Anyone remember this?

[Boris]

Re: Anyone remember this?

Quite true, but there's a happy medium between the "Jolly good you bowled me and I will now depart, good day sir!" of yesteryear and the Steve Waugh-style "I would murder your entire family to win this cricket game" levels of sportsmanship.

Yep, keep it between those two and its all fine.

I don't mind a bit of a sledge and an angry bouncer, but as long as it goes no further.

 

[bren122]

Re: Anyone remember this?

The parallel you draw is inappropriate. We're talking about a playing field here, not society, sex or criminal activity.

You're twisting it around to make it sound like that's what it's about.

i am not the one twisting it around- my point is that it is a game. in this case there was a deliberate and premeditated assault on an opposition player. had the ball come off his bat or slipped out of the bowlers hand then i would be the first to say, "should have worn a helmet." but that was not what happened.

I said the Sultan was not a tailender. No.8 would indicate there were bigger "bunnies" than his lordship in that team.

at 68 for 6 i am thinking there weren't all that many 'batsmen' in the team to start with.

Zarwani's actions made the situation very high-risk to begin with.

never said it did not- my objection was to the action taken by the South Africans.

Combined with Donald's input - he was, by the way, the fastest bowler in the world at the time, playing in the highest level of competition in the world - the outcome was inevitable. That doesn't make it violent. You're saying it's akin to thuggery, but as much as I loathe the South Africans at time, I cannot accuse the bowler of anything more that exposing an opposition weakness ... legally.

bowling a yorker to get him out first ball would have been just as effective. this was premeditated violence pure and simple. just because Donald was the fastest bowler in the world does not justify attempting to cause physical harm to another player.

Indeed, if you leave yourself open to specific targetting during a game, don't expect leniency from the opposition. You wear helmet, pads, etc to protect yourself. If you leave something out, you better believe a bowler will have a dip. Would you seriously expect he's going to make allowances for your abilities or disregard for self-preservation?

i would expect precisely the same as Zarwani recieved; it does not mean that we should condone much less celebrate such behaviour.

Other contributors to this discussion have seen the incident for how it was. If you want to be so precious about it, I suggest you re-evaluate your fondness for the game.

good for them; happy to argue my point in a mature manner. i don't believe that my point is being precious; to me it is the same as if he had pulled a stump out of the ground and hit him with it.

Declines in sportsmanship may be evident as the years progress, but I'm sorry this is not a good example. Have you considered writing a letter to the Larwood family in order to convey your thoughts, and perhaps level some accusations at their late hero? Jeff Thomson's still around, you could easily find him.

i have refused to be introduced to Jeff Thomson- does that count? i would think it the height of bad manners to attack a man's family for his actions- obviously you would disagree with that too. and targeting another player for injury is poor sportsmanship. it is the same as punching another player in the middle of a football match, the difference being that this was done with a ball.

Incidentally, I've never worn a helmet. If I get hit in the head, that's my fault.

i do wear a helmet because i am a crap batsman. i have never targetted another player for injury nor have i played on a team where such behaviour has been allowed. i have played on a team where a very fast bowler who lacked control was not allowed to bowl until he had that control.

Change your motto Bren, you're living a lie!

that's a real mature debating technique!
if Zarwani had been hit by a deflection or a slip of the ball from the bowlers hand then i would say he should have worn a helmet. but this is targetting the batsman for injury. there is a difference.

 

[bren122]

Re: Anyone remember this?

bren, do you think that Donald should have slowed down for him or bowled some gentle half-volleys? Do you think that would be more sporting than simply just trying to get him out?

and where do you get the idea that i was advocating that Donald should slow down or bowl half volleys? is targeting a batsmen for injury a recognised form of dismissal?
my objection is that the batsman was deliberately targeted for injury.

 

[Boris]

Re: Anyone remember this?

Very true, Bren.

If you convert this sort of action to another sport, let's say Rugby Union, then it might be a bit easier to understand.

In a ruck it is becoming very common to play unsportsmanlike. You have players digging their studs into people's faces, punching, kicking, spitting, biting, etc. Now this is completely legal... if the referee doesn't see you. Since the referee cannot see into the middle of a ruck then technically there is no way to stop the action, therefore players will see it as legal.

I call this occurance of a bouncer the same thing. Fair enough, try and hit Ponting in the head. If you succeed you have just escaped arguably the best pull shot ever. Try and hit a UAE batsman that has an average of a number 11. Where is the risk/reward in that? It's like kicking a man while he is down. Therefore this action was meant to injure him. Stupid as he may be for not wearing a helmet, a yorker would have done a better job.

In fact the bowler, the keeper and the captain should have probably warned him that Donald was in fact a rather fast bowler, and although he could probably play without a helmet to his UAE buddies, that wasn't going to happen now. I would have liked to have seen a nice and gentle warning sent to an immature player.