Shane Warne has decided to hang up his flipper at the end of this Ashes series, going out of the game on his own terms.
One thing’s for certain: we’ll miss him when he’s gone.
His retirement inspired me to reprise this piece, originally published over at the Sydney Morning Herald. I’m reproducing it below the fold because it’s a timely reminder of how the media in this country likes to think it can finish people. Written just after Warne’s drug ban, it attempts to engage with our national love of sport, and suggests that there are worse things to be obsessed about, as the bloody histories of many other places suggest.
The Herald headlined the piece as Pouring Ourselves into Warne. I remember disliking the sub’s decision, but can’t remember what I called it, so I’ll leave it with their moniker for the time being.
UPDATE: A bit of synchronicity over at LP.
UPDATE II: Glenn McGrath has also decided to pull up stumps after the Sydney Test, but will stay on for the World Cup.
Pouring Ourselves into Warne
Australia has a weirdly symbiotic relationship with sport. Its heroes are our heroes. Its fortunes seem joined at the hip with those of the nation. Great sportsmen - and not a few great sportswomen - have been candles lit in the face of much darkness. Depression. Cold War. Bali Bombing.
We expect much of our sportspeople. We hate it when they’re ‘nobbled’ or ‘dudded’. We worship devoutly at their shrines. We pour scorn on administrators and politicians for throwing sand in the gears of our national machine. We march through the streets to ensure that those who stand to profit from our national obsession are reminded from whence their support comes.
How, you might ask, can I be so sure of this? Using the royal ‘we’ to describe anything isn’t on in these days of diversity and difference, I’ve been told. What about all the people who hate sport, who sport ‘Join the anti-Football Club’ bumper stickers, who were cack-handed and cack-footed at school, who just wanted PE to be over?
My answer is simple. In Australia, those who are lousy at sport - with very few exceptions - want to be good at it. They may say otherwise, but I don’t believe them. I’m a teacher of physical education. I’ve heard every story there is on this. Multiple times. I’ve also heard English and Italian versions of a story very different to ours, because I’ve taught physical education in both places. This is an Australian thing. It is part of us.
The Poms may want Beckham to lead England to victory in the World Cup, but they have no problem with the fact that he’s as stupid as a speed bump. ‘Daft as a brush’ is the analogous Pommy expression. Italians love il calcio, but they respect Umberto Eco far more than Serie A’s greatest stars. One of the reasons Australians win at everything - in numbers so disproportionate to our small population - is because we pour ourselves into our sportspeople. Our dreams, our disappointments, our stray thoughts. They become a vehicle for all the things we never were. When we watch Shane Warne or Wayne Carey or Cathy Freeman or Karrie Webb, we become members of a vast national class of couldabeenchampions.
It works like this. In every school, there is a golden group for whom sporting achievement comes naturally. They are the toast of Monday Assembly as they trundle up to receive their awards for cricket or netball. They get the most interesting excursions. They participate in district this, regional that, zone the other. With few exceptions, they are not particularly academically gifted. Prone to fidget, they’d much rather be outside doing something with their bodies, not inside a classroom chained to a desk.
If a given kid is blessed with both sporting ability and brains, it’s a bit like landing on ‘Free Parking’ in Monopoly. He can do whatever he likes. Protected from the disdain with which intellectual ability is viewed in Australian schools by being able to bowl fast or sprint up the wing, he’s a safe bet for prefect or even school captain. Nonetheless, in my experience genus sporty kid is more likely to resemble Shane Warne than Stephen Fleming, the brainy New Zealand captain sports journos hate because he can out-think them all.
Underneath the sporting achievers at the top of the pile is not - as you may be thinking - the academically able. It’s the great mass of C students for whom school is a trial and only sport - although they may not be very good at it - relieves the tedium. Sometimes one from this group is willing to put the training in and succeed, often in a ‘fringe’ but still respectable sport. Martial arts are popular. Ballroom dancing - especially after Strictly Ballroom - enjoyed a dream run. Some boys show spectacular skills at skateboarding or computer games, although the latter are often derided as ‘nerdy’.
At the bottom of the heap in every school I’ve ever taught at are the cack-handed clever. Schools and teachers often deny this, parading their establishment as a model of tolerance and diversity. On awards night, they try to pretend that academic awards are more important than footy gongs. They’re kidding themselves, of course. Other schools go the PC route, and don’t give out gongs for anything. Unless located in a nice middle-class catchment area, however, schools designed around the ‘all competition is bad’ model tend to be at the bottom of both sets of league tables - academic and sporting.
The more uncoordinated the bright spark, the harder is his personal road to graduation. In the old days, before anti-bullying campaigns got off the ground, male genus bright spark could expect to get the snot beaten out of him twice a week, while female genus bright spark stood a good chance of turning up at the senior formal without a beau. There were other more subtle tortures, too. Any one who has ever been in a school knows what I’m on about, unless they walked its corridors blind and deaf to their surroundings.
These days, it’s just simple hate - often disguised, because they’ll be out on their ear for too many fights. Funnily enough, it’s not a hate that comes from the sporting achievers. Secure in their position at the top of the pile, the sporty may suffer from arrogance or vanity, but there’s no malice in it. Much like Shane Warne, in fact. It’s the mediocre, the average, the norm who dish it out. Sporting ability they can understand, although they may envy it. Actually to want to sit in a library and swot is completely beyond their ken.
