Saucy Jack's back - The Death of Sportsmanship?

Saucy Jack's back - The Death of Sportsmanship?

Post by Nigel Eddi » Mon, 03 Jan 2000 04:00:00


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)

 
 
 

Saucy Jack's back - The Death of Sportsmanship?

Post by Will Sutto » Mon, 03 Jan 2000 04:00:00

I find it ironic after reading your post that you sign
(a.k.a. Jack the ripper)
Quote:

> 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)


 
 
 

Saucy Jack's back - The Death of Sportsmanship?

Post by Scott Ma » Mon, 03 Jan 2000 04:00:00

Write an Essay while your there


Quote:
> 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)


 
 
 

Saucy Jack's back - The Death of Sportsmanship?

Post by Tikka, H.S » Mon, 03 Jan 2000 04:00:00

Quote:

>Recently I 'decided to opine' (as Mike Holmans is pleased to describe it)

<excellent English composition snipped>

Mr. Eddis,
Will you teach me English the way you write it?

 
 
 

Saucy Jack's back - The Death of Sportsmanship?

Post by Rachel-Fiona Harla » Mon, 03 Jan 2000 04:00:00

Quote:
>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.

I hope that you don't think from either of my posts that I was condoning
deliberate injury. I don't agree with bowling (so to speak) the other team out
by having them all 'retired hurt/injured/dead' etc. but I can see the logic of
using short pitched bowling to shake the batsman up a little/induce risky shots
etc.

Quote:

>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?),

I am curious about that. I suppose it must be through the observations of those
who have spectated in both eras since I don't suppose the Yellow Pages
speedometer was about in 1940.

Quote:

>b) That in order to be really competitive one must behave in an aggressive
>and insulting manner towards one's opponents,

I did have a better  think about that after your first post. I have reached the
conclusion that by trying to get up your opponent's nose you may acheive
success, not however because you rattle the opponent but because the bowler
actually gives himself a bit of a kick up the backside. For example, I have
just watched a passage of play where Allan Donald gave Alec Stewart a bit of a
roughing up. Now, Stewart is not the sort of player who reacts with anything
more than a smile but he still lost his wicket. I would hold with the view that
Donald heightened the atmosphere, got the adrenalin pumping and raised himself
to a higher level. I doubt whether many would agree with me and I don't think
that it will make it any more acceptable in your eyes, just some food for
thought.

 and conversely, that those who

Quote:
>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)!

I don't think that, but it has to be admitted that a hard-nosed attitude seems
to get results these days.

Quote:
>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.

Well, I know that my own school (and probably every other) would take that
stance but I doubt it is for the sake of good manners rather than upholding the
reputation of the school.

Quote:

>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).

Hmmm, I don't like crowd barracking either. There is nothing wrong with
shouting for your own team but deliberately yelling against the other team
isn't called for. As a special treat, during the England/ SA game today Sky TV
sought out the most drunken and pathetic England supporters on the ground and
placed a mic next to them so we could enjoy their exploits all day. Giving a
bad name to the perfectly respectable among England's 6000 strong Barmy Army.
Unfortunately, personal abuse, undesirable as it is, is something many
sportsmen come in for and it has to be part of their job to get on without
reacting. I doubt that Hutton was protesting against the manners of the juniors
rather than the fact that they were barracking him. Would he have responded the
same way if one of his team were coming in for such abuse?

 I am sure there are other, and better

Quote:
>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.

I suspect that you've hit the nail on the head there. I don't object because it
is all that I have ever known and so can't compare with other times. I will
admit that I'm am also more than a little reluctant to believe accounts of such
eras given by those who knew them simply because I believe nostalgia to be a
great deceiver.

And if someone else notices, they are

Quote:
>impatiently told that they are living in the past - always an excellent way
>of deflecting criticism of current manners.

I didn't mean to sound like that but despite what you have said above in the
post, I just think that it would be too big a job to revert (or force people to
revert) to conduct of past times and the best you and others who object to
current behaviour can hope for is damage control.

Quote:

>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.)

You are right that it is everybody's game and it is also everybody's right to
decide for themselves what they believe are good manners. You should stick up
for your principles (after all, they are easier to fight for than live up to)
and I shall stick up for mine (however pathetic they may be).

Quote:

>I apologise for the length of this posting, but I wanted to cover several
>notices that were posted during my brief absence.

