You know what really grinds my cricketing gears?

[Burgey]

Fair. I did ask if it was the scoring rate in the post that crashed but couldn't be bothered to type it all out again. I didn't genuinely think the poor record in England is the only feasible reason.

Out of interest, did you consider that perhaps his defensive and uninspiring mode of batting can bore the opposition into submission in the same way that a Lara or Tendulkar could cause bowler's to raise their game? Not necessarily a view I hold, but one that has crossed my mind. Never have I felt more helpless as a fan than watching Cook and Trott plod along.

Well it could have that effect, but I've not seen it have that effect, or felt it have that effect, when he's played against Australia.

It depends how you look at things, but whether I'm playing or watching, the (comparatively) great players, to me, have gears. And they change them as and when they want to or need to. I think he lacks that compared to others.

 

[Burgey]

That is a general English thing. Contrasts most strikingly with the never ending pride of Americans.

Contrasts well with our crowds too.

 

[Manee]

Well it could have that effect, but I've not seen it have that effect, or felt it have that effect, when he's played against Australia.

It depends how you look at things, but whether I'm playing or watching, the (comparatively) great players, to me, have gears. And they change them as and when they want to or need to. I think he lacks that compared to others.

It is a skill to change gears, but whether the skill is as useful as it appears is something I would perhaps be willing to dispute on a particularly uneventful day (not today, haha). If you've yet to see him take the game away with his batting though, it is an absolutely fair enough judgement to make that he is just below the top echelon of players.

 

[Spark]

So Kohli getting booed in Australia earlier this year, Dhoni getting booed in the Bell incident last year, and Ponting getting booed at the presentation ceremony of QF of WC are all same? Then what is the debate about.

As for applauding cricketer's performances, I don't see that such a huge issue. In a world cup QF, when stakes are so high, I will be so emotionally involved in it that I don't know if I will remember to take notice of a good performance by an opponent. I don't know why that is such a shame. Besides, Ponting did receive applause for his hundred in India.

Kohli recieved a standing ovation when he got his century and when walking off, so it's not a fair comparison.

Dhoni getting booed was pretty ****, I agree.

Ponting getting booed post match after playing a quality innings and after his team lost was just plain ****. There is no other way to play it, was disgusted when I saw that (and said as much here). Bad winners to the nth degree, whoever those ****s were.

In any case if you find yourself to be so nationalistic that you can't appreciate/applaud a good performance by an opponent, even in a WC QF, then, well, that's a bit disappointing. I'd have hoped that good cricket trumps crass nationalism.

 

[Spark]

English crowds seem to have a self-deprecating side to them. I remember in 93 (I think) in an Ashes year they were getting pumped and the crowd started up with

We've got the worst team
In the world
We've got the worst team
In the world

Gold.

I remember during one of the first Ashes series I watched fully, think it was 02/3, at Adelaide IIRC, England had conceded a big first innings deficit, had lost quite a few wickets wiping it off and were staring at a heavy defeat, but nonetheless when the deficit was wiped they came up with

We've got one more run than you

Was outstanding.

 

[ankitj]

Kohli recieved a standing ovation when he got his century and when walking off, so it's not a fair comparison.

Dhoni getting booed was pretty ****, I agree.

Ponting getting booed post match after playing a quality innings and after his team lost was just plain ****. There is no other way to play it, was disgusted when I saw that (and said as much here). Bad winners to the nth degree, whoever those ****s were.

In any case if you find yourself to be so nationalistic that you can't appreciate/applaud a good performance by an opponent, even in a WC QF, then, well, that's a bit disappointing. I'd have hoped that good cricket trumps crass nationalism.

I can tell you I appreciate cricket enough to applaud good efforts by opponents.

But in general, you think it's always a bad thing that cricket is played with lot of pride? Don't the West Indians of 70's receive lot of praise for playing for pride (the whole fire in Babylon thing)?

 

[Burgey]

It is a skill to change gears, but whether the skill is as useful as it appears is something I would perhaps be willing to dispute on a particularly uneventful day (not today, haha). If you've yet to see him take the game away with his batting though, it is an absolutely fair enough judgement to make that he is just below the top echelon of players.

These things are always in the eye of the beholder, and they're not always tangible. Part of what makes the game so great.

 

[Manee]

These things are always in the eye of the beholder, and they're not always tangible. Part of what makes the game so great.

Oh yeah. I get that totally. I try to resist falling into the common trap of thinking that it is a game played on paper. Changing gears in Tests is a skill which is very valuable, was just pondering whether it appears a bit more valuable than it actually is.

 

[Burgey]

I can tell you I appreciate cricket enough to applaud good efforts by opponents.

But in general, you think it's always a bad thing that cricket is played with lot of pride? Don't the West Indians of 70's receive lot of praise for playing for pride (the whole fire in Babylon thing)?

