Gambhir has a point

[Ram]

when he says we need to take a holistic view of sledging. Generally, the ICC is always punishing the 'provoked', rather than a 'provocateur'. If a player dishes out all sorts of niceties at an opposition player and that player reacts by getting agitated and slightly physical, the ICC is always censuring the second guy. This is really confusing because, if someone abused our family or our dignity left, right and center, 95% of us will be provoked into giving a reaction. Then, why is it that the ICC is turning a blind-eye to the party guilty of starting everything in the first place? Is it because, if a player verbally abuses another player, nothing can be understood on T.V, while if a player physically reacts ( like what Gambhir did, thrusting an elbow at Watson), it looks bad on T.V and bring disrepute to the game? That to me, is unfair and unjust. As Gavaskar pointed out in commentary, how can it be not O.K to abuse someone in real life, while it is perfectly passable to pass all sorts of comments on a cricket fields? And worse, I think the Aussies even make snide remarks reg. the sexual orientation of the players.

[fineleg]

Generally, the ICC is always punishing the 'provoked', rather than a 'provocateur'. If a player dishes out all sorts of niceties at an opposition player and that player reacts by getting agitated and slightly physical, the ICC is always censuring the second guy. .

<< i hope MM already read what I wrote - so removing it now >> << rest of the post below >> Point noted abt ICC. The thing is when constantly provoked, sometimes people lose it. Then instead of "retaliating in equal measure" - verbal in the case of Gambhir, the retaliation crossed the boundary - physical in the case of GG. ICC MUST bring in laws to look at it holistically and curb the provacateur.

[Desi Cartman]

People from sub-continent take the comments personally where as Aussies and poms dont. Its cultural difference. IMO they should ban sledging. A player can complain to the umpire and the person sledging gets a warning. If he still continues to sledge then he gets reported. Plain and simple. This way if 2 teams want to have a chat then they can at the same time teams who dont want to be a part of it have a choice.

[Willow_on_fire]

I personally feel..sledging must be answered with 'better' sledging..:agree:...also...gone are the days when the white man thought he is 'next to god'...in today's world (atleast we Punjabis think that way) if someone slaps you...don't go the 'gandhi' style of 'offering' another cheek...just punch the mofo down...:--D

[cochise]

I have noticed that the Aussies know how to skirt around the rules and technicalities involved a lot better than the Indians...this is because that is what they do constantly. Whereas the Indians do not initiate but react and then get caught out by the technicalities of the rules. In fact, Aussies lay the trap...they bait the Indians into trangressing the technicalities and the Indians pay the price. I am very happy the Indians do not initiate any of this rubbish, but even happier that they give it back with some topping on it...but they have to be smart about how they do it otherwise they will constantly put themselves at a disadvantage. Learning curve.

[bharat297]

I have to agree with desi_cartman ... I feel players from the subcontinent generally do take the sledging seriously. If an opposition player runs up to someone and yells in their face that theyre an "f***ing w***er" ... most players just laugh it off as the opposition player losing his cool and being an idiot. The Indians , particularly the younger generation , see it as a challenge that they must go back and give them some. They really dont need to such a thing. My ultimate point is ... if you are going to engage in sledging war by retaliating to what the Aussies and such throw out ... then you must only do so if you can keep your cool. Otherwise ... they win. Gambhir showed he couldnt keep his cool.

[bharat297]

I dont see why we need to retaliate. Retaliation will often cause the opponent to fire up as well, and the sledging when coming from both sides can often get very personal very quick. A great man once said ... "An eye for an eye will make the whole world go blind"

[cochise]

Look at it this way...sometimes you have to speak in a language that the opposition understand. They are sounding you out to see what your character is like. It is another game. If you can stay silent and absorb it...good for you...if you cannot, then you better learn quick smart how to communicate your thoughts and intentions to the opposition LOUD and CLEAR. And not stuff yourself up in the process. An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind...but if someone has taken out your one eye and is threatening to take out your other eye and everybody else's eyes...it is better if you take out both his eyes than allow inaction to blind the whole world and let the criminal remain seeing.

[bharat297]

Look at it this way...sometimes you have to speak in a language that the opposition understand. They are sounding you out to see what your character is like. It is another game. If you can stay silent and absorb it...good for you...if you cannot, then you better learn quick smart how to communicate your thoughts and intentions to the opposition LOUD and CLEAR. And not stuff yourself up in the process.

