Print

[InternalTraining]

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.

[Gerry SA]

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.

[ProCricketer1982]

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.

[jamesisapayne]

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 

[Nmcgee]

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.

[Manormanic]

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...

[tim2000s]

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...

[iand123]

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

[eukaryote76]

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.

[skip1973]

If the broken arm was caused by a legal delivery then there can't be any action, McCracken was injured in an illegal tackle.

[tim2000s]

@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!

[skip1973]

There has been plenty of bowlers that would of happily hurt me, I'm confident none wanted to kill me though.

[eukaryote76]

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!

[WalkingWicket37]

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! 

[Dan W]

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'.