In time, the clever learn to fight back. They excel at the brutal put-down. By the time senior rolls around, the boys have stopped fighting and the girls have learned that there’s more to life than make-up, but the bitterness continues. No doubt the journos who called Pauline Hanson a lumpenproletariat hag or derided Shane Warne for his inability to finish a single book spent their school days on the receiving end of laughter because they couldn’t catch anything in winter except a cold. As for getting a date with a good-looking member of the opposite sex - forget it.
After graduation, the very gifted - and they are few - represent their country. They become all the things the rest of us could not. The mediocre - and I mean no slur - in any normal distribution, the majority will be mediocre - chart their progress with interest and enthusiasm. The less gifted remember their glory days in pubs and clubs, and early graduate to the ranks of the couldabeenchampions. The clever go to university and imagine that the politics of the schoolyard are now behind them.
The stellar academic achievers in the top one percent go to law school and med school. By third year - with few exceptions - their ideals have been thrashed out of them by the sheer relentless study needed just to pass. Where’s the trigeminal nerve? And when’s a restrictive employment contract restraint of trade? Of course, they’re rewarded with fat paychecks and interesting work at the end of it all.
If there’s a group that seems blessed with choices - of how to define their ‘Australianess’, whether to leave sport in or out of their personal equation - it is this group. They stand to win from globalisation, and have no need for mere nationality. Sometimes they may stoop to assist the less fortunate - to defend refugees pro bono, say, or go doctoring in the third world. Just so long as they don’t have to part with the BMW.
Those who make tracks for the humanities learn to belittle the value attached to sporting achievement. They put anti-football club stickers on their cars. They find sport expressive of shallow patriotism. They mock the mediocre, because they can. Yet they follow sport (sometimes secretively), and wish they were good at it, because they are Australian. And they wait, pistol in hand, to deliver the coup de grace should a sporting star be felled.
It is instructive to listen to journalists bicker over the carcass of Shane Warne’s career. Every time his stupidity is held up to scorn and ridicule, I hear echoes of the schoolyard. Every time a talk-back caller says he has betrayed Australia, I instead hear personal betrayal. The caller, like many Australians, has poured himself into the lairizing leg-spinner who - were it not for his prodigious talent - couldabeenoneofus. The journalist is getting his own back for the day when his high school’s Shane Warne said - truthfully, no doubt - that the future journalist couldn’t bowl, and couldn’t throw.
We need to get a few things straight here. We couldNOTabeenchampions. The skill and dedication needed to achieve in sport at the top borders on the ridiculous. That Shane Warne could do so while smoking and carrying fourteen kilos of extra weight is a tribute to his physical strength and stamina, but nothing else. He is not a vehicle for all our repressed longings, or a target for barbs because we have failed to live up to our own expectations. We have no right to expect Shane Warne to be all the things we never were. We have no right to expect perfection.
In trying to fulfill our expectations of him, Shane Warne has destroyed himself: gotta be slim, gotta be buff, gotta be fit, gotta be smart, gotta be the real Australian, gotta win everything.
Perhaps it’d be good for each of us to keep our expectations to ourselves. Maybe we should work on personal achievement, rather than living vicariously through someone else.
After all, it’s only a game.
90 Comments
I suspect the only bloke who’s really pleased about Shane going is Stuart MacGill - but even he, as a fellow leggie, would have his joy tinged with sadness.
greatest bowler of all time however the most pretentious prat as well.
A terrible role model for young boys.
I will be both sorry and not sorry to see him go
I wouldn’t have picked him for pretentious - more the opposite - ie the bogan’s bogan.
But yair, having young kids copy him when you’re umpiring is a pain in the bum (this I know from bitter experience).
try coaching young kids to do the right thing and they always say but Warney does ….
As I said at my place I have little time for the role model theory where we expect people who are exceptional at sport to be somehow exemplary off the field.
Warne was a fantastic cricketer. The best I’ve ever watched. His personal life is not to be admired but so what? We admire him for his cricket not his off field life. Why should we expect people who are good at sport to be good at other things also? Only the flirtation with bookies and the drugs incident are the blemishes on him as a cricketer.
He played the game as we would expect. If there was an inch to be gained from umpires he would push it. It was he who apparently advised the team not to walk if Herschel Gibbs caught the ball, leading to the infamous situation where Waugh was given not out and went on to win the game.
Most remarkable was his performace in 2005 Ashes. With his marriage in tatters he took 40 wickets and worked his heart out to retain the ashes.
absolute cobblers Steve.
I teach my players to respect their team’s players, the opposition’s players and the umpires.
The only thing Warney ever respected was himself.
He wouldn’t known the spirit of cricket if he fell over it.
I didn’t want him to be exemplary merely play in the spirit of the game.
He was the John Howard of cricket in his approach
Warne did what he did to be effective. If Umpires or opposition were influenced by his chatter or appealing then they should grow up and stand up for themselves. Its not park cricket its professional international cricket.
Brilliant article, Helen.
I caught Richie being interviewed by Mike Munro after the press conference. As Richie said he knew when it was time, just as Richie did himself back then. He’ll be very much missed, especially by us neverwassers at cricket. I just marvel at his skill and competitiveness. He was an excellent role model for young sportsmen. Men of weak character simply don’t achieve what he has.
“I teach my players to respect their team’s players, the opposition’s players and the umpires”
Sounds like you coach the Under 9 Easy-beats, Homer. Oh well somebody has to do it.
Benaud is another one who should consider retirement.
Apart from stating the bleeding obvious he really does not contribute much to the telecast.
They should bone most of them.
Ahh winning is everything.
I can tell you a kid was king-hit in the NDCA U/16s because he kept on sledging.
It is a disgraceful practice that should be eradicated from the game.
It starting in my local junior competition at U/11s
It was Warne that possessed the weak character and the others who looked on and did nothing all those long years .
