Backing your verbal-sparring mates
As a skipper it's always tricky to keep players (a) from doing something that will mean an umpire reporting them, and (b) saying things that create unnecessary animosity with the opposition. When I say unnecessary, I'm working on the assumption that anything said on the field should be said with the intention of increasing your chances of winning. If it doesn't increase your chances of winning why say it?
I've failed on both counts this season so far with a player reported for questioning a caught behind when he was convinced it came off his elbow, opposition spectators complaining to me about the loud swearing coming from the Steyning changing room after a dismissal, and unnecessary animosity created by comments made to the batsmen while we're fielding. But I don't think the captain has any chance at all of stopping these type of things, because they're all done in the spur of the moment....there's no chance for the captain to do anything apart from stop it escalating.
It has got me thinking about how players back, or don't back, their team mates when it comes to heated verbal exchanges. In Duncan Fletcher's book he talks about his concerns about Chris Read in terms of being combative with the opposition, and mentions the example of Paul Collingwood's verbal assault on Shane Warne from slip in the 2006/07 Ashes, where Read remained silent throughout rather than chirping support for his mate. Fletcher saw this as a weakness in Read but elsewhere in his book, Fletcher explains that different approaches are needed for different batsmen and Collingwood's verbal assault was probably ill-advised as Warne is the type of player who is spurred on by sledging.
Last Saturday we were very much on the back foot as Bognor Regis coasted to a 7 wicket win. Our (Aussie - not really relevant but just thought I'd mention it!) keeper shouted out encouragement and after a few dot balls shouted that they couldn't afford too many dot balls as there was under 10 overs left. I glanced at the scoreboard from next to him at slip and could see there were 11 overs to go but didn't correct him. A couple more dot balls and he repeated the comment, only for the batsman to turn around and correct him.
The reply from our keeper was something like "Don't you ****ing talk to me you ****. **** off and concentrate on your own ****ing game". There definitely would have been more said, but I stepped in as soon as I could. My gut feel was that the comments made it less likely we'd win as the batsman would knuckle down to ensure he was there right to the end rather than potentially play a loose shot as victory was close.
The question is, should you back your verbal-sparring mates even when you don't agree with their comments? Fletcher would seem to suggest you should, and I'm sure our keeper would argue that we had nothing to lose and his comments could have induced an adrenaline-filled false stroke. But it's still something that I feel incredibly uncomfortable with....perhaps I need to field somewhere other than slip so that I can't hear it all!
7 comments:
Interesting post Ed. Swearing is a difficult thing to avoid, as we all do it when we bowl a wide or curse when we get out to a silly shot. That's what I would call a 'spur of the moment' reaction. Yes, it's bad, but it's also instinctive, and it's very difficult to prevent.
Sledging is slightly differnet. I happen to think it's fine to enter into a bit of chat. Sometimes it pays off, sometimes it doesn't. When I bat, I always try and make a witty retort if I'm being sledged, or I ensure if I'm fielding close that what I say isn't abusive, but just a bit funny. However, intentional swearing has no place on a cricket field, and your keeper overstepped the boundary. Well done for stepping in!
Also, your batsman should know better. We've all been given out to a dodgy decision, but the Umpire's decision is final. Besides, all the dodgy decisions will all even out over time with those that the Umpire misses.
The one thing you can do is sit your team down before the next match and make it clear that you have to accept the Umpire's decision, and that you shouldn't overtly swear at an opponent on the field.
Worth thinking about anyway.
Hang about! The Laws and Spirit of Cricket spell this out quite clearly and the role of the captain to ensure that the game is played within the strict guidelines.
In our league, the disciplinary guidelines and procedures are clearly set out and highlighted in both the captains and umpires pre-season meetings.
The procedure is that the umpire will always liaise with the captain over any bad behaviour and ask him to dael with the player. According to the severity the player will either be warned or reported for his behaviour taht may result in a ban.
Generally the level of behaviour is good because everybody understands the consequence otherwise. And, remember, and I would say this, the umpire will always give what he sees in an impartial way.
Oh and tell the Aussie to wind his neck in or else you will not see much of him on the cricket field!!
I'm completely with Grov. Unfortunately the comments made to the opposition have developed from the harmless "Want to retire, mate?" having just rapped him firmly on the fingers (or elsewhere equally painful!) or "You lucky bastard" after he has survived a particularly streaky shot, which might have been offered when I started playing club cricket getting on for 50 years ago, to the sort of way-over-the-top expletives that you describe. Especially as I understand you captain a very young side I think you must stamp out this sort of behaviour straight away, if necessary by your club suspending a persistent offender, possibly before the league punishes him, either by imposing its own suspension or docking you points. If your club gets a reputation for such behaviour you will find you lose your younger players, as their parents insist they play somewhere the game is played in a better spirit.
Incidentally, I agree with you that over-the-top insults are often counter-productive, encouraging greater effort on the part of the recipient.
Even if not always evident at higher levels, cricket remains a game for gentlemen and gentle women, not hooligans. Our former colonies have a lot to answer for!
It is a hard one as players show their emotions in different ways and some may enjoy a bit of niggle as it increases the intensity and this is what brings out the best in some players. I think players are old enough to realise when they have overstepped the mark and obviously have to be responsible for their actions or words. Its not to say its necesarily wrong to sledge but its hard to clamp down on it as this may kill the enjoyment of playing the game for some players. Its fair enough to say its a gentlemans game but the term gentleman has evolved over the years and you can't play the game now as they did however many years ago.
Thanks for the comments on this.
I guess the point I was making was (a) that it's impossible for the captain to stop players before they do or say problematical things, and (b) that some players (as you say NS) thrive on the adversarial nature of very direct and abusive sledging. In fact anything competitive at all sometimes spurs players on....for example on Saturday our mid-on argued with opposition players sitting on the boundary about who should push the sight screen back and forth during a left-hand / right-hand partnership. Far from meaning he lost concentration, he's the sort of person that probably plays better when in a confrontational situation. Should the captain stop players like that from being confrontational when it's possibly to the detriment of their performance?
The problem is that there are two types of cricketer these days. Personally, I can be very friendly with the opposition but feel I know when to stand up for myself if their banter goes too far. For me getting riled means I'll make an adrenaline-fueled mistake, so I try to avoid it as far as is humanly possible and laugh off all but the most abusive insults or blatant cheating.
However, if half your side play better when exchanging verbal abuse with the opposition, and the opposition are enthusiastically engaging, or even prompting, it, then is it really the skipper's role to step in and stop it? And if it is, how on earth do you even go about it?
In the words of MS Dhoni "
For me the captain needs to be seen to support the umpires in their control of the game. All he can do is lessen the impact of the negative behaviour and smooth things over, trying to tread a fine line so as to not annoy his team mate who thinks his captain should stand up for him (as Fletcher clearly thought Read should do, despite saying that tactically it was wrong for Collingwood to sledge Warne). As in most cases, it's not cut and dry, and there are shades of right and wrong, it's a near impossible line for a captain to tread.
Ah, let me try that again.
The MS Dhoni quote is here.
It reads "The only person who can control Sreesanth is Sreesanth. It is beyond my control and I don't think too much about (it)."
Post a Comment