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Jef Dujon listed as his biggest disappointment in cricket not seeing Allan Border make a ton in each innings against his own side in 84 (he made 98* and 100*).

 

[Spark]

I can tell you I appreciate cricket enough to applaud good efforts by opponents.

But in general, you think it's always a bad thing that cricket is played with lot of pride? Don't the West Indians of 70's receive lot of praise for playing for pride (the whole fire in Babylon thing)?

If it comes to the point where people find themselves unable to acknowledge the achievements of their opponents then yes, that's a bad thing.

It's something I, personally, (probably somehwat irrationally) find really important - heckle, sledge, put people off to try and stop them achieving, but IMO it comes to that stage, it's too far. It's something I was brought up with to some extent - when I played cricket, I played in universally **** teams which got slaughtered a lot of the time (mostly because we often only had 8 players...) but nonetheless, we were always told to clap someone if they got to 50, even if we wished the batsman would just **** off and leave us alone.

 

[shankar]

As for applauding cricketer's performances, I don't see that such a huge issue. In a world cup QF, when stakes are so high, I will be so emotionally involved in it that I don't know if I will remember to take notice of a good performance by an opponent. I don't know why that is such a shame. Besides, Ponting did receive applause for his hundred in India.

No one in the match thread that day AFAIR, claimed that there wasn't enough applause for Ponting's 100. In fact the appraisal was that he received warm applause. I can't recall many other occasions where players didn't receive any applause for milestones. I was in the crowd both during Anwar's record breaking 194 and Warne's wicket of Pathan in 2004 when he became the leading wickettaker - Both received spontaneous ovations despite there being no electronic screens announcing the fact.

 

[Burgey]

Oh yeah. I get that totally. I try to resist falling into the common trap of thinking that it is a game played on paper. Changing gears in Tests is a skill which is very valuable, was just pondering whether it appears a bit more valuable than it actually is.

It may be that it is. We aren't comparing a Sobers and a Graeme Wood here. You get such good players and these things, small as they may seem, can sway your view of one player and put him ahead of another.

 

[ankitj]

If it comes to the point where people find themselves unable to acknowledge the achievements of their opponents then yes, that's a bad thing.

It's something I, personally, (probably somehwat irrationally) find really important - heckle, sledge, put people off to try and stop them achieving, but IMO it comes to that stage, it's too far.

Some sort of **** behviour is acceptable, some not. Who decides that?

 

[Spark]

Some sort of **** behviour is acceptable, some not. Who decides that?

Again, it's a personal thing. Play the game hard, even a bit dirty, but don't make it a war. If someone from the opp team does well, acknowledge it. Not doing so makes you a right **** in my eyes.

 

[ankitj]

No one in the match thread that day AFAIR, claimed that there wasn't enough applause for Ponting's 100. In fact the appraisal was that he received warm applause. I can't recall many other occasions where players didn't receive any applause for milestones. I was in the crowd both during Anwar's record breaking 194 and Warne's wicket of Pathan in 2004 when he became the leading wickettaker - Both received spontaneous ovations despite there being no electronic screens announcing the fact.

A certain GotSpin kept claiming that for some six months.

And yes this whole discussion betrays an ignorance of Indian cricket fan's mindset. It's not Indian players alone. Akram, Warne, Murali, Lara, Waugh, Ambrose, McGrath are all stars here. There are going to be one or two like Ponting who in general are unpopular. But that's how it is. How many fans like Harbhajan in Australia?

 

[Spark]

If he'd been picked then maybe we'd have found out

Would be worthwhile seeing how KP was treated here though, definitely the biggest pantomime villain for Aus crowds going around atm. Spare no effort to make him now just how badly he ****ed up if he misfields or something.

 

[ankitj]

Again, it's a personal thing. Play the game hard, even a bit dirty, but don't make it a war. If someone from the opp team does well, acknowledge it. Not doing so makes you a right **** in my eyes.

Each to his own. You shouldn't get all worked up over that. I don't pay as much attention to crowd reactions to milestones, but it is behaviour like these that bug me...

 

[Spark]

It's an innate part of how I view sport, how I was "brought up" if you want to put it that way. I actually tend to give more leeway to cricketers because they're the ones actually under pressure, though I agree that bullying umps etc are pretty average too.

I'm not cool with over-aggressive send-offs either, actually, for reasons that aren't too dissimilar to what I've outlined above. Can understand that you're happy to have got the **** out, but don't take it too far.

 

[Jono]

Am I the only one who just feels like this is the biggest non-issue in the history of cricket?

Why do people call Sachin "Sachin" instead of " Tendulkar " ?

haha have to admit that was good from cevno

 

[Shri]

Well Burgey has seen Indian crowds be unappreciative of opposition milestones for what 10 years now and thats his gripe. Well the rest of us have seen the Aussies been **** ****s in the field since forever, imagine the gripe we must have. ****s deserve to be booed afaic.