No need to apologise. I have one request though, please call me Rachel and not
Ms Harland. I know you are simply being polite but it's uncomfortably formal
(to me at least)!

Rach.

Friends may come and go but enemies accumulate.
    -Thomas Jones.

 
 
 

Saucy Jack's back - The Death of Sportsmanship?

Post by Ashe » Mon, 03 Jan 2000 04:00:00

On Sun, 2 Jan 2000 02:17:22 -0800, "Nigel Eddis"

Quote:

>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.

Tell that to the Aussie team who faced the bodyline series in the
1930's and the next tour by Aus in Eng it started up again and then
the laws were changed.

Just about every era has had there lethal bowlers.
It's just in this era the camera zooms in on the action like
never before plus there are microphones behind the stumps
which does pick up a few swear words by the players from
time to time.

This era has been the best for the batsman as a bowler
can't bowl to many bouncers at any one batsman plus there is
all the body armour which protects the players much more.

 
 
 

Saucy Jack's back - The Death of Sportsmanship?

Post by Dave B » Tue, 04 Jan 2000 04:00:00

On Sun, 2 Jan 2000 02:17:22 -0800, in article


snip

Quote:
>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.

Perhaps the ICC need to look at similar penalties to those implemented
by the NFL (ie on field), though I doubt they'd have the courage.

Quote:
>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.

Rachel isn't the only one to think the aussies go over the top from
time to time. Even a few of us have posted to that effect.

snip

--
cheers,

Dave


 
 
 

Saucy Jack's back - The Death of Sportsmanship?

Post by Mad Hami » Wed, 05 Jan 2000 04:00:00

Quote:

>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.

I have no objection to players celebrating a wicket. I have severe problems with
giving the batsman a sendoff.

Quote:

>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.

Kippax, fractured skull
Bert Sutcliffe, knocked out by Adcock.
Tyson hit in the head by Lindwall.
Miller and Lindwall hooted for bouncing England batsmen
Larwood rapping Bradman and Jackson around the body (pre-bodyline, wet wicket)
Donald and Gregory under Armstrong.

Headley, Hendren, Bradman and McCabe were noted as great ***s and pullers so
obviously the odd ball went in there...
Grace talked about people bowling bouncers...

Quote:
> 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.

Bodyline was a problem because of the field setting. Bowl that line and length
to Bradman and McCabe with a conventional field setting and watch the runs
climb...

Quote:
>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.

agreed, possibly using stronger terminology <g>

Quote:

>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 don't think that you'll find many people who disagree with the assertion that
McGrath and Warne (the 2 major offenders) go beyond the limit at times. They
agree with it.

Quote:

>e) That to return to cricket as it once was means one would have to
>re-create the society of an earlier era!

Things were never what they used to be.

Bowlers in the 20s & 30s in county cricket used to try and hit the other team's
quick bowlers in the thigh to interfere with their bowling. Richardson bounced
people.
Trumper didn't walk....

****************************************************************************
The Politician's Slogan
'You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all
of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Fortunately only a simple majority is required.'
****************************************************************************

Mad Hamish

Hamish Laws


 
 
 

Saucy Jack's back - The Death of Sportsmanship?

Post by Mike Holma » Wed, 05 Jan 2000 04:00:00

On Sun, 2 Jan 2000 02:17:22 -0800, "Nigel Eddis"

I have a suspicion that Mr Eddis may have got some of the wrong end of
the stick about my post.

Just for the record, I am an Old Marlburian and a member of MCC, so
I'm not speaking from a position of class rancour. And my source for
being sure that bowlers 50 or 60 years ago were slower than today's
and so on is the countless hours I have spent watching cricket from
the Pavilion at Lord's in the company of first-class players from
those eras.

Since Mr Eddis has admitted that bad behaviour isn't exactly a new
phenomenon, but has in recent years reached new heights, I'll agree
and place the real origins of what has transpired in the World Series
Cricket of the late 1970s.

Quote:
>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.

I did not say at any point in my post that I approved of the
deterioration in standards of politeness or regarded the more
aggressive tactics employed by modern bowlers as an improvement. My
intention was to show some reasons why they had occurred, and how some
of the developments in the wider society in which cricket lives have
affected the way in which the game is played.

Quote:
>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.)

This is the heart of the question.

