The Spirit of Cricket

Beyond the fact that they play positively across all aspects of the game - the thing that NZ have demonstrated is that being a decent bloke and treating the opposition (and umpires) with respect is not yet quite dead.

There have been numerous occasions in this series where NZ have seemingly given genuine applause to England's guys for a century, or a run scoring record etc. Not the usual cursory couple of claps but going-out-of-their-way to walk or jog over to shake a hand, pat a back or offer up a good word. I think some of that has begun to rub off on England as they've done a few similar things in response.

An example is playing out as I tap away right now, as in this 2nd test Boult has just dropped the ball in his run up and it dribbled along the floor to Cook who tapped it up onto his bat and lobbed it into Boult's hands. Boult and team smiling and laughing at it - a little bit of levity during a period which has been intense in terms of its drama.

Picture this scenario in a month's time.

Johnson loses ball in run-up, Cook goes to tap it up and lob it back.

Warner comes charging in from cover, snarling and swearing, Clarke shouting from slip 'Do that again and you'll get a f*cking broken arm'. Haddin joining in with his usual wit, adding something sparkling such as 'Yeah, f*ck off you f*cking c*nt. C*nt.'

I'm not saying England are above acting like a bunch of w*nkers and we may do something similar if it is us in the field and Aus batting. And in general terms Anderson is among the worst offenders in the game with his surly, snipey remarks to the oppo and the umps.

But perhaps other countries could look to emulate NZ's approach in all facets of the game. Being decent guys seems to be working for them and their game - so why not for others?

Lindsay no.2 wrote:Warner comes charging in from cover, snarling and swearing, Clarke shouting from slip 'Do that again and you'll get a f*cking broken arm'. Haddin joining in with his usual wit, adding something sparkling such as 'Yeah, f*ck off you f*cking c*nt. C*nt.'

Something along those lines happened against India at the back end of last year. Matthew Hayden used to do the same thing in that situation.

Winning is all that matters. They'll be remembered as c*nts, but most won't mind and neither will the Aussie public.

Makes the likes of Benaud all the more special to the cricketing world.

vilkrang wrote:Winning is all that matters. They'll be remembered as c*nts, but most won't mind and neither will the Aussie public.

Winners are grinners and if you don't agree with that, you're a f*cking sore loser for saying so.

It's one of the biggest myths of modern cricket that you have to be a qunt to succeed. I blame Allan Border, he was the first to turn the Aussies into the abrasive win at all costs unit. IIRC, he cited the fact he thought they were to nicey nicey when they were losing to us. He loses sight of the fact that they Aussies lost to us in 85 and 86/87 because they were shoite - no other reason is applicable.

They started winning when they produced what would become a golden generation of talent. They would still have been successful if they had strewn rose petals in front of every batsman on his way to the wicket.

We're getting our qualified congratulations in early.

Basil wrote:It's one of the biggest myths of modern cricket that you have to be a qunt to succeed. I blame Allan Border, he was the first to turn the Aussies into the abrasive win at all costs unit. IIRC, he cited the fact he thought they were to nicey nicey when they were losing to us. He loses sight of the fact that they Aussies lost to us in 85 and 86/87 because they were shoite - no other reason is applicable.

They started winning when they produced what would become a golden generation of talent. They would still have been successful if they had strewn rose petals in fron of every batsman on his way to the wicket.

Oh shit. You know that no one is allowed to criticise Border. He is a god. The biggest dinkum Aussie of all time. He is a saint. They even named a medal after him. He is a true australian.

Fark knows where this will end now.

Going back to L#2's first three paragraphs.

Amen to that.

(See Lind - I agreed witcha.)

taipan wrote:

Basil wrote:It's one of the biggest myths of modern cricket that you have to be a qunt to succeed. I blame Allan Border, he was the first to turn the Aussies into the abrasive win at all costs unit. IIRC, he cited the fact he thought they were to nicey nicey when they were losing to us. He loses sight of the fact that they Aussies lost to us in 85 and 86/87 because they were shoite - no other reason is applicable.

They started winning when they produced what would become a golden generation of talent. They would still have been successful if they had strewn rose petals in fron of every batsman on his way to the wicket.

Oh shit. You know that no one is allowed to criticise Border. He is a god. The biggest dinkum Aussie of all time. He is a saint. They even named a medal after him. He is a true australian.

Fark knows where this will end now.

Surely not in the same league as McGrath, who spent an entire career being famous for being an utter qunt on the field, then after he retires photos are released of him laughing whilst posing with endangered animals he has just shot, and he STILL is apparently a great bloke.

Basil wrote:It's one of the biggest myths of modern cricket that you have to be a qunt to succeed. I blame Allan Border, he was the first to turn the Aussies into the abrasive win at all costs unit. IIRC, he cited the fact he thought they were to nicey nicey when they were losing to us. He loses sight of the fact that they Aussies lost to us in 85 and 86/87 because they were shoite - no other reason is applicable.

They started winning when they produced what would become a golden generation of talent. They would still have been successful if they had strewn rose petals in front of every batsman on his way to the wicket.

Chappelli's Ugly Australians were before AB

PeterCS wrote:Going back to L#2's first three paragraphs.

Amen to that.

