Tim Boots's Roar Profile

I’d argue that your interpretation of the Warne-Starc exchange as being purely about Starc’s bowling action is a bit naive, but that’s just my opinion. And it seems a few would agree with me, e.g. your fellow expert Geoff Lemon, who had this to say about it in the Guardian recently:

“When Warne suggested on-air that Mitchell Starc had timid body language, Australian coach Darren Lehmann told a press conference he would call Warne that night for an explanation. That alone is extraordinary. Starc’s next match was played with a pantomime flail of aggression for the commentary box while Warne fell over himself to issue compliments. The whole scenario was high farce. ”

That’s how it looked to me too (I distinctly recall a few affected glowers and easily lip-readable instructions suddenly being handed out to batsmen), but again, just my opinion.

View Comment

I take your point that there shouldn’t be a suggestion that everything that comes out of the players’ mouths is abusive or threatening grievous bodily harm. And nobody has on-field transcripts, or can hear everything that’s said – no matter how good your headphones are.

But I still think we’re entitled to call out crap behaviour for what it is when it happens (e.g. Warner, Clarke to Andersen), and to be concerned by the inference in Brettig’s quote that we should just accept players acting in a boorish way if we want success.

I’ve got no problem with gamesmanship and trying to subtly get into batsmen’s heads. If they’re still playing test cricket in a hundred years’ time, that’ll still be a part of the game. But I reckon anyone who thinks the “ugly Australians” tag that’s hung around the team on and off for a long time now is completely unearned is kidding themselves. The McGrath-Sarwan exchange was just a more extreme example of the junk many of the players of that era used to carry on with all the time.

I also object to the idea of “aggression” = bowlers doing fake tough guy acts and giving batsmen a mouthful whenever they beat the bat, just because former players call for it from the commentary box (e.g. Warne on Mitchell Starc).

Vas I wasn’t suggesting that other teams don’t sledge. When I talk about the “Chapellian narrative”, I guess I’m just referring to the idea that seems to have taken hold in Australian cricket in particular (post-Ian Chappell) that sledging – particularly of the unsophisticated, abusive sort – is an essential part of winning games. For Ricky Ponting to say that being asked to tone down the sledging was akin to “playing with one hand tied behind our backs” always struck me as a pretty amazing thing to say/believe.

I’m not trying to demonise Chapelli, either. I think the way the game was played changed a lot in the ’70s, as the times themselves got a bit wilder, and the aggression of the West Indies played a part in that too, you’re quite right.

All I’m really asking, I suppose, is whether sledging is essential to winning games of cricket? According to Brettig anyway, that’s what the Australian players seem to think.

And to answer some of the other commenters’ questions below, yes I’ve played (low grade) club cricket for a long time, over 10 years, so I’m not stranger to sledging. But it was generally people trying to be funny, rather than abusive/intimidatory.