• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: Tronica

The Official BL Cricket Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think your missing my point THR, I'm not making excuses for the 1 match we lost but simply saying you cant read too much into it. Same as Australia can't read too much into their victory in that series as NZ was not at full strength. Its not an excuse at all. I'm just saying you can't make too much of it either way.
I think its harsh to label Ponting a terrible sport because he has a go at the umpires. When competing at elite levels in any sport it can be quite hard to control your emotions. The umpires have themselves to blame for putting up with the behaviour for this long. Ponting in my opinion is not a bad sport. When we lost to South Africa the other night Ponting accepted the loss and admitted Australia was outplayd and that we needed to bring our "A Game". Its pretty easy to slag off Ponting for the Ashes loss and any other loss but the reality is that the whole team didn't perform well in England and we were outplayed. Give the guy a break, he is still learning his craft. He is not the best captain we've ever had, but nobody is perfect from day 1, believe it or not even Waugh, Taylor, Border and yes even Chappel made mistakes as captain. They all had to learn from their mistakes.

Beech
 
So you're comparing Ponting with Chappel? Both are incredibly bad sports, so i dont get what you're trying to prove...bowling underarm to tail-enders to be a prick and ensure you win the game is the same as bitching about/to umpires?

I know you're gonna come back and say "That was one thing, you cant define his captaincy by one poor act".

But i think you can, its not our greatest moments that define us, its our worst.
 
THR: I'm not saying that the team we have now is bad, just that they couldnt hold a candle to the team that Steve Waugh captained, if you can't see that just by looking then I be fucked getting into the finer details of it...
 
I don't think either Chappel or Ponting are incredibly bad sports. Both have acted inside the rules. Chappel broke no laws of cricket at all in ordering his bro to bowl underarm in order to win the game.
The captain's job is to win the game, every player on the field has the job of winning the game. They are professional sportsmen, winning games of cricket is what they are paid to do.
Just because Ponting plays the game hard doesn't make him a bad sport. He showed good sportsmanship in the Tsunami charity match, also in the games against the World XI and in the 20/20 match. He plays the serious games hard and plays to win, he does what is expected of him - whatever it takes to win.



Beech
 
beech said:
I don't think either Chappel or Ponting are incredibly bad sports. Both have acted inside the rules. Chappel broke no laws of cricket at all in ordering his bro to bowl underarm in order to win the game.
The captain's job is to win the game, every player on the field has the job of winning the game. They are professional sportsmen, winning games of cricket is what they are paid to do.
Click to expand...

It was bad form and not in the spirit of the game.
 
Spirit of the game for professional sportsmen in my opinion is simply playing within the rules and not cheating by breaking the rules. I don't think what Chappel did is any worse than bowling bouncers at tailenders or batsmen who don't wear helmets. Play within the rules and all is ok in my opinion.

Beech
 
^
You have a point, but in the underarm case it was only an error in the rules that meant it wasn't specifically illegal. Bowling underarm was generally forbidden at the time - but whoever wrote the rules for that series forgot to include it. So while it was technically legal, it was a long way outside the spirit and intent of the rules. A disappointing (and surely unnecessary) lapse by a great player.

And I don't think bowling bouncers at (genuine) tailenders is OK. Ewen Chatfield (batting at 11 on debut) was nearly killed by a bouncer from an English fast bowler. It's just a bloody game - it's not worth something like that. (Same with Bodyline - legal, but completely wrong).
 
Today professional sport is more than a game or leisure activity. These guys play to make a living, it is their job, their emplyment. While Chappel's decisions are a bit of a shit act and not exactly noble, it doesn't make him a bad sport.
I don't see much of a problem bowling bouncers at tailenders in modern day cricket as they wear helmets and plenty of protective gear. In the days of the bodyline series this protective gear wasn't available but still they were acting within the rules of the game. Bowling bouncers at tailenders is kinda what won England the Ashes in some respects. In the Test where Lee nearly hung on but eventually succumb to a short ball down leg side. Lee isn't the biggest bunny in the world and can bat a bit but still is very uncomfortable with the short ball as he showed getting pinned by Kallis in the last 1 Dayer. Its a tactic that is considered acceptable these days. A bowler knows that if he digs em in short to another bowler he may well get him out but he is going to cop it in return. I say its a brave man that bowls bouncers at Brett Lee because obviously he is going to cop it in return and at sometimes over 20km faster than what he dished out.

Basically I think there is a fine line between playing the game hard, playing to win within the rules and being a bad sport. I think bouncing tailenders isn't the nicest thing to do but its within the rules so it acceptable. Likewise with slowing the game down if it looks like your going to bowl too many overs in a day (in a Test), or same as sledging, its not an ideal part of the game but its within the rules and therefore doing it doesn't make you a bad sport. I think we need to remember these guys aren't just playing for a bit of fun on the weekends, they are playing for their careers, the place in the team, their financial stability and for the pride Australia takes in winning.


Beech
 
^^^ you make valid points....

However, i feel there is a difference between bowling bouncers for a dot ball, and bowling a bouncer for revenge.

When Brett Lee got hit in the face at the last one day match, the commentators said that it wouldnt surprise them that Brett Lee would do the exact same thing to the bowler. Which Brett Lee in Return did so!

Another Point - Tail Enders are all Bowlers.......Thus seeking revenge to the bowlers who may have bowld some body shots.