I mean having a cameraman who couldn’t talk on camera take the rap for something he said about a team-mate!!
What do you define as sledging Homer? While I have a problem with outright abuses. I have no problems with the fielders talking about a batsmen weaknesses. Is it a problem for the wicket keeper to tell the bowler to bowl somewhere because it’s a weakness, in hearing of the batsman?
No commenting about the batsman.
It is rarely if ever about defensive deficiencies more about abusing the person.
Just because someone is fantastic at sport or art or whatever doesn’t mean they can be a role-model. It means they’re fantastic at sport or art or whatever.
Warney gave me the irrits as a coach and umpire because young kids would copy him, but by the same token many of those attacking him were consummate hypocrites of the classic ‘dish it out but can’t take it’ variety.
Looks like Glenn McGrath may be making a move as well, although he’s playing his cards pretty close to his chest just now.
“Just because someone is fantastic at sport or art or whatever doesn’t mean they can be a role-model.’
indeed and more importantly, they’re under absolutely no obligation to Homer, or anyone else, to be one.
What is this ludicrous Oprahesque rubbish about the supposed necessity to be some sort of moral exemplar because you’re good at sport?
That’s what I was picking away at in my post, Geoff. Trying to get to the bottom of it.
Homer sets high bars for everyone except Keating and Clinton …
Geoff Honour says:
“What is this ludicrous Oprahesque rubbish about the supposed necessity to be some sort of moral exemplar because you’re good at sport?”
SL says: “Perhaps it’d be good for each of us to keep our expectations to ourselves. Maybe we should work on personal achievement, rather than living vicariously through someone else.”
I disagree. Sportsmen are role models whether they like it or not. There is no opt out option. Role modelling is a simple empirical fact with which no psychologist/ sociologist would disagree.
The unwillingness of many, probably most, libertarians to grasp some of the most fundamental truths about human behaviour brings the ideology into disrepute.
No commentating on the batsman at all? Homer is in the process of breeding a team of kids who will burst into tears the minute they graduate Homer’s nursery to the real league.
Should you respect opposition players when they carry on like fuckwits, cheat by deliberately not giving decisions at square leg out, threaten your players with violence?
Should you respect the umpires when they give every LBW appeal after 4:30.pm out so they can go home early?
I teach my players to respect those who deserve respect. That’s not everyone.
Do you live vicariously through others, Steve? I didn’t have you pegged as the type, I have to say.
We had a famous incident about 5 years ago when an opposition batsman, after bing dismissed, walked up to the umpire and said:
“I’m going to burn your house down and rape your missus”.
Another opposition player followed an umpire in his car after the game, waited until he got to a traffic light, then got out of the car and punched him through his open driver’s side window.
Why would you respect people like that?
Sledging is part of the game. If you don’t like doing it, don’t do it. I don’t because I can’t be bothered and prefer my bowling to do the talking. But plenty of people do.
Mental strength is part of the game, and if you haven’t got it then you aren’t a complete cricketer. Witness the mental disintegration of Ian Bell in the last ashes series compared to Ian Bell now. Same technique, more balls.
Teaching your kids not to sledge and not to respond to sledging is just setting them up to be future losers. Some kids thrive on it and they will improve as a result.
Munn has a point if you bring it down to the organisational level.
I mean often the bread and butter of these sporting organisations can be the kiddies.
Or I suppose it used to be that way. You know the elite people at the pinnacle were getting by mostly on the backs of the familes with the kiddies that would show up every Saturday.
From a funding point of view this may or may not be the case now.
SL says: “Do you live vicariously through others, Steve? I didn’t have you pegged as the type, I have to say.”
No I do not. But I’m not a spotty little schoolboy. Sporting role models do influence kids, that’s my point.
Bear in mind this.
As libertarians one would hope that if some person was getting too much of a public shellacking we would do our best to call a time-out.
We are not afterall commie-witch-hunters.
But then again being libertarian only means that we back up the property-right and ultimate perogative side of things.
If there is a social gig going where sportsman are supposed to be role models for the kiddies we as libertarians don’t need to save the errant sportsman until his base-level rights are violated.
And a further point. Under libertarianism, where property-rights are clarified, there is the opportunity and indeed the likelihood for the sort of business fiefdoms where a singly property-holder-pay-master could put the slipper down so hard on his sportsman.
Could slap them around and dare them to sue or go to the cops…..
Could basically force them to be a good ambassador to the kiddies and public.
And could force them to take SUCH CARE…… not to shack up without shutting the door.
I’ll leave it open whether that would be a good or bad thing.
I merely point it out to you in partial favour of the point Munn was making.
I pointed out earlier that Warne wasn’t good for little kids (have seen this up close and personal umpiring).
By the same token, if we continually ascribe desired characteristics to prominent people outside their field of expertise/skill, we’re going to come a cropper. The whole ‘moral exemplar’ schtick is a pain in the butt (it also leads to other weird stuff, like Warney being asked his opinion on literature, or Tom Cruise his views on politics, and so on).
Mel Aleuca
Are kids influenced by Warne because of his sporting abilities or what he does off the field?
Most kids couldn’t give a rats what he did off the field, In fact if he had retired much earlier he would have been long forgotten.
Even if we took your argument seriously, which of course no one does, what exactly do you do about it? Do you fire your best cricketer because he likes screwing gals and giving the other side a hard time.
This is what I love about you lefties. Not.
You’re arguments are so so selective they’re a joke.
Eight years ago most of you jokers ( homer included) were telling us how unimportant personal behavior was when talking about Clinton. Now its all about personal behavior when talking about sporting guys.
