Sport Today

Cheers

Tim

Happily, I was at the Perth WACA ground for the three days that were the
5th test between Australia and the West Indies.

The television coverage, and to a greater extent the (Australian) radio
coverage failed to shed proper light on two glaring examples of sledging
that (I think) altered the course of that game.

During the early part of the West Indian first innings on day 2, Glen
McGrath in his 10th over hindered the West Indian batsmen taking a run
and made some comments that caused the batsmen to remonstrate with the
umpire (in this case Peter Willey.)

The end result was Australian captain Mark Taylor dragging Glen McGrath
(taking him from the attack) and making him (McGrath) field at fine leg
for 4 consecutive overs (ie. he had to trot from fine leg to fine leg at
the end of each over.)

More sledging occurred, later in the same innings (prior to the 108th
over of the innings, and Paul Reiffel's 25th over) whilst Ambrose and
Walsh were batting (with Lara as a runner for Walsh.)

This time the umpires (initiated by Darryl Hair) called a conference of
the two team captains in the centre of the wicket.

The various media coverage failed to pick up that afterwards Taylor made
a direct route (bee line) for Shane Warne fielding in the slips and
spent a good two minutes in consultation with him.

Warne did not get the fine leg to fine leg treatment.

During Australia's paltry 2nd innings effort Curtly Ambrose bowled a
terrific and courageous spell, up until his 10th over. This is the one
where he bowled 15 deliveries including 9 no balls.

I propose that this was done purposely for two reasons ... 1) Warne
can't play fast short pitched bowling, and 2) retribution for the
misdeeds of Warne earlier whilst the WI were batting.

There is an underlying current present in these comments.

Warne has been fast tracked into the captaincy of his state (the
Victorian) team. I feel that he (Warne not Ian Healy) is being groomed
to replace Mark Taylor as the Australian captain.

This (in my humble opinion) would be disastrous. And I wonder how
complicit the Australian news/sports media is in this affair?

If Warne was the one who had instigated the bout of sledging seen
recently in the Aus vs WI 5th test at the WACA, how much more will we
expect in his (presumed imminent) reign as captain?

Australian's generally expect greater things from our representatives.

Afterwards, I got out onto the pitch at the close of the West Indian 2nd
innings and viewed a furrow full of plate cracking that was the WACA's
sorry excuse for a pitch. Even in it's poor condition the Australians
cannot excuse themselves from such a poor show.

David Bebb

Smail:  PO Box 320, Northbridge, Western Australia 6865

"Do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the law." - Aleister Crowley
(1875-1947)

I'm interested in your theory on how Tv and newspapers can make Warne the
captain. PLease explain.

BTW, I'm a little bemused by the presence of "Australians" and
"representatives" in the above sentence. I'd have said Australians, on the
whole, were much less fussed by sledging than most. Thus it's accepted in
our culture, and our cricketers do it more than others.

And in what way do you feel the cricketers represent "us"? I mean are you
talking about ppl you voted for and approve of, or merely worried they
will give us a bad name. A cricket team is a cricket team. It
theoretically contains the XI best cricketers in a nation. It's not the XI
of Mr nice guys, or the XI of reasonable people, or for any other reason
except that they can play cricket. By no means do they represent "us".
They represent Australia, I suppose, in whatever abstract sense you can
represent a nation, but mostly, above all, they represent themselves. Poor
behaviour reflects on them.

Josh

"Sledging has been around for ever" - I think not! at least not in 1st
class cricket in the UK.

The occasional comment perhaps - but as a "gamsemanship" technique,
which is what it has frequently become, I don't believe it. Indeed the
attitude of players like Cork (to pick a UK example) is one of the
reasons I watch less 1st class cricket than I used to. Sledging is
simply unnecessary to make a point. On two occasions (reasonably)
recently I can remember seeing the ball beat the edge of a full ***ed
drive. The batsmen looked up at the bowler and a large grin spread over
their face. The bowler stopped at the end of the run and replied in
kind. Everyone knew who had beaten who ...

In the first occurrence Gangooly was the batsman - I forget the bowler.
The other occurred in the England/New Zealand Test at Guildford. It is
not the least of the reasons I now watch less men's and more women's
cricket.

Don
--
--------------------------------------------

I mean, really .. the idea is ludicrous. Taylor was espousing the same
opinion to the media, that Lara was wrong to complain to the media. Why
exactly?

If the Aus players aren't prepared to stand up and say "yeah, I sledge,
so what!?" then why do it? Personally I couldn't care less, but to get
all defensive about it when someone complains about it seems a little
silly to me.

Cheers

Aidan

I do recall an Australian batsman being called a "flukey Bastard" by a
bowler. The batsman's name was Bradman and so we can assume, I think,
that sledging has been around since WW2 at least.

Bob Dubery

Rick Eyre opined:

ravi (who thinks hair is incompetent but Bansal S. K. is sans-pareil)
aron.

- Graeme Vincent

ron, what do you think, lala? would you call just a no-ball? and since
Law 42.x covering beamers is a recent amendment, would you call gilchrist
under 42.1?
and where's the cronk man? if pepper can doit, so can Cronk! its all rod
marsh's fault, oz's best offspinner is in exile.. even if warne's got
bevan now, i think hair needs a little help?

bueno
anant
once every session) very nicely.

|... cecil pepper must have been fun to be around. he calmed
|roy gilchrist (who was beaning batsmen in english league cricket about
|once every session) from the non-striker's end. in a kind of charity
|match, gilchrist bowled couple beamers at the striker, and pepper threatened
|to retaliate. when reminded he couldn't bowl fast, pepper said that from
|4yds away, he could still hurt gilchrist, and "the umpire can only call
|a no-ball" [...]
|
|ron, what do you think, lala? would you call just a no-ball? and since
|Law 42.x covering beamers is a recent amendment, would you call gilchrist
|under 42.1?

Before Law 42.9 was amended in 1993 there was a Law 42.9 dealing with
beamers (or "Fast, High Full Pitches", if you prefer).  The principal
changes, other than general re-wording and the inclusion of what was
formerly a note in the new Law, are two:  the lowering of the boundary
line from the shoulders to the waist, and the removal of any
necessity for the Umpires to determine the "deliberateness" of the
beamer.  Since the beamer you postulate from 4 yards away would be
both clearly deliberate and aimed at the head, there would be no
difference in the powers of the Umpires under the unamended old
Law and under its present amended form.

At the very least, they would call "No ball", not for overstepping
the line as required by the No Ball Law, but for bowling a beamer
as they are required to call in Law 42.9.  Then they would caution
the Bowler that a further repetition would result in a final warning
and a second repetition would result in the Captain's being asked
to remove him.  That is at the very least.

In the case of a deliberate beamer from 4 yards away it is hard to
imagine that there would not be some further action taken in the
form of a report after the match and discipline against the Bowler
involved.

Of course the obvious thing to note is that all this still gives
the Bowler three throws (and he might as well throw it, too) from
four yards away, so some Umpires might invoke Law 43 and take
further action.  The 42 written Laws do not really contemplate
anything else, though.  Of course a very stern talking-to in the
middle of the pitch could give fair warning that there are not
going to be a second and third beamer, and a good Umpire would be
able to make that quite plain enough.

Take it easy,
--

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill  
I can't speak for UNC-CH, and UNC-CH can't speak for me.
It's better for both of us.

Tanny

bueno
anant