsmen know each other fairly well, as they play against each other in many formats, a lot. With this in mind, whilst it is play hard, and many might disapprove of what is said on the pitch, it's understandable.
I think the bigger problems lie at club level. Taken as a comment now, Clarke to Anderson would very much be considered to be in very bad taste, although I expect that there will be statements on the lines of "Mind your head boys, here comes Johnno" in the next Ashes series...
-
When England where beating Australia and Anderson was dishing it out, no one batted an eye lid. Yet when the ladyboy was on the receiving end it, Clarke was hung out to dry. Hypocrisy is right...just aimed in the wrong direction.
Yawn
-
When it comes down to it, a lot of us have engaged in a bit of banter on the field and there is nothing wrong with that - anyone who tells me its against the spirit of the game is, in my opinion, a bit of a numpty.
I suspect there must be a lot of numpties on here, myself included☺.
Of course, banter should be witty and aimed as much at geeing your own team up as anything. Threats...well, they don't really do that do they?
The latter would be a good psychology thesis but I think history (or numpties) would disagree with you.
But....I have to say that I have little problem with any of it. Its international sport, its supposed to matter and Clarke's comment to Anderson was made by a man who sensed the tide turning after five years of being ground relentlessly into the dirt. How was he supposed to feel about it? And in any event, there is a massive difference between saying it and wanting it to happen...
It would be naive to assume international cricketers are any better than the common man in their comportment because they are not selected on that basis. Yes they should be passionate but that does not justify his words or actions. We cannot know if he really would have wanted it to happen, and I would like to think he didn't, though Ret'd Hurt is one less wicket to get.
Interestingly what might have happened had there been a broken arm ensue? I like to see teams win and lose with good grace. It is my opinion international players should rightly be scrutinised for their deeds as they are role models one way or another.
In the US players can be found guilty of negligence if their actions are "deliberate, willful or with a reckless disregard for the safety of another player so as cause injury to that player." See Nabozny v. Barnhill. Furthermore, a recent Australian case, entitled McCracken v Melbourne Storm & Orcs discussed the notion and legalities concerning when an athlete purposefully aims to intentionally injure another during play.
Sorry I took that from Wikipedia so perhaps someone could take issue with the validity of that last bit.
-
If the broken arm was caused by a legal delivery then there can't be any action, McCracken was injured in an illegal tackle.
-
@eukaryote76 You are basically asking the question "Is a bouncer an attempt to deliberately injure the batsman?".
I'd argue that it is an attempt to intimidate the batsman, but not to injure them. The question of whether a deliberate full toss is, on the other hand, is a different one!
-
There has been plenty of bowlers that would of happily hurt me, I'm confident none wanted to kill me though.
-
No, not all bouncers are an attempt to injure the batsmen. The minority i think, in fact. The goal could be any one or combination of the following (and possibly more):
To intimidate or cause a batsman to change his present style of play
To induce a false shot hence take a wicket
To get a dot ball
The problem is when the intent seems to be mostly about wanting to injure, and that is just plain ugliness. The intent seems clearer it if it was prefaced by a verbal threat.
Anyway, I'll pipe down.
PS. I also believe in walking!
-
No, not all bouncers are an attempt to injure the batsmen. The minority i think, in fact. The goal could be any one or combination of the following (and possibly more):
To intimidate or cause a batsman to change his present style of play
To induce a false shot hence take a wicket
To get a dot ball
I bowled one at a good mate of mine in a Sunday friendly last season.
As a spinner, it was more for comedy effect than anything else!
It worked though, it went above head height, was on the way down again and passed him at about shoulder height! Beat him all ends up with my lack of pace! ;) :D
-
Clarke was a fool with his Anderson because he revealed himself to be unquestionably and entirely witless, desperate and full of anger. No-one ever considered him genuine with his attempts at the intimidation, so not sure it's fair to compare it to the PH situation tbf.
That said, I can see where he was coming from. To be faced with Broad and Anderson - quite believably a pair of the more annoying cricketers of the current era (not to mention the crop around them - Swann, Prior I'm looking at you here), I'm not sure I could hide my frustration regular 'banter'.
-
If the broken arm was caused by a legal delivery then there can't be any action, McCracken was injured in an illegal tackle.
Hmm
Can't be any action - I am not so sure.
-
Before the Phil Hughes tragedy hitting someone with a bouncer was awesome. I saw Brett Lee take Parore's helmet off which then fell on his stumps and the Aussies and crowd were in heaven. Anyone who tells me that Bouncers are not meant to hit someone is lying. We will see what this incident now does for bowling bouncers however.
-
Before the Phil Hughes tragedy hitting someone with a bouncer was awesome. I saw Brett Lee take Parore's helmet off which then fell on his stumps and the Aussies and crowd were in heaven. Anyone who tells me that Bouncers are not meant to hit someone is lying. We will see what this incident now does for bowling bouncers however.
It will make batsmen more cautious for a time and bowlers more determined. Other than that, very little.
-
Phil Hughes getting hit has nothing to do with Michael Clarke. It is what it is, a very unfortunate accident. The Anderson/Clarke situation was ugly and not how I play the game but it was clear that Anderson had a few choice words to say to Bailey and Clarke which wouldn't have been pleasant either. If Anderson was unfortunate/Stupid enough to get his arm broken the ball after getting told to get ready for broken arm (as long as it wasnt a beam ball) it really comes down to him. Things might change now because fast bowlers when thinking of hurting a batsman will have a thought that they might kill them rather than just rattle them.