(See Lind - I agreed witcha.)

Going back to L#2's LAST four paragraphs.

Spot on.
Excellent observation.
The Aussie team are all a bunch of qunts without a single dick amongst them to keep them happy.

The Kiwi's were outstanding this series, gracious in defeat at Lord's and magnanimous in victory at Headingley.
Can't see the Aussies getting close to either feature.

Oh well, four months of snarl, gripe, spitting, under the breath abuse and, to an extent, cheating...
Tally ho.
Oh joy!

taipan wrote:

Basil wrote:It's one of the biggest myths of modern cricket that you have to be a qunt to succeed. I blame Allan Border, he was the first to turn the Aussies into the abrasive win at all costs unit. IIRC, he cited the fact he thought they were to nicey nicey when they were losing to us. He loses sight of the fact that they Aussies lost to us in 85 and 86/87 because they were shoite - no other reason is applicable.

They started winning when they produced what would become a golden generation of talent. They would still have been successful if they had strewn rose petals in fron of every batsman on his way to the wicket.

Oh shit. You know that no one is allowed to criticise Border. He is a god. The biggest dinkum Aussie of all time. He is a saint. They even named a medal after him. He is a true australian.

Fark knows where this will end now.

presumably the Cronje medal was lost on the punt

The behaviour of their respective cricket teams I think reflects where Australia and New Zealand are as countries. New Zealand seems to be very comfortable of its place in the world, revelling as the underdog that no one really talks about, whereas Australia seems to want to bang its own drum, and tell everyone how important they have no become in the scheme of things. As a society, Australia remains deeply unsettled and unsure of its true identity.

The view of the majority of the Australian public is- Yeah, our team are qunts, but at the moment we are winning, so we'll admire them but not love them.

I tend to think that they were slightly less quntish in their bad period from 2011-2013 BECAUSE they were losing, rather than their supposed conscious decision to try and behave better being a REASON for them not playing so well. The Aussies have always been bad winners.

Not many teams can get away with being both losers AND qunts. Their fans will tear them to shreds.

Henry wrote:The behaviour of their respective cricket teams I think reflects where Australia and New Zealand are as countries. New Zealand seems to be very comfortable of its place in the world, revelling as the underdog that no one really talks about, whereas Australia seems to want to bang its own drum, and tell everyone how important they have no become in the scheme of things.

The view of the majority of the Australian public is- Yeah, our team are qunts, but at the moment we are winning, so we'll admire them but not love them.

I tend to think that they were slightly less quntish in their bad period from 2011-2013 BECAUSE they were losing, rather than their supposed conscious decision to try and behave better being a REASON for them not playing so well. The Aussies have always been bad winners.

Not many teams can get away with being both losers AND qunts. Their fans will tear them to shreds.

Really...I think this a massive beat-up...I doubt any Oz team has insisted on particular menus or behaved in the odious and cowardly way of Swann, Jimmeh and Lady Di towards others in the team - let alone the opposition or the puntariat

.

horace wrote:

Henry wrote:The behaviour of their respective cricket teams I think reflects where Australia and New Zealand are as countries. New Zealand seems to be very comfortable of its place in the world, revelling as the underdog that no one really talks about, whereas Australia seems to want to bang its own drum, and tell everyone how important they have no become in the scheme of things.

The view of the majority of the Australian public is- Yeah, our team are qunts, but at the moment we are winning, so we'll admire them but not love them.

I tend to think that they were slightly less quntish in their bad period from 2011-2013 BECAUSE they were losing, rather than their supposed conscious decision to try and behave better being a REASON for them not playing so well. The Aussies have always been bad winners.

Not many teams can get away with being both losers AND qunts. Their fans will tear them to shreds.

Really...I think this a massive beat-up...I doubt any Oz team has insisted on particular menus or behaved in the odious and cowardly way of Swann, Jimmeh and Lady Di towards others in the team - let alone the opposition or the puntariat

I don't think you'll find any English forummers on here saying this English team is full of great blokes. The 2011-2014 England team in particular had more than its fair share of qunts.

But anyway, isn't this thread about New Zealand?

aye ...I don't mind the shepherds!

however it was you who raised alleged Oz behaviour

Nice article, and perhaps L = T after all.


http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/20584540/embarrassed-how-west-indies-played-nineties-brian-lara

I wasn't at all surprised all these years by M Holding's House N like bearings. Shocking to see L going down the same beat.

^^Waxing (or waning) philosofickell, we're all someone's house N when it comes right down to it.

Or as the thingummijig on the neck of whatsisname's dog stated:

I am his Highness' Dog at Kew/
Pray tell me Sir, whose Dog are You?

I can't imagine that stuff will make Lara particularly popular in the caribbean.

From what I've seen of the 1980 NZ series on various online vids I can kind of see why Holding and Croft lost it - and I've only seen the 'highlights' so I'm guessing there was a lot wider sense of injustice at play and a feeling among the team of being screwed over. The umpiring I've seen seemed inept at best and perhaps something a lot more sinister at worst.

For the 1990 WI/Eng series, I remember watching that and W.I. certainly pushed it beyond the pale in my eyes. Is Lara calling out the great man himself with regard to the running toward the ump and applying pressure?