Feeds
| Archives
|
What spirit of cricket?
Does it matter anymore? Does it even exist?
April 8, 2008
 |
|
The marriage between the Marylebone Cricket Club and the Indian Premier League seems an unlikely liaison: ancient untouchable institution meets brash gold-digger. These sorts of alliances normally end up in messy and acrimonious High Court settlements. But needs must. There is mutual benefit in the announcement of a commitment by the IPL to the MCC's Spirit of Cricket charter, which since 2000 has formed a preamble to the Laws of the game and is also endorsed by the ICC.
The IPL can show off to the establishment and the game's more traditional followers that it is a serious and upstanding member of the global cricket community. For the MCC, meanwhile, it is another notch on the bedpost of modernisation, as Keith Bradshaw, its forward-thinking Australian chief executive, seeks to widen the organisation's sphere of influence with consensus rather than pontificating. It is also indicative of the MCC's increasing status, in these overly commercial and politicised times, as the game's conscience.
But whenever the spirit of cricket gets mentioned, I find myself wondering what it, this spirit, is, and whether it means anything. Does it matter any more? Does cricket indeed have a spirit?
It certainly reeks of old MCC, of jazz-hat matches between wandering clubs like I Zingari and Free Foresters. There is so much mythology about cricket's supposed nobility, its higher calling. Indeed, there is so much of this nonsense in the UK that it puts people off playing the game.
The problem with the idea of a spirit of cricket is two-fold: one, it sounds outdated and irrelevant, especially for younger people; and secondly, that cricket means different things to different people.
Does a village match in rural England have anything in common with a game of tape-ball on the streets of Lahore? Does the member of the Melbourne Cricket Club have anything in common with the Sachin-worshipper on the concrete terraces of the Wankhede? The answer is cricket. The game itself. Not rules or values but a game, no more no less. It's not about fair play, it's about fun.
Matthew Hayden spoke after Bill Brown's death recently about the game being purer in Brown's day. Hayden misses the point. It is about perspective. The old Keith Miller line about pressure being a Messerschmitt up your backside contains an universal truth, that cricket is a game to be enjoyed not endured. By all accounts Hayden is a charming bloke off the cricket field but on it he exudes all the charm of a playground bully. He is a player at odds with the spirit of cricket.
There is plenty of room for extreme competitiveness, fruity back-chat, and even the intelligent end of the sledging spectrum without turning the game into an expression of orchestrated malevolence.
The remarkable backlash against the Australian team by their own public and media in the immediate aftermath of the Harbhajan-Symonds row was an attack on joylessness. It was not that they wanted their team to be pussycats. They wanted their cricket hard but they wanted a smile or too as well, and it was clear that a line had been crossed.
There is a certain paradox that MCC should be promoting the spirit of the game when watching cricket at Lord's can be a joyless experience - though things are improving on that front. People still aren't allowed to dress up as carrots but at least fun is no longer a dirty word.
The IPL, with its American influences, sounds like it could be fun, and I'm sure the players will enjoy it too, but whether there will be much evidence of the game's spirit is another matter. Because if it is just a circus then it has no merit or sustainability.
The players and spectators must care about the result, just not too much.
Have your say
| ||||||
| Comments have now been closed for this article |
||||||
Top
John Stern is editor of the Wisden Cricketer, the world's largest selling cricket magazine. Having cut his journalistic teeth at the legendary Reg Hayter's sports-writing academy in Fleet Street, he spent four years on the county treadmill for the London Times. He joined Wisden in 2001 and was deputy editor of Wisden Cricket Monthly at the time of its merger with the Cricketer in 2003 to form TWC.
Sponsored Links
Western Union Instant Win Game
NoPurchaseNecessary. Subject toOfficial Rules
Buy Ashes merchandise - clothes, books, DVDs & more
At Cricshop
Get the right speed and online tools
Rogers Business Internet
No Minimum Balance NRI Account
Citibank
and get a calling card
The spirit of Cricket has become much like the spirit of Christmas: Tradition cloaked in commercialisation. The way cricket is played will be reflective of society.As far as "chat" is concerned, nobody minds spicy banter. However,I don't see that personal abuse is acceptable. Federer doesn't need it, and Tiger Woods manages to win without abuse too.I remember batting in a league game in Kent many years ago where one of the fielders started got quite nasty. I told him that I had a bat, and could give him the name of a good plastic surgeon. He shut up.Funny thing was, the umpires did nothing but his captain apologised and gave him a thorough going over.
Posted by michaelfernando on (April 09 2008, 16:53 PM GMT)"... relies upon a spirit of sportsmanship that places the responsibility for fair play on the player. Highly competitive play is encouraged, but never at the expense of mutual respect among competitors, adherence to the agreed upon rules, or the basic joy of play." That is from the "Spirit of the Game" in the sport Ultimate. (That's the team sport played with a frisbee and has elements of football, american football and basketball.) So, yeah, I would argue, Cricket needs something like that; written down; at the top of the board.