To dispose of the MCC question, it is the Club's own fault that its
writ no longer runs. During the 1970s and 1980s, it became a byword
for reactionary old fogeyness. It could not see that the fact that
senior MCC members were behind many of the attempts to circumvent the
embargo on South Africa would undermine its position. It could not see
that players in the commercial age would have to be paid  more than
professional subsistence wages. And it took until 1999 for the absurd
anachronism of a men-only cricket club which wouldn't allow women even
to spectate from the Pavilion to be dismantled. Having pretended to
itself that new-fangled modernism would go away, the Club became lost
in a historical backwater in terms of its influence on international
cricket. If it had tried to stamp its feet about the disgraceful
deterioration in standards, it would have been laughed at.

The most important of the changes which have taken place within
cricket, reflective of the wider society, is that players,
post-Packer, can no longer be treated as mere minions who do
authority's bidding without question.

"All that is needed is to make the necessary rules, and apply the
necessary sanctions."

If the cricket authorities worldwide - MCC aren't the only group who
took a long time to realise that heads-in-the-sand doesn't work as a
strategy - had managed the rise of player power better, making new
regulations and scales of sanctions might have been possible. But
their attitude of refusing to allow the players any say in the
administration of the game led to them forfeiting any respect from the
players. (The Australian Board, from what I've read, seem to have been
even stupider than the English authorities, which took some doing.)

WSC brought certain new features to the game, mostly in terms of TV
coverage. Post-Packer, the old dispensation of covering a match with
three or four cameras, with only one camera on the bowler's line, so
we saw alternate overs from front and back. That's not very
significant, perhaps, but it was a breath of modern thinking about the
game's presentation. It was one of the reasons why WSC was at least a
moderate success in contrast to the fuddy-duddy game which the ABC and
BBC presented to the public. The modern way of packaging cricket as
entertainment was born. It was perceived as more exciting.

For better or worse, the authorities, especially in Australia,
acquiesced at least in importing many of the "brighter" aspects of
WSC, which included extravagant celebrations. Packer cricket was,
after all, rebel cricket which was determined to do away with the
fusty old image of an old men's sport.

The authorities could then, perhaps, have stepped in to say that the
excesses (as they were then) of WSC would not be tolerated in the
established game. But they didn't. And the personalities at the head
of the Australian player body, the Chappells, Lillees and Marshes of
this world, who were no shrinking violets, would have made it very
difficult. They would have argued that more vociferous players were
part of modern cricket, and that to stamp on it would be to keep
cricket in the Victorian era. The authorities would have been accused
of not moving with the times.

And during most of the 80s, the authorities did not, in practice, have
the ultimate sanction open to them. They could not say "Behave or
we'll throw you out of cricket, and that's the end of you, sunshine.
Like it or lump it." If they did, Ali Bacher and his chums from South
Africa would have been standing outside the committee room with
contracts to play rebel cricket in South Africa for huge sums of
money. As it was, they still managed to harvest plenty of players
without the authorities giving people more incentive to jump ship.

But the authorities were not in a position where they could attempt to
impose standards by executive fiat and hope to have it stick without
the whole-hearted consent of the players. The contrast with the
American sports run by big money-men is that the NFL, NBA, MLB and so
on have never forfeited the respect of the players to anything like
the extent achieved by the MCC, TCCB, ACB, ICC, BCCI, BCCP, WICB and
so on, and they've had the money to go to court to establish their
title, whereas the cricket authorities have mostly been living on a
hand-to-mouth basis and struggled to keep some sort of lid on things.

Only now that the threat of rebel cricket circuses has largely
disappeared is it possible for the authorities, now somewhat wiser and
less out of touch with reality, to act in any effective way against
the excesses of on-field behaviour.

They have started to do so. In this newsgroup in recent weeks, we have
seen approximately 100,000 posts going on about the horrible
unfairness of handing out penalties to a bowler who indulged himself
in some fairly disgraceful antics not for the severalth time. Umpires
have been reporting players for bad behaviour for some time, and
referees have been acting both on those reports and on their own
observations. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the particular
incidents, it does at least indicate that a mechanism for enforcing
standards is available - the question is how stringently is it to be
applied.

MCC clearly has a role in its position as custodian of the Laws. The
1980 Code, which has had some slight revisions, was drafted before
most of the current deterioration had taken place. I gather that the
2000 Code will include far more in the new Law 42 (or whatever number
the one about Unfair Play will have) about acceptable on-field
behaviour than has ever been felt necessary hitherto.