Well Gambhir snapped didnt he ... he lost his cool and even though he made a double ton he got a 1 match ban.

An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind...but if someone has taken out your one eye and is threatening to take out your other eye and everybody else's eyes...it is better if you take out both his eyes than allow inaction to blind the whole world and let the criminal remain seeing.

At the end of the day ... Cricket wins you cricket matches. Not sledging. If the Aussies go up to you and say "F*** you" ... and you say "F*** you" back and give them a shove ... does that prove youre a fighter? Nope. To me it proves you're just as bad as they are. Anyone can say "F*** you". It proves nothing. To me being a fighter and being tough is about being able to stand up to that without resorting to their level and turning around and putting in a matchwinning performance.

[cochise]

If the Aussies go up to you and say "F*** you" ... and you say "F*** you" back and give them a shove ... does that prove youre a fighter? Nope. To me it proves you're just as bad as they are.

See...that is not what I mean...that is just mirroring him quite pathetically. Rather, I would see this exchange occuring: If the Aussies go up to you and say "F*** you" ... and you say "Shut the F*** up and bowl" and then just carry on with your own preparations...that communicates to him your thoughts and intentions loud and clear... No need to shove and push and get tangled up in averbal slanging match. Talk minimally and straight, in his language and idiom, communicate your intentions and thoughts.

[Lurker]

That to me, is unfair and unjust. As Gavaskar pointed out in commentary, how can it be not O.K to abuse someone in real life, while it is perfectly passable to pass all sorts of comments on a cricket fields?

Have to wonder where Gavaskar was advocating his ethos of life when Harbhajan went scott-free of racism charges simply because he had said Teri **** ki. I suppose that doesnt count for an abuse in a country which revers Mothers as bigger than God. Desi Cartman is right on the money that subcontinent players take it personally. To compound the problems they totally lack originality and instead substitute it with abuses. If you check the funniest of sledges on field there would be very few that were uttered by Indians. The only one that comes to mind is when Shoaib Akhtar was chiding Sehwag as to why he was leaving the balls and dared him to hit them to which Sehwag replied as to if Shoaib was bowling or begging?? Subcontinent players need to develop a sense of humour.

[bharat297]

Have to wonder where Gavaskar was advocating his ethos of life when Harbhajan went scott-free of racism charges simply because he had said Teri **** ki. I suppose that doesnt count for an abuse in a country which revers Mothers as bigger than God.

Thats a different matter. He went "scot-free" because there was NO PROOF and you cant say someone is guilty of something unless they are proven guilty. Otherwise its simply slander.

[Lurker]

Thats a different matter. He went "scot-free" because there was NO PROOF and you cant say someone is guilty of something unless they are proven guilty. Otherwise its simply slander.

Look mate I am not interested in the same argument for the 2000th time and expecting a different result this time. Harbhajan Singh went scott free because(as per his legal counsel) he did NOT say Monkey but Maan Ki. So what exactly is Gavaskat cribbing about here??

[bharat297]

Look mate I am not interested in the same argument for the 2000th time and expecting a different result this time. Harbhajan Singh went scott free because(as per his legal counsel) he did NOT say Monkey but Maan Ki. So what exactly is Gavaskat cribbing about here??

Well the fact is ... he didnt get off scot free ... he got a 50% fine for saying "Teri Maa ki" ... Now if someone said "Your mother" ... do you think they would have gotten a 50% fine? That was Gavaskar's point i think and its a valid one. Look at the facts here. See the problem is ... many people look at what the Aussies accused him of and then look at his final penalty and then make the judgement that he got off scot free (relative to the initial charge yes it does seem that way). But the initial charge was not proven, so based on what was proven ... he got the penalty he deserved. He didnt get off scot-free. If one looks at the facts and doesnt get drawn in by the media hoopla one can see that.

[Lurker]

Well the fact is ... he didnt get off scot free ... he got a 50% fine for saying "Teri Maa ki" ... Now if someone said "Your mother" ... do you think they would have gotten a 50% fine? That was Gavaskar's point i think and its a valid one.