JC, you’ve opened the bloody door! Homer’ll start up about Clinton now…
What it really comes down to it, it’s all about money. Like the rest of the leftist gaggle you can’t stand the idea that someone like Warne was earning a ton of bucks and therefore find fault with his behaviour. Pathetic.
Sorry about that, SL.
There’s an element of truth in that, JC (#27). I know when I wrote that piece back in 2002/3, I got the distinct impression that quite a few of the neverwassers in the media were using his stupid antics as a cover for some really grubby envy.
Firstly,
Geoff .Of course they are role models. Boys replicate what they do every Saturday.
The aim is for the boys to play as they should.
Yobbo, you are under the impression if you do not sledge you will lose. Apart from the complete lack of evidence it seems your argument is if everyone is doing it then join in.
A rather pathetic argument.
I might point out playing the game properly and beating cheats, and this is what they are, is much more fulfilling,
Jase & JC,
As far I can can recall I criticised Clinton for his behaviour and as for Keating perhaps you might bring up some examples.
I am not talking about behaviour off the field but on it.
Warney has got off very lightly . His and Waugh’s reasons for the bookmaker episode were as false as the reasons for Joe the cameraman.
The best thing about Warne is that he has encouraged boys to be legspinners and as a cricket lover there is nothing better than watching a legspinner bowl to a batsman
” The best thing about Warne is that he has encouraged boys to be legspinners and as a cricket lover there is nothing better than watching a legspinner bowl to a batsman”
that’s exactly right. That’s all we should expect of him.
By the way, SL, great, great post. You sure are a great writer.
Fiddlestix. I’m perfectly happy with how much I earn, and if I may blow my own trumpet, I actually give away a sizeable chunk of money to causes that I’m passionate about, such as nature conservation.
However I must confess to finding it distasteful that in our society someone like a really good research scientist can earn peanuts while a monkey like Warne becomes a multi-millionaire.
I’m happy to see such people hit with a thumping great tax bill and the money redistributed to worthy social programs, like improving state education.
Trackback
Nice post SL. Re sledging, in 7th grade it never gets personal but there is plenty of chatter. Such as “More swings than a barndoor”, “All swing no ding”, “A yorker and he’s a walker” etc I had one guy ask me (as I’m skipper of a lovable, motely crew) to tell fine leg to shut up one day as he was commenting on every ball. Trouble was I was laughing too much at first slip and it took a while for me to relay the message.
“I’m happy to see such people hit with a thumping great tax bill and the money redistributed to worthy social programs, like improving state education.”
You’ve had me either on or partially on your side right up until that sentence.
Thats where you lost me fella.
I share your concerns but thats crossing over the line.
I think SL has a point but so do Munn and Homer.
So what to do about it? The solution is simple: tighten the rules and ethicette, and enforce them srictly. Late Alistair Cooke has had a nice piece about it here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/letter_from_america/464752.stm
Even a discussion about cricket has to come back to bagging alleged lefties?
Anyway, back to cricket. Ok, I love to watch the guy bowl (although the arrogance and lack of graciousness irriates me at times - but that’s more a trait of the team rather than just Warne) and he’s clearly up there with the best of them. I don’t give a rats about the off-field stuff - no one’s business and not very interesting either. The bookies thing was dodgy in an ethical sense (a bit like insider trading) but I still don’t believe a competitor like him would go anything less than 110% in a test match. The drugs stuff was much more dodgy, but you have to go with the umpire’s decision on that.
But, in my late attempt to win the unAustraian of the year award, how can people so blithely say ‘greatest bowler of all time’, or even ‘greatest spin bowler of all time’ about Warne when Muralitharan’s results are better than his on every single measure? Better average (by a lot), better strike rate, better economy rate, way more five-fors, way more ten-wickets-in-a-match. If people want to insist on most wickets ever (regardless of matches played or balls bowled), well that’ll be gone too by the end of 2007, barring injury or another Darrel Hair.
It’s hard to compare across eras - the stats of some of the early-era bowlers will never be beaten, but the pitches were different back then (plus different LBW and no-ball rules). But Murali is bowling in the same era under the same conditions and same rules.
Warne’s one of the greatest no doubt, as well as a great showman which is valuable too in the modern era (and maybe previous eras for all I know), but just because we rarely see the other nations play on the TV doesn’t we shouldn’t ignore the statistical evidence that’s right in front of us.
Warney’s stats are fairly horrible in India, and Murali’s stats are even more horrible in Australia. Warney has hardly played any minnows, while a great proportion of Murali’s wickets have come against minnows.
And I’m sorry, but speaking as someone with more than an amateur interest in biomechanics, there is a serious problem with Murali’s doosra, something about which even Martin Crowe (probably the most ethical cricketer I’ve ever seen) agrees
” alleged lefties”.
Petty soon you’re going to tell me the Dems are a middle of the road party, Andrew. Stop spinning. We’re adults here.
The point being made is the ” socialist democrats”, er, I mean social democrats
seem to be more concerned with the guys earnings than they are about his sporting abilities.
Mel Aleuca
the sporting market decides what Warne gets paid. If you think government stipended scientists are too little paid, I suggest you close down the ABC and all the arts endowments and pay the guys a higher wage.
You will be able to afford it, The ABC skims 750 big ones off the top. Andrew can confirm that, he votes for that sham.
“Even a discussion about cricket has to come back to bagging alleged lefties?”
You bet Andrew.
Its Christmas time.
Time to come over to the bright side of the road and the right side of the force.
We need good people on the righteous side.