*shrugs Shoulders*
 
i figure it doesn't matter why your bowling bouncers whether it is to bowl a dot ball, get a wicket or exact revenge. Its all part of the game, its within the rules and perfectly legit. If a bowler wants to bounce another bowler then they have to expect them in return, and they do, they don't complain.
Its not just tailenders that bowl bouncers either though. Guys like Kallis and Flintoff are well and truely capable of bowling bouncers and do. Lucky for them they are equipped as pretty handy batsmen to deal with em.

Yeah anyway my thoughts are that as long as players act within the rules then all is swoit. They are paid professionals and paid to win, not to be nice and friendly.

Beech
 
beech said:
They are paid professionals and paid to win, not to be nice and friendly.
Click to expand...

What about guys like Flintoff? He's a great sportsman, and he's good for the game.

You can be an awesome cricketer and still be a good sport.

Or even Nell. This guy is a great cricketer, not just for his bowling, but he gets stuck into the opposition, and the crowd. He's also a good sport even with all this.
 
beech - I see two distinct attributes that really matter as a captain - how good you are as a player, and leading your side, and how good a "sport" you are (as that seems to be the term we are using).

Ponting is good player, there is no doubt. He's not an awful captain, that is for sure.

But he is a bad sport. As was Chappell. As much as you can try and justify it by saying the underarm was within the rules, being sportsmanlike invariably is completely unrelated to the written rules - it is doing what is morally correct. It is playing the game in a fair manner. That was not fair, that was not sportsmanlike, and thus, he is not a good sport. I don't see how this can be construed in any other way.

Now, as for bowling bouncers to tailenders, I don't see that as being unsportsmanlike. That is an accepted part of the game and quite a legitimate delivery. If there are numerous ones in an over (obviously there are limitations), then that is definitely bending what is good sportsmanship, but any bowler is prepared to return the favour.

As for implying that England were solely responsible for short deliveries to tail enders, wake up. You have one of the worst offenders - Brett Lee - but he bowls mostly legitimate deliveries. I guess the only objection a batsman can have is when he fires down those 145-155km/hr full tosses that "slip". (I am aware he doesn't do them intentionally.)

I just don't think it's right to say they're professional cricketers, they're supposed to play the game to win, if it's within the rules, it's on. The rules won't always cover every aspect of the game - winning at all costs isn't necessarily being sportsmanlike - especially where that winning comes at the expense of the spirit of the game, which definitely super cedes any written rule.
 
-T{H}R- said:
But he is a bad sport. As was Chappell. As much as you can try and justify it by saying the underarm was within the rules, being sportsmanlike invariably is completely unrelated to the written rules - it is doing what is morally correct. It is playing the game in a fair manner. That was not fair, that was not sportsmanlike, and thus, he is not a good sport. I don't see how this can be construed in any other way
Click to expand...

I have to agree with this. I remember an FA cup game where Arsenal were playing Sheffiled United, and Kanu was playing his first game with the gunners and indeed his first game in england, what's traditionally the case in english football is that if a player goes down injured, the other team will play the ball out of bounds to allow the injured man to recieve treatment, and then the team who gets the throw in will give it back to opposition, well Sheffield played it out and when arsenal took the throw in Kanu didn't pass it back to Sheffield and went on to score the only goal of the match.

What he did was perfectly within the rules, but undermined the unofficial code of English football ethics, so much so that Arsenal offered Sheffield a re-match (which they won anyway =D)

So I believe that you really have two sets of rules in sport, the Rules as is stated, and the "players rules"
 
THR I didn't at all say England are soley responsible for bowling bouncers to tailenders. I said it is one tactic that they used heavily to win the Ashes. I also said there is nothing wrong with this tactic. It is legit, within the rules and part of the game. What Chappel did was probably not his most noble act but it was within the rules of the game at the time. So I don't believe you can label Chappel a bad sport for an act he committed within the rules of the game. It was not his finest moment but it won the match which is what he was paid to do and what made him such a good captain - his ruthlessness.
I'm still not overly sure why people think Ponting is a bad sport. He plays hard, within the rules and gets results. I agree he isn't a great captain but I think he is serviceable in his job and I think he will get better.
KB I agree that Flintoff and even Nell are good for the game, good cricketers and good sports. You think Flintoff and Nell are nice lovely charming blokes on the field? They sledge their asses off just like most players, Nell is an absolute prick on the field. Flintoff showed compassion to Lee after he was dismissed in the Ashes series, Ponting may not be that nice, but few players are, Ponting still claps and congratulates an opposition batsman who makes a ton. In my opinion he is a pretty fair player and captain.

Beech
 
^^ Yeah, I agree I can't see where the whole 'bad sport' tag came from for Ponting.

(Very) Competitive - Yes
Bad Sport - No
 
beech said:
KB I agree that Flintoff and even Nell are good for the game, good cricketers and good sports. You think Flintoff and Nell are nice lovely charming blokes on the field? They sledge their asses off just like most players, Nell is an absolute prick on the field. Flintoff showed compassion to Lee after he was dismissed in the Ashes series, Ponting may not be that nice, but few players are, Ponting still claps and congratulates an opposition batsman who makes a ton. In my opinion he is a pretty fair player and captain.

Beech
Click to expand...

The difference is, they can enjoy themselves...and it reflects in their sportsmanship.

Ponting is a rat bastard.

They only reasons i still support the australians is: Hussey; Hayden; and Symmonds.

And when Flemming and Martyn get back, you can add them to the list.
 
xcidium said:
^^ Yeah, I agree I can't see where the whole 'bad sport' tag came from for Ponting.

(Very) Competitive - Yes
Bad Sport - No
Click to expand...

Have you even seen him when something doesnt go his way? Fucking piss and fucking moan.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top