50% fine for saying Maan ki? Where I come from he might have earned a bullet for the same. Yes he did get scott free, and oddly enough even his Mother defended him for saying Teri Maan ki. Talk of irony! As for Gavaskar's point, he has NONE. The man was an oddball when he played cricket. Great cricketer, possibly India's greatest batsman, but never can you cite one incident in his life when he settled on-field matters on-field with some nice repartee. Instead kept throwing toys out of pram and continues to do so. If Ravi Shastri would make the same comment I will atleast give him a patient considering how Shastri effectively sledged back Australians when pushed in a corner. You should probably check up how he effectively put Mike Whitney in his place when the latter sledged him. Shastri's retort even had Aussie players in splits. Sunny of course is famous of walking out from the middle, atleast threatening to do so before Indian manager stopped him, in Australia.

Look at the facts here. See the problem is ... many people look at what the Aussies accused him of and then look at his final penalty and then make the judgement that he got off scot free (relative to the initial charge yes it does seem that way). But the initial charge was not proven, so based on what was proven ... he got the penalty he deserved. He didnt get off scot-free. If one looks at the facts and doesnt get drawn in by the media hoopla one can see that.

Again, no disrespect, but not interested in pursuing the same argument, more so because I do see that you are fixed in your point of view(probably you hold the same about me). What Indian fans should consider is when Aussies were a dominant side almost every Indian fan respected them but also hated them for the persona they created on-field. How is current Indian team any different? We seem to be creating as many controversy on field as the Aussies. And while Aussies could atleast contend to be playing inside the rules Indian players are fast retorting to abuses, body slams...all in the name of "only" retaliating. xxxx

[triam]

BCCI needs to give training to Indian team, mainly youngsters how to handle stress and anger in the playing field. Asians take verbal abuse more personally than Western countries, so our players need to get trained of how to handle this stuff.

[veer]

And while Aussies could atleast contend to be playing inside the rules Indian players are fast retorting to abuses, body slams...all in the name of "only" retaliating. xxxx

you are joking with me? why ponting keep on insisting on ''captain's agreement on fielders words'' when him and his vice-captain claimed cathes on bump balls? why symonds, hydo go scott free when they sledge and when bhajji says ''maa ki.. '' its out of the line? remember McGrath spitting on Sarwan? why warnie and company can bowl negative lines but when we do they wanna complain? their media is making you feel that we are wrong cuz we just started getting tough on field.. thing is .. Ozzies want to have only their way.. not other way around.. they are weak when it comes to taking abuses.. plus, lets see if we create same 'drama' against England... if we do then there is something wrong.. otherwise its just OZZIES..

[bharat297]

50% fine for saying Maan ki? Where I come from he might have earned a bullet for the same. Yes he did get scott free, and oddly enough even his Mother defended him for saying Teri Maan ki. Talk of irony!

I was talking about in terms of cricket laws. A fine of 50% of your match fee for saying "Teri Maa ki" was handed to Bhajji. Now, if someone said the words "Your mother" on a cricket field ... do you think they would have gotten a fine that large? Its irrelevant what would happen if he said that in society or what his mother said. Both are pretty bad things to say and would more than likely get you beaten up in any bar or club. However, in the game of cricket, given what gets said on the field nowadays, it was a sufficient penalty. He didnt get off easy.

What Indian fans should consider is when Aussies were a dominant side almost every Indian fan respected them but also hated them for the persona they created on-field. How is current Indian team any different? We seem to be creating as many controversy on field as the Aussies. And while Aussies could atleast contend to be playing inside the rules Indian players are fast retorting to abuses, body slams...all in the name of "only" retaliating.

I agree with everything there except the Aussies playing within the rules. That has been pretty much far from the case. If anything, the Aussies have probably stretched the limits of what is acceptable on-field behaviour further than any other team. I dont like how the Indians think they have to retaliate with words and not just get on with the game. Ive made that clear in many other posts and an article as well.

[flamy]

dangnabbit, I read the thread title as "Gambhir has a joint" and ya I agree...

[Lord]

i think there should be a card system in cricket too. if things are heating up,umpires should show a yellow card to concerned player,if he still continues with his sledging,umpirs should show a red card and off u go! the player should be be banned from the game immediately n should not be replaced by anyone.this way not only the player but the team will suffer too.in case of a batsman he should be considered out immediately n not allowed to take any further part in the match. if its really serious like racist or something the player should be banned for next 2 games & the team made to play with 10 men.oz will suffer big time then.:giggle: anyway it should remain on the field with umpires n match referees shoulnt be involved.