Sledging/Bob Woolmer/Shane Warne

Sledging/Bob Woolmer/Shane Warne

Post by deshvaas » Tue, 18 Mar 1997 04:00:00


Quote:

> Here're two quotes from Bob Woolmer:

>         Sledging?  I'm all in favour.  Cricket wouldn't be the same
>         without it and I hope it never changes...I learnt the art of
>         sledging from the Australians and came to enjoy it.  It's
>         unfair to ask cricketers to play in front of a crowd of 30,000
>         with millions watching on television and expect them to show
>         no emotion.

>                         -- Bob Woolmer, 28-2-97,
>                            in the Electronic Telegraph.

> And after the Warne-laughing-at-Adams incident,

>         It was a little disappointing for cricket.  The guy's out.
>         There's no need to mock him as they did.  You've got the wicket.
>         What else do you need?  You've got through, you don't need to
>         make a meal of it.

>                         -- Bob Woolmer, 18-3-97,
>                            in the Melbourne Age.

This guy Woolmer is the ultimate ass.  First, being a coach, he comes
out and makes this class statement about sledging which is 'condemned'
by the ICC.  Now, Warne's actions are 'disappointing'.  Where was
Mr.  Woolmer when Donald politely went up the pitch to inquire about
Dravid's health??  Woolmer dude cracks me up!!

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
> Heh, heh.  What a difference three weeks makes! Seems like Bob can
> dish it out but doesn't know how to take it. Little unbecoming of the
> RSA management to whine about some friendly banter on the field.  I
> mean, it's not like their bowlers *ever* behave badly on the pitch,
> right?  No, no, Sean Pollock never points the batsman the way to the
> pavilion, Donald never uses foul language in frustration...

 
 
 

Sledging/Bob Woolmer/Shane Warne

Post by Srikant Jayarama » Tue, 18 Mar 1997 04:00:00

Here're two quotes from Bob Woolmer:

        Sledging?  I'm all in favour.  Cricket wouldn't be the same
        without it and I hope it never changes...I learnt the art of
        sledging from the Australians and came to enjoy it.  It's
        unfair to ask cricketers to play in front of a crowd of 30,000
        with millions watching on television and expect them to show
        no emotion.

                        -- Bob Woolmer, 28-2-97,        
                           in the Electronic Telegraph.

And after the Warne-laughing-at-Adams incident,

        It was a little disappointing for cricket.  The guy's out.  
        There's no need to mock him as they did.  You've got the wicket.
        What else do you need?  You've got through, you don't need to
        make a meal of it.

                        -- Bob Woolmer, 18-3-97,
                           in the Melbourne Age.

Heh, heh.  What a difference three weeks makes! Seems like Bob can
dish it out but doesn't know how to take it. Little unbecoming of the
RSA management to whine about some friendly banter on the field.  I
mean, it's not like their bowlers *ever* behave badly on the pitch,
right?  No, no, Sean Pollock never points the batsman the way to the
pavilion, Donald never uses foul language in frustration...    

BTW, what a ton by Mark Waugh, under pressure, when it really counted!
Superb!

        -- Srikant

 
 
 

Sledging/Bob Woolmer/Shane Warne

Post by j sreedh » Wed, 19 Mar 1997 04:00:00

 heh heh!!!

On a related topic, here is a quote from a Prem Panicker article.

[Rediff]               [Navigator]                   [Sports]
[Information Entertainment Online]

                  Rain rules... and Barry Jarman dictates...

                  Prem Panicker

                               Barry Jarman rules, okay!

                  The more I see of Mr Barry Jarman, the more I
                  wonder what, precisely, the role of match referee
                  is.

                  If Jarman's performance is any indication, then the
                  role can be defined as follows: "Firstly, and at
                  all times, the match referee shall ensure that the
                  incompetence of umpires is never questioned by
                  anyone even remotely associated with the game. And
                  secondly, he shall also strain every nerve to
                  ensure that while both teams in a contest are
                  treated equally, some teams are more equal than
                  others."

                  Sounds harsh? Okay, check out the latest from said
                  gent. Jarman summoned Indian manager Sunil Dev for
                  "breaking ICC rules", specifically clauses three
                  and eight. The first relates to "bringing the game
                  into disrepute" and the second to "making
                  statements on umpiring decisions".