Graeme has a point, Andrew. The politics of envy tends to get a good run on your side of the house; envy undoubtedly inspired the bitterness with which Warne has been treated by sections of the media.
Wots this about our Warnie inventing sledging? - Homer, I cant believe that the great and legendary grand poobah PJKeating is not top turd in the sledgemanhip stakes.
SL says:
“The politics of envy tends to get a good run on your side of the house; envy undoubtedly inspired the bitterness with which Warne has been treated by sections of the media.”
Bat droppings. The scandal and muckraking sells newspapers.
Mr Murdoch would fire his tabloid journalists if they didn’t get down in the sewer.
Can you put a name to some of these left-wing politicians in Australia who are victims of the green-eyed monster?
C’mon, as Andrew Bolt would say, name ten of them. Just give me ten names.
Mel Aleuca asks:
“Can you put a name to some of these left-wing politicians in Australia who are victims of the green-eyed monster?”
Rudd
Gillard
All the socialist left members of the federal opposition
Green party senators. Bob Brown is a first rate envious little prick par exellence.
Don’t be stupid. The ALP and the Green party’s existence is based on envy. Without that they would survive.
There’s too many names, Mel. It would fill the page.
Mel also says:
“Mr Murdoch would fire his tabloid journalists if they didn’t get down in the sewer”
Yes, but that’s not the point is it, Mel? We all like reading who Warne is messaging that morning. There’s nothing wrong with that as gossip falls on all ears.
The point is that you began to pass judgement and sanctimoneously moralize that star sportman have a responsibility to the kids. When you saw that was going nowhere, you then changed course and now argue that its Murdochs fault because he wants to sell newspapers.
Prior to all this you tried to pretend you’re not envy ridden by telling us you have enough money but also argue these highly paid sportstars should have their reward confiscated because they’re earning too much money.
Mel, seriously you’re all over the place here, dude. Get a grip.
Cambria,
As Mr Soon rightly pointed out, you are a “mentally disturbed stalker, you’re a cowardly bigot and a senile old coot”.
Get stuffed, loser.
I’ve got Bob Brown pegged as the National Mother-in-Law, and therefore Australia’s leading proponent of miserablism. He would have been a strict Methodist preacher if he were living in the 19th century.
Steve, just as you are LP’s grumpy old coot, that role at Catallaxy is reserved for Mr Bird.
Envy:
# a feeling of grudging admiration and desire to have something that is possessed by another
# feel envious towards; admire enviously
# spite and resentment at seeing the success of another (personified as one of the deadly sins)
# be envious of; set one’s heart on.
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&pwst=1&defl=en&q=define:envy&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
Bob Brown may look and sound like an undertaker but that doesn’t make him envious.
Mel
That’s not right.
You were the one who stalked me, stole my identity and made numerous racially based comments that were so vile even people on your side were disgusted. I got emails to prove how disgusted they were by your antics.
Now you throw those accusations at me thinking you will get away with it….that some how I will back off.
Munn, get one thing straight. Until you apologise for those disgusting acts and show some remorse for the things you support, I won’t stop highlighting your stupidity and thieving ways.
I will always charge for you in the crowd, dickhead, primarliy because you are a throughly disgusting individual who couldn’t run a consistent argument if you fell over it.
On the other hand you can always apologise for your transgressions and all will go away.
I apologised to Jason for being a dick. You could too if you weren’t so cowardly and dishonorable.
At first you were so cowardly you couldn’t even post those vile racist comments under your won name. you Stole my idnetity you filthy little coward.
Now go hug a tree. You’ll feel better for it.
And by the way. You’re so stupid it’s almost oppressive.
Sorry SL, but Cambria doesn’t let up on the personal attacks. He is worse than Mr Bird in my opinion.
I don’t enjoy dishing it out but sometimes I feel like I’ll burst a blood vessel if I don’t retort.
Steve, let’s get this settled, because I generally value your input on this site. Did you pinch JC’s internet identity? And if so, have you apologised for it? JC has already apologised to Jason for his bad behaviour. If what he says is true, I would rather it be cleared up.
Mel Munn says”:
“Bob Brown may look and sound like an undertaker but that doesn’t make him envious. ”
munn, seriously, you are so god damned dumb that it must hurt.
Brown is head of the green party. The green party manifesto is one huge envy ridden sewer.
Bob Brown must either support his party’s paltform or he is a liar.
Now I know he is a filthy dishonest lair like you are, but I also think he supports his party’s platform.
That makes him an envy ridden, lying scumbag.
Gee, Steve thought that came out of a mensa test.
Oh and Steve, if you think it upsets me showing mistakes I have made, it doesn’t. I have no ego when it comes to making mistakes.
When i fuck up and recognize it, i will always apologise if i have to and hope to make amends.
Try something else that may work…. like debating points in an intelligent way.
On one occasion earlier this year I posted a comment under the name Josephine Cambria which parodied JC’s relationship with his mother. That was my childish way of taking revenge on his constant venomous personal attacks.
It was the wrong thing to do. I apologise.
Thankyou Steve.
Now both of you are pretty good on the venemous personal attacks - a clear case of pot, kettle, black. And it may actually be a good time to stop. As of now.
I actually think it’s rather good that this has come out in a Shane Warne thread… let’s get to the bottom of all this sledging!
I abhor this thread-derailing rancour.
Peace, peeps.
I think it’s back on track, CL. Just wanted to get it all sorted while I was able to make sure it got sorted.
Where would we be without Warney, though? Seriously.
We really will miss him when he’s gone… if only for that Barmy Army Who ate all the pies chant.
IF you look carefully Steve, what I did was take apart all your argments and show them up for what they were.
