Recently I 'decided to opine' (as Mike Holmans is pleased to describe it)
that Sportsmanship in cricket had deteriorated since I had watched it in the
late 1940s and early 1950s - having lived abroad for about 40 years, the
last 36 in the USA, I had largely lost touch with what was happening in the
game. Specifically I cited the practice of bowling deliberately at the
batsman, and the - to me - odious behaviour of players who dance with glee
and hug one another whenever a wicket is taken.
A number of opinions were expressed, almost all disagreeing with my view. I
had intended replying to some recent postings but for technical reasons had
to delay doing so, and the discussion disappeared in the meantime into the
limbo of forgotten things. I take the liberty of reopening it now, for
anyone who is interested, and append (with a few additions) the response
which I had intended making before my system problems arose.
To summarise, the arguments seem to be:
a) That bowlers of earlier eras would certainly have bowled vicious bouncers
and cracked batsmens' ribs, if only they could have bowled fast enough and
accurately enough.
Mr Holmans assures us that with a few exceptions, bowlers simply weren't as
fast in former times as they are now. I don't know whether he is right or
not (how can he be so sure?), but for the most part they didn't bowl at the
batsman. The major exception was Bodyline, but Bodyline was not universally
approved of, the strongest protests were made against it, and it largely
ceased to be practiced. Other cases are mentioned - of Freddie Trueman
hitting tailenders without even a word of apology, and I certainly agree
this was reprehensible. The point though is that it was regarded as such,
and was generally speaking the exception, not the rule.
b) That in order to be really competitive one must behave in an aggressive
and insulting manner towards one's opponents, and conversely, that those who
refrain from doing so don't really care enough about winning (Etonians and
other effete and snobbish types who are too busy being Gentleman to care
about being Players)!
This is complete balderdash. Most of my family went to either Eton or
Westminster (I can almost see Mr Holmans' lip curl) and I can assure him
that we were no less competitive about winning as the 'ordinary blokes' who,
Mr Holmans says, now dominate the game.
I cannot resist adding that if I had dared to ascribe bad manners on the
field to a preponderance of 'ordinary blokes' (uninhibitedly being
themselves, I presume he means) the suggestion would have been greeted with
screams of outrage. But Mr Holmans has no compunction about dragging class
rancour into the discussion (so very British!). Having done that, his
argument trails off into a tendentious and less than illuminating digression
on war, politics and colonialism This doubtless tells us much about his
view of the world, but practically nothing about the subject under
discussion.
c) That crude *** is universal in all sports nowadays, and is due
in large part to American influence.
Certainly it is a part of many sports, more's the pity, but at one time
cricket was different from many other sports. Part of its charm was just
exactly that it WAS different. Now it's well on the way to being just
another commercialised show in which players snarl and stick their fingers
in the air and declare 'we're Number One'.
As for American influence, acceptance and approval of these manifestations
are not as universal here as Mr Holmans seems to think. In baseball - that
most American of games - it is regarded as decidedly obnoxious for a player
who has hit a home run to make crudely triumphant gestures as he rounds the
bases, and batters who do so risk getting hit by a pitch the next time they
come to the plate. Equally, when a pitcher hits a batsman deliberately with
a fastball (95-100 mph), it is often the occasion for a full-scale brawl.
Even in the National Football League some steps have been taken to curb the
more grotesque paroxysms of triumph, trash-talking and the like, though the
new rules don't go nearly far enough.
d) That the irreverent, devil-may-care, red-***ed Aussies carry all
before them, thus proving that their approach (which even Ms Harland agrees
is 'over the top' at times) is the key to victory.
I find this less than convincing. Australians have often been better at
tennis, cricket, rugby etc., even before Richie Benaud (if indeed it was he
who started encouraging the demonstrations I find so objectionable - nobody
answered my question about this, by the way). I should think their climate
and their environment generally have far more to do with their successes
than vagaries of conduct.
(Incidentally, I only mentioned the Australians originally in the context of
a particular incident that was reported. I wasn't suggesting that their
behaviour is worse than anyone else's.)
e) That to return to cricket as it once was means one would have to
re-create the society of an earlier era!
This in my view is just as absurd as the idea that behaving like a gentleman
is inimical to competitiveness. It is doubtless true that diminished
restrictions on personal behaviour have contributed to many of the less
attractive aspects of modern cricket, but to suggest that this is part of
some inexorable historical process which it is sacrilege to question is to
indulge in what CS Lewis called 'the snobbery of chronology'. Just because
something is recent does not mean it is an improvement. Nor does it mean
that it is irreversible.
Why should it not be possible to extirpate, or at least greatly diminish,
ill-mannered and unsporting behaviour on the cricket field, without
re-creating the 19th Century? All that is needed is to make the necessary
rules, and apply the necessary sanctions. But it is first necessary to see
this kind of behaviour for what it is, and to have the will to stop it. (I
had asked originally whether the MCC had ever attempted to do anything about
it, but nobody answered that question either.)
It was not of course my point that there was no bad behaviour in earlier
times. Undoubtedly there was. It isn't as though everything was perfect
prior to, say, 1960, but suddenly became a zoo from then onwards. WG Grace
was far from graceful, I know, and someone mentioned Hutton sitting on his
bat and waiting for the crowd to stop barracking (which I must say doesn't
seem entirely unreasonable to me). I am sure there are other, and better
examples. My point was that in an earlier day bad behaviour was seen as bad
behaviour, and it drew unfavourable comment. Nowadays, not only does nobody
disapprove - they don't even notice. And if someone else notices, they are
impatiently told that they are living in the past - always an excellent way
of deflecting criticism of current manners.
Mr Holmans refers to cricket as his game, rather as though he owned it, but
I venture to suggest that it is mine as much as it is his or anyone else's,
and I care about it just as much as he does. Others who care about cricket
should also realise that celebratory demonstrations in the wake of a
departing batsman are deliberate and gratuitous bad manners, and that they
are also the thin end of a much larger wedge. If behaviour like this is
viewed as 'innocent', as it is by Ms. Harland, sooner or later it will go
'over the top' (to quote her again). And before much longer, worse will
follow. (If it hasn't already.)
I apologise for the length of this posting, but I wanted to cover several
notices that were posted during my brief absence.
NIgel Eddis
New York
(a.k.a. Jack-the-Ripper)