                  This is why Dev attracted Jarman's wrath. On
                  television, the Indian manager was being quizzed
                  about matters cricketing and, almost inevitably,
                  the question of the Jonty Rhodes catch, in the
                  abandoned final on February 12, to get rid of
                  Azharuddin came up. "Under the circumstances,"
                  replied Dev - said circumstances being that neither
                  the straight nor square leg umpire was in a
                  position to say whether the catch had been
                  completed fairly - "I think the umpires should have
                  called for a TV verdict. If they can call for TV
                  replays on boundary decisions - and catches - then
                  surely they could have done so in this instance.
                  Neither umpire was really in a position to make a
                  snap decision."

                  By saying that, how did Dev "bring the game into
                  disrepute"?

                  Is it denigrating cricket, to suggest that since
                  technology exists - and in fact is being
                  increasingly used to determine even whether a ball
                  landed inside or outside the boundary line, which
                  is much simpler for the umpires on the field to do
                  than determining whether a fielder, who has his
                  back to them when completing a catch, has taken it
                  fairly or not - it should be used in such marginal
                  cases?

                  Okay, assuming it is just that. Then is it
                  punishable only when an India official or player
                  does it? Mr Jarman was the match referee for the
                  Indian leg of the South African tour in late 1996
                  as well, if memory serves. And I don't remember him
                  thinking that both SA coach Bob Woolmer and captain
                  Hansie Cronje had brought the game into disrepute
                  when, after the first Test at Ahmedabad, both
                  dismissed the pitch as a nightmare and the umpiring
                  as incompetent.

                  Hey, by what yardstick does a Dev bring the game
                  into disrepute by suggesting that technology should
                  be used to adjudicate on marginal decisions, but
                  Woolmer doesn't bring the game into disrepute when
                  he suggests the umpiring was flawed?

                  Okay, let us stay with this business of bringing
                  the game into disrepute for a while longer. Before
                  the SA leg of the tour, friend Jarman specifically
                  said that the hand bent at the elbow - the classic
                  "Up yours!" gesture - was not on, that both teams
                  had been warned about that, and that any such
                  gesture would be punished. Okay, so what did Shaun
                  Pollock do when he got Mohammad Azharuddin in that
                  famous incident? The selfsame gesture - caught
                  live, and in all its graphic glory, on television.
                  Yet Pollock was not, in Jarman's own words,
                  questioned, because the match referee did not think
                  it was necessary. Why not, pray? Because Azharuddin
                  told him that Pollock hadn't said anything abusive.
                  So? Does that condone the gesture, outlawed by
                  Jarman himself?

                  Okay, fine - Pollock gets away without a stain on
                  his character because he hadn't said anything
                  abusive. What price Allan Donald? When Dravid on
                  drove him for a six, Donald responded with a
                  bouncer, then came down the pitch to tell the
                  batsman something that, most definitely, was not
                  "Hi, how are you?". Next ball was another
                  short-pitched ball, and after Dravid fended it off,
                  he got another mouthful from the bowler - both
                  instances, obviously abusive, and prompting Sachin
                  Tendulkar, the non-striker, to draw umpire Cyril
                  Mitchley's attention to the incident.

                  By what reckoning, by what yardstick, does Jarman
                  not take action in this instance? Unlike Pollock,
                  Donald most definitely said "something". Jarman,
                  like the proverbial three monkeys, however sees no
                  evil, hears no evil... except when the man in
                  question happens to be Sunil Dev.

                  Not just Dev, though. In an earlier game, Azhar is
                  booked for "dissent", right? And what did Azhar do
                  to deserve that? He gets a decision so badly flawed
                  - I mean, the guy had all three stumps showing when
                  he got a ball on his back pad, by what law was he
                  out LBW? - and promptly walks. Pollock helps him on
                  his way with the famous gesture - at which point,
                  Azhar glares at the bowler, and on his way back to
                  the pavilion, turns round a few times to throw
                  stares at Pollock. By what definition is it
                  "dissent" to stare at an opposing player?

                  Alternately, remember the famous instance in the
                  Test series when Gary Kirsten got one on his pads,
                  the ball ballooned up, Dravid from short square
                  dived forward, taking Kirsten with him, and came up
                  with the ball and the batsman was given out?
                  Kirsten stood there, first pointed to his pads,
                  then shook his head at the umpire and all through
                  his painfully slow walk back to the pavilion, kept
                  shaking said head at said umpire. If a look is
                  "dissent", then repeated shakes of the head is not?
                  Is sauce for Azhar's goose not, in Jarman's view,
                  sauce for Kirsten's gander?