In the early 1980s, five bouncers an over was permissible in both the
Laws and the playing regulations for Test cricket. Whether the present
restriction on bouncers (and over rates) were brought in to neutralise
one particular team or not, what had become excessive has been reined
in, even if not to the extent that some of the nostalgists would like.

That the Laws are to be updated with more emphasis on acceptable
standards of behaviour means that behaviour will improve, assuming
those responsible for oversight use the powers given. But it will only
improve to the extent that the players find acceptable, which won't be
enough to please traditionalists of my stripe, let alone Mr Eddis's.

The authorities lost their grip on the game in the 1970s and lost the
respect of the players. It has taken quite some time for them to
reclaim a position where they can make some inroads on what has got
out of hand. But they won't be able to return to the 1950s or before,
because the genie is out of the bottle, and can't be forced back in
completely.

It may not be the most pleasant thing to have to admit, and it
certainly does not give me a great deal of pleasure that these changes
have come about, but all we can hope to do now is to avert a descent
into total anarchy, and reverse some of the worst excesses which most
thinking players have realised have gone over the top.

The feeling is abroad that cricket in general is something of an
anachronism. Maybe not amongst dedicated cricket fans, but certainly
in the pages (not necessarily the sports pages) of most newspapers -
at least in England or Australia. A wholesale attempt to roll back the
last thirty years will simply attract ridicule from the public who
already perceive the game as out of touch with the times and hasten
the sport's decline. All that I think is possible, if the game is to
survive another thirty years, is amelioration of the worst of what has
come to pass.

Cheers,

Mike

--

Supporting the World's Second Worst Test Team (According ...

read more »

 
 
 

Saucy Jack's back - The Death of Sportsmanship?

Post by Craig Siviou » Thu, 06 Jan 2000 04:00:00

Quote:

> 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.

I agree with you, Nigel. Those that invented cricket placed _wickets_ in
theground for bowlers to aim at and hit. Their objective was never to hit their
fellow players. Likewise batsmen were given a bat to defend their
wickets, not their bodies. To bowl at the batsman's body is to play the game
in a manner unintended by the game's originators and to employ a tactic not
prohibited by the rules merely because it was not envisaged by the rule-makers.
Bodyline bowling, now routinely employed by all pace bowlers, had no
part in the original game. Quite literally, it is not cricket, and hence, quite
literally, unsportsmanlike conduct.

One may argue that modern cricket has evolved into a new game, related but
not identical to "classical" or "original" cricket, in which bodyline bowling is

an accepted part of the game In this case, though, one must still consider
whether or not the practice of aiming potentially lethal projectiles at a fellow

player is "sporting" or "sportsmanlike". I submit that bodyline bowling, even
when an accepted part of modern cricket, is not sporting. It is in fact, a
dangerous and irresponsible tactic, likely to result in injury and hence not
sporting. To the extent that modern cricket includes and condones such
practices, it is no longer a sport, but a ***-sport.

Quote:
> 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 agree once again, Nigel. The Neanderthal concept that one _must_
intimidatetheir opponents so that one can achieve a psychological advantage and
hence "break" their opponents is the mental equivalent of Bodyline bowling -
the infliction of trauma by other means. Once again, this tactic was not
intended by the originators of cricket and my comments in section a) could
be reinserted here.

[snip]

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
> 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.

Well put.

Quote:
> 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.)

Agreed.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
> 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.

I agree that the consisent application of rules and sanctions will influencethe
players' behaviour, but disagree that the presuppositions and mores
of the pre-war era are irrelevent as determinants of personal conduct, both
in the players and viewing public.

The Western World has entered a
post-Christian era. Less people are experiencing the life-changing
power of Jesus and thus our base nature is expressed unreservedly
in all areas of our personal conduct including that in our team sports and
public behaviour. This week at the SCG I heard a group of young Australians
loudly singing a song in praise of ***. While I agree they were not, in
truth, advocating this practice, I found it amazing that they should be signing
such a revolting song in public. Their base natures were being expressed
unreservedly.