Posted by 1stSlip on (April 09 2008, 10:07 AM GMT)Interesting article John. The "spirit of cricket" move by the MCC is an attempt to try and impose past values on the rapidly-changing environment of the modern game. However, the "horse has already bolted" and it is too little too late. The game cannot be returned to it's past form. We must accept a future now - like soccer - of a fully commercial and professional game that is mainly market driven. And like soccer, it will be market forces that provide the new "spirit" of cricket. The IPL is just one of these new market forces that will dictate how the game develops.
Posted by Smithie on (April 09 2008, 09:29 AM GMT)You fail to provide a definition of the "spirit of cricket". Surely the key component is "accept the decision of the umpire". Australia can hardly be accused of not doing that in marked contrast to the Sub Continentals - Hair, Bucknoor and Gavaskar being prime examples. Why is it that Hayden gets labeled as a "bully" and by inference not playing in the "spirit of the game" - usually when he steps down the pitch and whacks the bowler back over his head. Is this not a key element in the game - obtaining psychological dominance that translates into scoreboard pressure. Australia has dominated over recent years because it scores at a faster rate than opponents, adapts better to various pitch conditions around the world and accepts the verdict of the umpire. That is the "spirit of cricket"!
Posted by Rooboy on (April 09 2008, 08:16 AM GMT)The 'spirit of cricket' is an ethereal concept. It seems to depend on one's country of origin, ie an indian may spit, swear, refuse to walk, or even threaten not to play etc but they will still be viewed as 'playing in the spirit of cricket', whereas any Australian will be held to have breached the 'spirit' by merely walking on to the playing field to represent his country. The main use of this concept appears to be to provide some satisfaction to cricket supporters who cannot handle their own country's continuous defeats at Australia's hands. The 'spirit of cricket' concept provides such supporters with the ability to overlook or excuse any defeats, to take the high moral ground, and to denigrate the Australian team - the Australian team will not be considered to have played 'in the spirit' by virtue of the fact that they are Australian, and therefore this concept allows the scoreboard to be ignored and credit/blame to be withheld when the result is not to the supporter's liking.
Posted by Tiger_Wolverine on (April 08 2008, 23:48 PM GMT)So, what is Spirit of Cricket anyway? You raised the question but didn't bother to explain it .....and then went on to criticize Matt Hayden. Responding to some reactions, let's not get ahead of ourselves. Let the players i.e. torch bearers of cricket, follow whatever that spirit is ...and then we can get to the fans.
Posted by ornot on (April 08 2008, 15:49 PM GMT)It always amuses me when the public and pundits alike take a pious stance when it comes to shadowy issues like 'spirit of cricket', as if it is some elitist activity whose ethical foundations somehow transcend other, lesser sports. For the uninitiated, sledging is and always was a part of cricket. WG Grace did it with fervor. Once given out leg-before, he refused to walk and told the bowler: "They came to watch me bat, not you bowl". And the innings continued. Another time, when the ball knocked off a bail, Grace replaced it and told the umpire: "Twas the wind which took thy bail orf, good sir." The umpire replied: "Indeed, doctor, and let us hope thy wind helps the good doctor on thy journey back to the pavilion." In a contemporary context, would this be condemned or dismissed as simply charming? The former methinks.
Posted by Ausfan on (April 08 2008, 14:07 PM GMT)I think you will find that most Aussie fans backed their team's behaviour,as the poll on the baggy green website showed at the time.The press was a bit hysterical,but then they were willing to put the boots into the umpire as well.Funny how Australia is held up as bastions of bad behaviour on the cricket field,yet the series between India and England was far nastier,with accusations of deliberate beamers,jelly beans,refusing to walk when bowled,and a catch claimed that bounced into the glove.The spirit of cricket means playing the game fairly to me.I remember a captain moving his fielder while the bowler was bowling,a captain claiming a dismissal when the bowler threw the ball at the batsman,and hit the stumps because the batsman jumped out of the way of the ball.I remember a captain allowing a batsman to be run out because he went to congratulate his partner on a century.All that is not in the spirit of cricket.Not one of those captains was an Aussie.
Posted by choo_for_twenty_choo on (April 08 2008, 13:16 PM GMT)It's rather tiring hearing about the "mad, bad Aussies" with little reference to the so called 'spirit' played by other international teams of today. It takes two to tango.
Posted by schak82 on (April 08 2008, 11:38 AM GMT)The cricketing world has spent the last few years hearing about the Aussies damaging crickets reputation and their relations by not playing in the 'spirit' of the game. Yes, there are certainly things to be addressed about their on-field behaviour, but at some stage we must step back and decide for ourselves if it really matters. Did we enjoy Symonds dropping his shoulder into the streaker during the CB final series or do we wish for him to be prosecuted? So, I say this: to find out about the 'spirit of the game'; look at the fans, not the players.