-
I do want to point out that I would prefer the game to not have instances such as the Anderson/Clarke one.
-
Phil Hughes getting hit has nothing to do with Michael Clarke. It is what it is, a very unfortunate accident. The Anderson/Clarke situation was ugly and not how I play the game but it was clear that Anderson had a few choice words to say to Bailey and Clarke which wouldn't have been pleasant either. If Anderson was unfortunate/Stupid enough to get his arm broken the ball after getting told to get ready for broken arm (as long as it wasnt a beam ball) it really comes down to him. Things might change now because fast bowlers when thinking of hurting a batsman will have a thought that they might kill them rather than just rattle them.
The fact that Clarke's comments were aimed at injuring a player, should not rest on a batsman. It is pure intimidation and against the spirit of the game and the rules.
This behaviour, believing it is ok to injure someone to win is probably a factor in the Phil Hughes tragedy.
Look at New Zealand's recent test. Supposedly didn't bowl a bouncer and beat Pakistan and compare it to the previous one when they fractured a guy's skull and cheered when he fell on his stumps.
Attitude should change.
Trying to hurt someone to get them off the field of play should not be there in cricket.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
The fact that Clarke's comments were aimed at injuring a player, should not rest on a batsman. It is pure intimidation and against the spirit of the game and the rules.
This behaviour, believing it is ok to injure someone to win is probably a factor in the Phil Hughes tragedy.
Look at New Zealand's recent test. Supposedly didn't bowl a bouncer and beat Pakistan and compare it to the previous one when they fractured a guy's skull and cheered when he fell on his stumps.
Attitude should change.
Trying to hurt someone to get them off the field of play should not be there in cricket.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I completely agree with you that attitudes do need to change. However trying to draw the link to Phil Hughes death is far fetched, I was watching the game live online and there was no verbal jousting going on between Abbott and Hughes and when he was hit everyone went to his aid.
-
Clarke should have been banned for what he said to Anderson no wonder behaviour on the pitch at all levels is in decline.
-
Garbage.
-
Clarke should have been banned for what he said to Anderson no wonder behaviour on the pitch at all levels is in decline.
Funniest thing I have ever heard
-
Clarke should have been banned for what he said to Anderson no wonder behaviour on the pitch at all levels is in decline.
Behaviour in general is in decline, but it's got nothin to do with Clarke's particular instance of 'sledging'. His is merely a symptom of what is happening but you couldn't ban him without banning players like Swann, Anderson, Siddle, Broad, Prior who all can't keep their mouth shut.
Would I like the game to be played in a good spirit, of course, it'd be more enjoyable a game
Do I think it ever will... Not a hope. Football culture is here to stay so we might as well either join in or just accept the foul abuse that will happen every Saturday. I call it abuse because 99%of th time it's not witty, clever or amusing, it's soley aimed at belittling the batsmen, so is abuse not banter or sledging.
-
Garbage.
Hmmm
So intimidation and threats to hurt another player during a match are except able ?
-
Fair chance such talk/chat has been going on for many years, however with the introduction of technology we are now able to hear it first hand.
No different to all the cheap shots that used to happen in rugby, afl etc.
-
And equally as witless and pointless. I'd hope we hold ourselves to a higher standard than football players.
-
^ I agree. For some of us where we play cricket, it is a new but a fast growing sport. All it will take is one bad incident to give the sport a black eye. We need better role models. This whole "sledging "nonsense has got to stop at the international level where young and impressionable might mistake it for "acceptable" behavior.
-
You are kidding yourselves if you think sledging or intimidation is a modern thing, West Indians were ruthless in the 80's, laws have been changed to limit short bowling since. I have played a long time and behaviour is no worse or better, it may depend on the level you play though.
-
Hmmm
So intimidation and threats to hurt another player during a match are except able ?
Yes, as long as it's done within the rules of the game.
-
You are kidding yourselves if you think sledging or intimidation is a modern thing, West Indians were ruthless in the 80's, laws have been changed to limit short bowling since. I have played a long time and behaviour is no worse or better, it may depend on the level you play though.
This. Totally agree and is exactly what I was trying to say. We are only aware of it in the modern era because technology allows us to hear things that we wouldn't of heard 30 years ago.
-
I thought Dennis Lillee said " Excuse me sir do you mind if I knock your block off"
-
"Are you going to get out, or do I have to come around the wicket and kill you?"
Anyone recognise this quote?
-
I think this whole scenario has reinforced this quote from Stalin "One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic". While this very heart breaking death has occurred I can remember when the boxing day Tsunami hit and the cricket community came together and had a couple of cricket games (Warne and Murali Xl's etc). I remember it all being a lot of fun with micd up players and big crowds having a great time watching the worlds best players do their thing. There were no games called off, no world televised funerals.
No disrespect intended.
Life is unfair.
-
Yawn
You have to concede that Gerry does have a point.
-
"Are you going to get out, or do I have to come around the wicket and kill you?"
Anyone recognise this quote?
I would've hoped that the older guys here would've recognised it, being 16. Malcolm Marshall to David Boon, I want to say 1985.
-
How about the test in the West Indies circa 1976 when the West Indian pace bowlers were looking only to injure the Indian batsmen rather than get them out, with Bedi declaring the innings closed not wishing to have more guys injured?
I am surprised when young Indians always point to Australia being bullies and degenerate psychopaths on the cricket field that they all seem to not even know that this existed.
Well here it is...the killer Windies even before their famous Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse attack that came 18 months later.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/engine/match/63162.html (http://www.espncricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/engine/match/63162.html)