I was once one of those young men. I was regularly ejected from the cricket
for boorish, drunken behaviour and sang and chanted similar profanity. After
an encounter with Jesus which led me to become a Christian my behaviour
changed immediately. Now since I desire to bring honour to Jesus through
my life, words and conduct I no longer desire to do those things. More
than this, Jesus gives us the power and spiritual energy we lack in order to
live honourably and decently. It's no mere mental assent to an idea, but a
real, immediate and life-changing encounter and available to you right now.

Just ask.

[snip rest]

 
 
 

Saucy Jack's back - The Death of Sportsmanship?

Post by Nigel Eddi » Sat, 08 Jan 2000 04:00:00

Once again, some interesting views.

I thank Craig Siviour for his kind words of support.  I regret however that
being an atheist by conviction I am unable share his vision, nor accept his
implied invitation to come to Jesus.

Mad Hamish notes that things are not always as one remembers them (Rachel
Harland mentioned this in an earlier posting) and I agree that is true.  All
the same there are some things that one does know for sure, and many of them
are empirically verifiable.  I don't think there can really be any doubt
that manners in cricket have changed for the worse, and also that fast
bowling is more aggressively directed at intimidating batsman than it used
to be.  If the latter were not so, helmets would not be universal.  Nobody
wore a helmet when I watched cricket.  Nowadays a batsman would court
disaster by not doing so, and the reason is obvious. (Are they compulsory
now, it occurs to me to ask?  I see so little cricket that I simply don't
know.)

Hamish also pointed out, as did Steve the Bajan and others, that there has
always been bad behaviour, and of course it would be foolish to argue. I
even said so myself in my last posting. (Steve is right about this, but
wrong when he assumes, quite gratuitously, that my objections are based on
mere nationalistic prejudice - on the contrary, I condemn dangerously
aggressive bowling and foul and aggressive manners, no matter who is guilty
of them.)  BUT - and this is the point I attempted to make, and respectfully
reiterate - there was less in earlier decades than there is now, and it is
worse now; and furthermore bad behaviour was seen as bad behaviour, and
almost universally condemned.  Nowadays it is defended, not merely by the
yahoos, but by people who ought to know better.  That is where the
difference lies.

In fairness, both Rachel and Dave B have pointed out that others besides
myself have protested at what is nowadays called 'sledging' (a new word to
me), and at the demonstrations of glee when someone is out.  I stand
corrected.  Reading this bulletin board more extensively, I realize I owe a
number of its readers an apology for not taking the trouble to do that
before posting my first notice.  Had I done so, I would have seen that I was
not alone in disapproving of these, to me, disgusting practices, and of the
fist-pumping demonstrations of triumph and similar vulgarities.  Indeed I
notice that players have been fined and suspended for these things.  But as
usual, the authorities go off  at half-cock.  Their wrist-slaps only
irritate the offenders, but do not cure them.

The other point I would like to emphasise is this.  Apologists for
present-day manners often say, Well, yes, but it's quite natural to
celebrate [if you cannot control yourself], and it's harmless really, but of
course we don't approve of 'giving the batsman a send-off' [getting in his
face, that is, and jeering at him].  They think A is all right, but they don
't care for B.  What they fail to realize is that A leads directly to B.
And the step is a very short one indeed.

A number of readers pointed out that things change, as though someone of my
obvious antiquity would fail to be aware of the fact, and they are of course
quite right.  Cricket has changed a great deal since the Gentlemen of
Hambledon sauntered forth on Broadhalfpenny Down to do battle with Squire
Osbaldeston and his friends from the West Kent Cricket Club - top hats and
funny-looking curved bats, and all.  It's changed since my day too.  We have
big sponsors, and time limits, and Texaco written on the stumps, and
electronic scoreboards and Diamondvision replay and coloured pajamas.  It's
not all bad.  Quite the contrary.  Cricket needed a shot in the arm.  But
some changes are NOT for the better.  Older people are often accused,
justifiably at times, of living in the past,  but younger people are just as
much in error when they ignore the past and fail to understand its lessons.

 
 
 

Saucy Jack's back - The Death of Sportsmanship?

Post by David Blak » Sat, 08 Jan 2000 04:00:00

On Fri, 7 Jan 2000 00:19:47 -0800, in article


nice post Nigel

Quote:
>Older people are often accused,justifiably at times, of living in the past,
>but younger people are just as much in error when they ignore the past
>and fail to understand its lessons.

oh how true....

--
cheers,

Dave

(remove .au to reply)