                  Pankaj Dharmani and Saurav Ganguly are docked 25
                  per cent of their match fees for "intimidatory
                  appealing". Okay, they both rushed up to close to
                  the umpire, asking for a decision. Very bad
                  behaviour, admittedly - and in total contrast to
                  that shown by the South Africans in India - each
                  time a ball was taken or it hit the pads or a throw
                  hit the stumps, the South Africans would of course
                  turn very politely to the umpires and ask, in the
                  politest of tones, "How is that, umpire?" And if
                  the appeal was turned down, they would trot back to
                  their places, meek as Mary's Lamb, and get on with
                  the game - under the benevolent eye of no less than
                  the selfsame Jarman.

                  Sheesh!

                  Okay, clause eight - questioning umpiring
                  decisions. As pointed out earlier, Dev's
                  "questioning" was much milder than what Woolmer
                  indulged in, in India. That apart, if an umpire
                  goofs, what then? The player can't look at him
                  because he is guilty of dissent. Neither player nor
                  official can comment about it afterwards because it
                  is against the norms. And the match referee won't
                  take any action against umpires guilty of repeated
                  errors and just plain incompetence - whether said
                  umpire happens to be a Willey, a Hair or a Bansal.

                  All very cosy for the umpires, certainly, but what
                  of the players?

                  Hey, it is being suggested that umpires are, after
                  all, human. Right - and the players are not? A
                  batsman - whether it is a Kirsten or an Azhar makes
                  no never mind - plays his heart out, employing
                  every skill at his command to do well for his side.
                  And then gets a decision that is not marginal, but
...

read more »

 
 
 

Sledging/Bob Woolmer/Shane Warne

Post by j sreedh » Wed, 19 Mar 1997 04:00:00

Oops, my previous post should have a different subject title.

here is the one about Sledging and Bob Woolmer...

[Rediff]               [Navigator]                   [Sports]
[Information Entertainment Online]

               [Image]

               Odds and trends - recent gleanings from the world of
               cricket

               Prem Panicker

<snip>

                                 Thou shalt not sledge

               On the eve of the first Test between South Africa and
               Australia at the Wanderers', in Johannesburg, South
               African coach Bob Woolmer in a media briefing said
               something that I reproduce verbatim: "Sledging? I am all
               in favour. Cricket wouldn't be the same without it, and I
               hope it never changes. As long as verbal abuse does not
               become too personal or vitriolic, it can actually
               stimulate the players. I learnt the art of sledging from
               the Australians, and came to enjoy it. It is unfair to ask
               cricketers to play in front of a crowd of 30,000, with
               millions more watching on television, and expect them to
               show no emotion."

               Ah?! How very, very interesting indeed. I wonder if Mr
               Woolmer, who has come out strongly in defense of sledging,
               has in his time as player and later as coach ever come
               across a document put out by the ICC, and headlined Code
               of Conduct for international fixtures? If he has, has he
               skimmed through the same? And in course of his skimming,
               has his eye been arrested, even momentarily, by Clause
               two, which specifically says that all forms of verbal
               aggression on the field of play, defined in the vernacular
               as sledging, is expressly forbidden?

               When rules of play forbid a particular practise, how then
               does the coach of an international team get away with
               supporting it? Are rules meant to be enforced, or can we
               in these lax modern times pick and choose the rules that
               we will obey, and the ones we won't?

               Mr Woolmer talks of the pressures of playing cricket
               before millions. By the same token, those millions react
               very strongly when one of their favourite players fail,
               right? Right. So let us say X is batting, gets a ball
               which he edges onto his pads, and the umpire gives him out
               LBW. Is it then okay, given the pressures of playing, and
               failing before, millions of spectators for player X to
               refuse to heed the decision of the umpire, and to stand on
               his own conviction that he is not out?

               Frankly, it is rather sad that a coach of Woolmer's
               stature should make a comment of this nature in a public
               forum. If he believes that an existing rule is wrong, then
               the right place to debate it is in the ICC - one thing a
               responsible official cannot do is defend as acceptable a
               practise that the game's governing body has expressly
               outlawed.

                                  Wicket, wicket ways

               When a touring side visits India and succumbs to spin, the
               cry goes up: 'India doctors its pitches to suit its
               bowlers'.

               Which, frankly, is true. What surprises me, though, is why
               this outcry is only heard when teams are visiting India.
               Are we to understand that this is a uniquely Indian
               practise? That no other side prepares its wickets to suit
               its own strengths?

               In this context, a statement made by Clive Lloyd, manager
               of the West Indies team, before the recently concluded
               first Cable and Wireless Test between India and West
               Indies is interesting. On Monday March 2, Lloyd gave an
               interview to a Kingston, Jamaica newspaper in which he
               blasted the Jamaica Cricket Association and the
               groundstaff thereof for preparing a placid wicket for the
               first Test against India at Sabina Park.

