You know what really grinds my cricketing gears?

[wellAlbidarned]

Two posts above you.

Booing the opposition =/= being rude. Everyone participates enthusiastically if one guy does it.

He's not saying that booing the opposition is acceptable in every situation, he's just saying (as I'm interpreting it anyway) more or less the same as me: booing a team/player at a game doesn't automatically make you a ****, it's all about context.

 

[GIMH]

Acknowledging your opponents? Opponents are not entitled to respect, they have to earn it. Look at the 98-99 Ind-Pak test at Chennai, that performance deserved an ovation and the players got one. Ponting has not put up a performance worthy of respect in India and I am happy about crowds booing him till the day he earns their respect.

I was talking generally, but what about the WC QF? No?

 

[Spark]

He's not saying that booing the opposition is acceptable in every situation, he's just saying (as I'm interpreting it anyway) more or less the same as me: booing a team/player at a game doesn't automatically make you a ****, it's all about context.

Of course not. What I'm talking about is the specific situation where the context is "opposition player has done really well and scored a century" or "your team has won and opposition captain is doing the post-match".

 

[Burgey]

I was talking generally, but what about the WC QF? No?

Or the hundred he made two tours ago...

It is, as wellAlbi said, the context we are talking about. By Shri's logic Dravid ought to have been booed off here this Summer because he did **** all. Laxman too. Let alone Sehwag - he was beyond woeful.

The point which was originally made was about a failure to acknowledge the achievements of opposing players. It shows a lack of class imo, not to acknowledge them. I don't like it when my own team fails to clap an opponent's hundred, and I don't like it when supporters don't either.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Of course not. What I'm talking about is the specific situation where the context is "opposition player has done really well and scored a century" or "your team has won and opposition captain is doing the post-match".

Booing a victorious opposing captain during his post-match speech makes you a **** for sure. Not so fussed about it happening when someone scores 100 tbh. Sure, it's pretty dickish but while the game's still on people are entitled to have a bit of a jab at the opposition if they're not exactly crowd favourites. I'm not saying I'm one of those people, but I don't mind other people doing it, as long as it's in moderation.

Generally I find that players that aren't obviously ****s themselves get good opposition crowd response to their milestones anyway, which is pretty much all of them.

 

[Spark]

Even the ones that are ****s should get a reasonable hand if they make a 100 IMO. The only exception I can think of is if they've actually cheated to get there (like, genuine cheating, not just been lucky with umpire decisions) or have been done for spot fixing overnight.

 

[ankitj]

I'm definitely not having that mixing almost all of the world's best and most experienced cricketers into squads that are predominantly Indian and filled with youngsters and having them play in front of massive crowds is bad for Indian cricket. It's all wrapped up in the curious idea that in the case of the IPL (and ONLY in the case of the IPL), playing more cricket is bad for cricketers. It makes them tired, they might get injured, they might get 'burnout'. Getting good at T20 will, by some highly conjectural mechanism, make them bad at test cricket.

All of those things are true of domestic cricket too, which no one ever complains about, understanding that playing lots of competitive cricket with top-class players probably isn't the worst idea if you want to get better at cricket. Because to think that would be really stupid, wouldn't it. The principle of playing more cricket being bad for cricketers is only applicable to the IPL, because the IPL is cursed. Playing there causes burnout, injuries, incorrect priorities, unprofessionalism, tiredness, chronic impatience, general direness and acne, as it is unwholesome cricket.

No. It's all just old people spouting bollocks in an effort to discredit something they don't like.

Well there ate two parts to the anti IPL sentiment. One is the influence of IPL on one's technique and the second is prioritising IPL over national duties. I can accept the first part as natural evolution of the game - test cricket today will be played differently from how it was played in previous decades; fair enough.

But it's the second part that concerns me. No one in Indian cricket administration wants to even acknowledge the poor performance in England and Australia because doing that would mean you enter IPL with a somber mood and acknowledging that India cricket is in deep ****. No one wants to do that. Then there is the seriousness of the players themselves. They don't seem to be reflecting back on the mistakes they made in previous tours and why will they when they have million dollar deals waiting for them. It is this that I have a real problem with.