There was no personal attack, just a careful dissection of your points bit by bit.
1. comment 25 was not a personal attack.
2 comment 27 was not personal attack
3 Comment 31 was not a personal attack.
4 Comment 39 was not a personal attack.
5 Comment 44 was not a personal attack
5 Comment 45 was not a personal attack
Your commet 51 was a personal attack and from there on I responded.
Yiu seem to think that someone presenting a contray argument to your own is a personal attack. Maybe blogs get you too emotionally charged up and should therefore quit the “business” because you seem to think holding differing opinions to your own or people showing the weakness in your position is a personal attack. This is obviously a very silly way to make points.
Now you should apologise for lying and apologise for writing that vile stuff about me.
Ok Steve.
That’s it apologies accepted.
Now, in order to see we don’t end up in an abuse ridden swamp, how do you think I should treat any comments you make that i disagree with?
The point is I don’t like the Green Party. That fact I don’t doesn’t make things personal and neither should you treat it as such.
Sometimes I almost think your coming round to our side of thinking. In fact you are not that far as you seem to think that Green issues can be mostly solved through private means. That’s a bloodly good start.
Let’s hear from you what is the best way going foward.
“Sorry SL, but Cambria doesn’t let up on the personal attacks. He is worse than Mr Bird in my opinion.”
You just don’t know when to quit. Do you Munn.
I myself can remember coming onto Prodeo and it was just swarming abuse all the way round levelled at JC.
And I got that treatment on this site and went to Prodeo figuring I’ll just start pre-emptively kicking folks.
Why don’t you guys go and sort out your relations somewhere esle? Don’t you realise no one is interested what you think of each other?
You must be kidding Bartlett. I realise you carry the expectation of your fluffy constituents that you will take sides against Australia in any dispute, but anyone who knows anything about cricket knows that Muralitharan is a chucker.
He chucked for years. Everyone complained he got no balled. Sri Lanka called everyone racists.
So, in a first for cricket history, the ICC gave Murali a chance to prove himself by visiting the biomechanics lab at UWA to test the bend of his arm.
They found that he chucks it. So Sri Lanka called everyone racists again.
So you know what they did then? They Changed The Laws Of Cricket So Muralitharan Would Be Allowed To Keep Playing.
And you know what? Even under the revised Muralitharan laws, he still chucks 2 balls an over. He doesn’t do it when he’s hooked up to the machine of course, but rather saves it for a test match when nobody can do anything (except complain to the ICC and get labelled a racist, or have your career ended like happened to Emerson and Hair).
Because of Muralitharan it is now possible for any captain to make any game a farce, because it is no longer possible for the umpire to no ball a bowler at the crease.
This means that Ricky Ponting could step up the bowler’s crease, wind up a baseball pitch and hurl it at the stumps, and there is Nothing At All The Umpires Can Do About It.
Now Ponting would never do it - he has too much to lose by rocking the boat, but I have no doubt the Chappells would have, just to prove a point.
If he did it in the World Cup Final, Australia would win the world cup and all that would happen is Ricky Ponting would receive a fine for “bringing the game into disrepute”.
Muralitharan brings the game into disrepute every time he steps on to the field. The ICC brings the game into Disrepute by continuing to allow him to play.
He’s a cheat, has always been a cheat, will always be a cheat. Even though he may eventually become the highest wicket-taker of all-time, his entry in the Wisden Almanac will be forever marked with an asterix, and the footnote attached to it (in the brain of every cricket fan who lived to see him bowl) will be:
Muralitharan’s stats are discounted because he was a chucker and cheated more than any other player who ever stepped onto the field.
And every international player bites their lip about it, because speaking out means ICC repurcussions and probably never playing again.
I must say it is totally appropriate that in a thread about Warney people conduct a conversation in a totally childish way.
Grow up people. Leave the pejoratives and swearing to some other place.
Sledging in essence is abusing the batsman.
Totally agree with regards to throwing. It is cheating.
Ever notice the chuckers sorry spinners get more kick than other spinners. No away swerve at all.funny about that.
Let me tell you calling a chucker in a cricket game takes a lot of nerve which I find few umpires have.
All Cricket associations have to back their umpires.
Notice the CEO which put some chucker calling umpires to pasture in Australia is the same CEO which has just put Hair to pasture for UPHOLDING the laws of the game.
This is why I fear for the future of the game
Yobbo is right. There is a wider issue here about certain countries trying to control what other countries (or their citizens) say about them in a cricketing context. And yes, Ranatunga wheeling out the ‘racist’ canard every time he didn’t get his own way both on the field and off it gave me the irrits.
It’s not just about Ranatunga being a dickhead any more. The south asian cricketing countries are in control of the ICC because they are the ones who bring in all the money.
The ICC Champions trophy and the recent Tri-series in Malaysia both only exist to satisfy the demand from Indian fans for more cricket on Television - especially one-day cricket.
When India, Pakistan or Sri Lanka say jump, the ICC asks how high. When they say “let Muralitharan play or we’ll set up our own cricketing federation and you guys will be redundant”, they sit up and listen.
After all, Indian fans would be just as happy if they played Pakistan every week and Sri Lanka every 2 weeks, just as a great many Aussie fans would be happy to have a test series against England every year.
And so now you know why Muralitharan is allowed to chuck it, and why the future of cricket is a future filled with chuckers who are currently emulating Muralitharan in the schoolyard.
