It would be greatly appreciated if cricket commentators, supporters and players could stop blabbering on about the spirit of cricket. If it ever existed, it died a long, long time ago.
Whenever a hint of controversy enters the game of cricket – as it did in Brisbane on Wednesday and in Sydney on Sunday – much of the cricketing community is outraged. “This is a gentleman’s game,” they moan, “A game to be played with a certain spirit!”
Cricket has a spirit. However, it is not a spirit unique to cricket; it is the same spirit every other professional sport possesses: Competitiveness.
The aim for any cricket player is to win – as it should be. This is a game where it is a common, expected and accepted practise to appeal for a catch, despite the fact you know full well the opposition missed the ball completely.
This has been highlighted further by the Decision Review System. Countless times players go up for massive appeals, pleading the umpire to give them the breakthrough they so desperately desire, only for the batsman to be given not out.
More often than not the players on the field will decide against challenging the decision? Why? Because they knew it wasn’t out in the first place.
Many of the traits that the cricketing community reveres go against the faux spirit they claim to endeavour to keep alive. Shane Warne’s legend is not only built on the fact that he was the greatest spin bowler of all time – it was also built on his unbelievable ability to get under a batsman’s skin.
Tales of sledging have become cricketing folklore – what supporter doesn’t know the Runutanga “Mars bar on a length” story, the Daryll Cullinan “looks like you spent it eating” retort, or the correct answer to the question “Why are you so fat?”
When a fast bowler runs in and bowls a bouncer, before telling the batsman how the next one is going to hit him in the head it is described as aggression and is applauded.
The idea that a game, where behaviour like this is accepted and even encouraged, can be described as gentlemanly, is farcical.
There are those who claim it is the etiquette of cricket that gives it its supposedly unique spirit. They maintain that cricket has this special spirit because, for example, batsmen don’t run if the ball hits them after being thrown in by a fielder. However etiquette isn’t something unique to cricket.
Golf is filled with etiquette, in football if a player is injured the ball is knocked out of bounds so the player can receive treatment, and then returned to the team who put it out when the match resumes. In tennis, every time the balls are changed the server shows the new ones to the receiver. Just about every sport on earth has etiquette of some kind or another.
The ‘spirit of cricket’ should not be used as a defence nor as an attack weapon in any decision in cricket. This thinking is flawed.
The cricketing community cannot claim their game has this special spirit when so much of the game is played in a way that completely opposes the very spirit they are trying to portray.
Next time someone is caught backing up too far and a ‘Mankad’ is affected, they should be given out, no warning necessary.
For what goes against cricket’s fictional spirit more than trying to gain an unfair advantage by backing up early?
Ken
Guest
I think the 'spirit of cricket' is a nice ideal and doesn't need to be lost completely. It never really existed though, the gamesmanship and rule pushing we see these days is nothing compared to the games 'first superstar' in W G Grace. The stories go that Spofforth was quite fond of staring down batsman and celebrating wildly when he knocked them over. Bodyline wasn't exactly gentlemanly. Lillee and Miandad. Ambrose and Waugh. It's always been a competitive game