               Two days later, on Wednesday, Lloyd addressed a media
               conference and again reiterated his disappointment and
               disgust with the wicket that had been prepared at the
               venue. And he lashed the groundstaff for failing to
               provide a wicket that would have been to the advantage of
               the home team. "The Sabina Park wicket for the first Test
               is not to our liking," LLoyd said. "In fact, it is a
               disaster. This is not the way a home advantage should be
               utilised."

               Reading between the lines, it does appear that other teams
               are not averse to tailoring home wickets to their own
               advantage. Fair enough. But then, why do these same teams
               react with such palpable anger and outrage when they tour
               India and find the home side doing the same?

                                 From heroes to zeroes

               All through India's recent tour of South Africa, the media
               there had backed its team to the hilt. In fact, a native
               South African who had discovered Rediff while looking for
               what the "other side" had to say, sent me an e-mail which
               I quote in part: "I was glad to stumble across your site
               and read a refreshingly different point of view, because I
               was getting heartily sick of the local media. Reading the
               reports in the South African press, I got the idea that
               there was only one team playing cricket out there, and
               that team the very best in the world, probably the best of
               all time..."

               Less than a fortnight later, South Africa went down to its
               worst ever defeat in 33 years when Australia wrapped up
               the first Test of the ongoing series by a margin of an
               innings and 196 runs. And guess what? The South African
               media's response was a blistering attack on the home side
               - the same media, mind you, that had before the Test began
               had hyped it as the contest to decide the unofficial world
               championship of Test cricket.

               After the first Test, however, the unanimous verdict is
               "No contest". "South Africa's prospects in the remaining
               two Tests look dire, because it has no better prospects to
               fall back on," went an editorial in a leading daily. And
               almost every single article in the local press slammed the
               home side as a bunch of over-hyped cricketers.

               Funny, isn't it, how we in the media raise teams sky high
               after a win, and slam them following a defeat? The sense
               of balance, of perspective, seems sadly missing from both
               the media and the fans, of late. The fact of the matter is
               that there are nine nations that have been accorded full
               Test-playing status by the ICC and of late, the playing
               field has pretty much levelled itself out. Today, each of
               those nations are capable of beating any of the others on
               their day. Recent results are an indication of this
               overturning of the formbook - England makes heavy weather
               of it in Zimbabwe, then wins handily against the higher
               rated New Zealand. Sri Lanka, riding the World Champions
               of one-day cricket tag, goes down to the Kiwis in the
               longer version of the game. South Africa, supposedly the
               pretenders to the world crown, are blasted inside of the
               distance by Australia. And I'll lay you whatever odds you
               like that before the ongoing season ends, you will find
               even more astonishing results to underline this point.

               Meanwhile, the media goes its merry way, building teams up
               one day, ripping them to shreds the next. Mike Atherton
               could write a book on the subject - the boy wonder of
               England cricket was pilloried following the Zimbabwe tour,
               but following the win over New Zealand, he is once again
               being hyped as the greatest thing to have happened to
               English cricket since W G Grace.

               I wonder if the people who put individuals, and teams, on
               pedestals and topple them again the day after are aware of
               the enormous pressures they are subjecting the players,
               and the teams, to?

               In an earlier age, when you read a cricket report, you
               knew what happened on the field of play. Today,
               'reportage' is mostly sound and fury, signifying very
               little.

               But then again, as a friend pointed out, this is the age
               of hard-sell.

<more snip>

   [E-mail]                                          Mail the Sports Editor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Home | News | Business | Sports | Movies | Chat
                  Travel | Planet X | Freedom | Computers
                                  Feedback

                      Copyright 1996 Rediff On The Net
                             All rights reserved

 
 
 

Sledging/Bob Woolmer/Shane Warne

Post by Chris Otten » Wed, 19 Mar 1997 04:00:00

Quote:
> And after the Warne-laughing-at-Adams incident,

>    It was a little disappointing for cricket.  The guy's out.  
>    There's no need to mock him as they did.  You've got the wicket.
>    What else do you need?  You've got through, you don't need to
>    make a meal of it.

>                    -- Bob Woolmer, 18-3-97,
>                       in the Melbourne Age.

The other thing Woolmer conveniently forgets to mention is that the reverse
sweep has not appeared in any cricket coaching manuals I have come across.
Basically it is a "smart-arse" type of shot which, as one spinner to
another,
Adams was obviously trying to get one-up on Warne. So of course Warne is
going to make some kind of play in the one-upmanship stakes when it does
not come off.

Chris