I agree that sledging when it it is vulgar and personal abuse is bad for kids and the image of the game….But when you stand aty slip for a couple of hours it does get dull and the occassional joke is part of the game. You can’t just stand there mute for hours on end. Some bantyer can be very funny like the time when Ian Healy was captain of Queensland against England called Andy Bichel in from the out field to silly mid on when Nassar Hussein came into bat. He yelled “I want you right under his nose” When Bich got to point (About 20 metres from Hussein Healy yelled. “That’ll do ….perfect”.
agree with yobbo less the bad language.
Sledging to me is merely abusing a person.
Having a joke isn’t.
Just remember kids don’t understand this not so fine line which is why a kid got kinghit for it.
That’s a fair point, Homer (and a great funny, .50cal). Taking the piss and being genuinely witty while doing it is a real skill, which kids take time to develop.
As in nall things there are fine lines. The deliberate attempt to break another player’s concentration is not cheating. Appealling when you know the batsman is not out is.
Re Yobbo’s comment” “I realise you carry the expectation of your fluffy constituents that you will take sides against Australia in any dispute, but anyone who knows anything about cricket knows that Muralitharan is a chucker.”
This has nothing to do with constituents - all sides of politics try to wrap themselves in the flag when they can. I just prefer that there be some accuracy applied when it happens. In any case, how is disputing a cricketing assessment of Shane Warne “taking sides against Australia”?
Murali’s wickets were taken within the rules of the game. You can’t be selective about how well various rules are applied just to suit your argument. Many writers suggest part of Warne’s ‘effectiveness’ is his ability to intimidate umpires as well as batsmen - should those wickets were umpires were pressured into giving wrong decisions not be counted? Or to take on comment #69’s point, those times when appeals were made despite knowing the batsmen wasn’t out?
I’ve seen differing views about why the rules for bowling were changed - some have said it was to suit Murali, others have said it was because modern technology shows that a whole lot of bowlers were also technically guilty of chucking under the previous rules. Either way, the rules are the rules and it is up to those who run the game to implement them, as they always have.
As for Martin Crowe’s concerns, I noted this response from another New Zealander:
There may be some validity to the argument that Muralia got more wickets against weaker opposition (as suggested at #38) - I’d like to see a breakdown of this, but Murali’s stats are so far ahead of Warne’s that the evidence would need to be fairly compelling.
As for cricketing politics being involved - when England and Australia ran the game, they made decisions which suited them. Now other nations have more influence, it is not surprising they will try to do likewise. It is true as Yobbo says that the south-asian nations now have much mroe influence, in part because “they are the ones that bring in all the money.” At the risk of restarting the abusive diversion on this thread about envy, I would have thought a site like this one would approve of the power of market forces playing a role in determining influence. Personally I’d prefer a more democratic approach, but on those grounds Aust/Eng/NZ are still in a minority.
Perhaps politics and commerce has played a part, but the results have occured within the current rules as they are interpreted. Politics and commerce has probably also played a part in the types of pitches that get prepared, including many of them being more batsman friendly.
It is not unreasonable to suggest that politics and commerce may have played a role in Warne only getting a one year suspension for his drug offence instead of two, and no suspension at all for his bookie incident.
To pull it back solely to Australia for a moment, one could even suggest that Stuart MacGill, whose strike rate is better than Warne’s, might have also fallen victim to such factors.
But those things are all debating points - and part of the fun. Warne does get the crowds going and MacGill doesn’t - bit like some political leaders get the voters going and other don’t. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for selectors and cricketing bodies to take those things in to account.
All you can really go with in the end are results. Perhaps the best test is who would you rather have bowling in your team? On all but the most unsuitable wickets, you’d probably want to have both of them, but if you could only have one spinner, the record shows Murali would be more likely to deliver the results.
“The south asian cricketing countries are in control of the ICC because they are the ones who bring in all the money.”
This is market, right? (as Andrew said above)
“And so now you know why Muralitharan is allowed to chuck it, ”
Not quite. Because it cannot explain why, if what you are saying is true, the Indian and Pakistani cricket elite and public (and there is far more of the public and money in Pakistan and India than in Sri Lanka) would not object to this.
I’ve got no problem with conceding ground on market issues, Andrew. I do object, however, when pure market considerations are dressed up as ‘all those nasty whities are racist’ (the shorter Ranatunga).
A break down of Murali’s statistics against minnows is here. If you control for those wickets with both players, then Warne emerges as the better bowler by some margin.
Andy Bartlett - Stop sucking lemons and lighten up. Warney is rightly being covered in accolades, no need to bring him down -save it for next week. The most recent illustration of the man’s true brilliance was the fifth day in Adelaide, where he visibly bunged the pressure on the Poms and made them doubt themselves, which caused their inevitable collapse. I am living in Tokyo presently and the man’s mind games were coming out of the TV distinctly ! You could smell the Emglish self doubt. Who else in recent Australian cricket history has been able to do that.
Your politics aside, I suspect that, like me, you always came up with the perfect retort to the Warney types about 30 minutes after their provocation had occurred. I have grown to live with it, however, and grew to enjoy the scamps antics.
And anyone who selected Murali ahead of Warne is a nutbag !
The South Asian trio of countries simply won’t respect the laws of cricket. They did have the rules against chucking loosened to assist Murali, and they did run the highest-rated umpire out of cricket because he wouldn’t put up with their cheating:
http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/268527.html
http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/268527.html
Sorry about the double link.
By the standards of Benauld’s time, I suspect that todays sledging would be considered sanctionable under the laws of the game - my point is only that these top flight sportspeople always push the edge of the envelope - so Murali will chuck if he can get away with it. And Warney will always say “on yer bike, champion” when he bowls some hapless Pom.