 

[ankitj]

Ankit's Cevno-ing hard in here.

Yeppers.

What cevonoing?

Spark is saying that not acknowledging good performances by opponents is poor but playing hard and dirty is not. All I am asking is who gets to decide that? You might have your own view but that doesn't give you the right to generalize and call (or support calling) an entire group "self righteous wankers".

I am not interested in discussing whether not acknowledging good performances itself is a poor thing or not. It is. I don't know why that is such a huge deal.

 

[Burgey]

Because the thread is about what grinds people's gears at the cricket?

 

[Howe_zat]

What cevonoing?

Spark is saying that not acknowledging good performances by opponents is poor but playing hard and dirty is not. All I am asking is who gets to decide that? You might have your own view but that doesn't give you the right to generalize and call (or support calling) an entire group "self righteous wankers".

I am not interested in discussing with not acknowledging good performances itself is a poor thing or not. It is. I don't know why that is such a huge deal.

Because it's an issue of friggin' politeness and what bothers us personally. Different situations require different standards of what's acceptable.

So in Spark and Burgey's opinion:

> Booing/sledging a player seen as a villain in the theatrical side of cricket - OK
> Booing/not appreciating them when they've actually achieved something - not OK

This is just straightforward social convention. It's not a contradiciton. For example

> Me swearing on CW - OK, so long as you use the filter
> Me swearing on Cricsim - actively encouraged
> Me swearing when visiting my grandmother - definitely not OK

This isn't hard to grasp.

 

[ankitj]

Howe - I don't know if you even disagree with me. For me it might be the reverse of what Burgey and Spark think and that's fine (as I said multiple times). I am just pissed by self-righteous tone which seems to assume an absolute standard of what is acceptable. That's about it.

EDIT: and the generalization.

 

[Howe_zat]

"just pissed by self-righteous tone which seems to assume an absolute standard of what is acceptable"

Nah, that tosh doesn't hold any water. People are stating what bothers them in a thread entirely for that purpose.

 

[Prince EWS]

Because it's an issue of friggin' politeness and what bothers us personally. Different situations require different standards of what's acceptable.

So in Spark and Burgey's opinion:

> Booing/sledging a player seen as a villain in the theatrical side of cricket - OK
> Booing/not appreciating them when they've actually achieved something - not OK

This is just straightforward social convention. It's not a contradiciton. For example

> Me swearing on CW - OK, so long as you use the filter
> Me swearing on Cricsim - actively encouraged
> Me swearing when visiting my grandmother - definitely not OK

This isn't hard to grasp.

I love how you called him out on his Cevnoing and then still got baited into explaining why X <> Y.

 

[Howe_zat]

I love how you called him out on his Cevnoing and then still got baited into explaining why X <> Y.

I do try to be nonchalant, but my pitiful need to be right tends to overrule it.

 

[Arachnodouche]

Ignoring or just leaving the stands is the best way of expressing disgust, if you have to at all. Heckling and booing is for little girls.

 

[Uppercut]

I love how you called him out on his Cevnoing and then still got baited into explaining why X <> Y.

Baha, is Cevno'ing accusing people of double standards for treating two different things differently?

 

[shankar]

So all this discussion is over the one incident of booing Ponting at the presentation (after cheering his 100)? Any other prominent incidents of not cheering milestones or booing players available?

 

[Howe_zat]

Baha, is Cevno'ing accusing people of double standards for treating two different things differently?

Yep.

 

[Burgey]

So all this discussion is over the one incident of booing Ponting at the presentation (after cheering his 100)? Any other prominent incidents of not cheering milestones or booing players available?

No it's not about that one incident at all.

And yes, there are other incidents. I saw two live this past summer on the same day, in fact.

 

[Uppercut]

That's awesome. There needed to be a word for it.