BTW, for light entertainment, may I suggest:
http://www.bowled-em.com/ - Warney’s own bowling game, complete with comments.
Possibly the greatest tribute to Shane Warne was the “Shane Warne song” by Kevin ‘Bloody” Wilson
“my point is only that these top flight sportspeople always push the edge of the envelope ”
Precisely. This applies to both Murali and Warne.
The only way to deal with it is to create stricter rules and enforce them strictly. Here of course it helps to have big multinational structures like FIFA or IAF which cannot be pressured by individula countries, however powerful.
SL, I’m not sure that link (at #72) is sufficient to prove your assertion about minnows, although am happy to explore it further.
I understand what you are saying in regard to the ’shorter Ranatunga’, but I also don’t think everything can be reduced to this. For example, it wasn’t just people from the Asian countries who said they thought Darrel Hair’s decision/s with the ball-tampering/forfeit test match were poor. However, if I keep going on this aspect I’ll be accused of sucking more lemons, so I’ll stop.
I actually quite like Shane Warne and love watching him bowl (except for occasions when he gets too contemptuous of his opponents, but as i said above, that’s a trait the whole team suffers from occasionally). I also think he’s been treated unfairly at times by the media (although he’s had a good run at other times).
I am simply saying that blithely asserting he’s the greatest ever isn’t matched by the statistics. The fact that some people react so strongly to such an opinion being expressed suggests the lemon sucking may actually be occuring in other quarters - although no doubt someone will endeavour to prove that lemon-sucking is the sole provence of ‘lefties’ and could in no way be engaged in by sound thinking people on the right.
There used to be a very nice breakdown of the statistics on that page, separating out Murali’s figures with minnows and without them, likewise for Warney (although Warney has almost no minnows). I’ll have a dig and see if I can find it again. If not, I’ll have to drop the lot into Excel and do it myself - eek (I am being punished for four years of university statistics here).
Hair is a different kettle of fish, and the two should not be conflated. Whilst I think he was probably removed as an umpire for spurious ’shorter Ranatunga’ type reasons, I have seen him pull the ‘let’s give every LBW appeal out because I want to go home early’ stunt, which in my view is worse than no-balling Murali. Note that Mr Cook didn’t get much of another go, probably because the Australian selectors knew what was going on.
Note, too, how two Pakistani players caught ingesting steroids haven’t even worn a 1 year ban, and Dick Pound has said little on them. There is a clear double standard pertaining to non-white cricket playing countries, with the notable exception of the West Indies, who seem to get shafted by everyone.
And Murali got the rules of the game changed for him. Nature of the beast, these days.
If you accept that Murali’s a valid cricketer, as Andrew seems to do, then there is a valid case to say that Murali could be better then Warne. It is an arguable case, but you can make a case.
However, for those of us that do not accept that Murali is a valid cricketer, there’s simply no comparison between Warne and any contemporary bowler.
Imagine giving one specific person a legal right to steal from banks, and then entering that person in Australia’s richest person’s list. It would be nonsense to compare him to the stock of the mill billionares, because he has an unfair advantage. This is why a great many cricket fans do not accept Murali’s stats as valid, regardless of what they are.
I haven’t had anyone rock up to the bowling crease with that sort of action. Yet. If someone did, I’d think seriously about taking the team off (mind you I’m only captain of the vice).
I’ve been watching the NZ vs Sri Lanka games in NZ (they are playing a 20/20 game at the moment and NZ are wearing their 1992 World Cup outfit) and it was a hoot watching Murali get spanked for a couple of sixes.
To pick the doosra, watch for an extra ‘wobble’ in Murali’s wrist that is not there when he bowls the standard off-spinner.
Statistics don’t convey the difference between Warne and Murali. Warne has the potential (and so often actual) menace to batsmen that Murali lacks. I’m with Helen. You gotta watch both. I know who I’d rather watch bowling!
Of course Murali’s a valid cricketer Scott. Unless it was somebody else with that name who just got a(nother) ten wicket haul against New Zealand last week. He plays with the same rules and the same umpires as everyone else. Also see above quote from John Reid (at #70).
whisiitso, I don’t disagree with your comment. Warne appears to have more menance, and be a greater entertainer. It was interesting that Warne said that was how he wished to be remembered - as an entertainer. Perhaps people have a broader interpretation of the word than I do, but I figure when people are talking about who is the ‘best’ bowler, they’d go by results not entertainment value.
If you control for the minnows, Andrew, I don’t think you’ll get those results.
And I think Scott has a point. In days gone by, the rules have changed to accommodate a large class of players (the transition from underarm to roundarm to overarm, for example). AFAIK, they’ve never been changed to accommodate a single individual.
I shall hunt for the link sometime, but I have a recollection that the slow-motion filming and biomechanical analysis that can be done these days showed that there were more bowlers than Murali that were technically ‘chucking’ under the old rules, even though it didn’t look it to the naked eye. This was a valid part of the reasons why the definition of chucking was modified.
It’s a variation on the video umpire in a way - more precise and not relying on the naked eye which can be deceiving.
Anyway, I reckon Ian Meckiff got even more of a raw deal.
You’re kidding yourself Mr Bartlett. Everyone knows the rules were changed for Murali. The only argument is whether they should have been or not.
In other news, Glenn McGrath will also be retiring after the Sydney Test, although he’s sticking around for the World Cup.
Speaking as an offspinner (three or four more men on the leg boundary if you don’t mind captain) I would like to remind everyone that however many wickets Shane Warne might take, offspinners remain the gentlemen of the game.
This sentiment would have been echoed by the late Sir Peter Medawar and also by the living legend Frank Devine.