Watson - Love him or hate him?
- Thread starter a for effort
- Start date
Sober Symonds
Member
Re: Watson - Love him or hate him?
Don't get me wrong, he's done mighty well to get to where he is. Watching him on Inside Cricket last night though, one couldn't help looking at it and wondering just what is going on there!!!
Don't get me wrong, he's done mighty well to get to where he is. Watching him on Inside Cricket last night though, one couldn't help looking at it and wondering just what is going on there!!!
Sober Symonds
Member
Re: Watson - Love him or hate him?
The thread has been more about Watson's actions or likeability - aside from his batting & bowling achievements.
He certainly is playing good cricket, so no argument from me there. By bringing up his stats though, Koenig, it does remind us of how sad his record was until his re-emergence in England last year.
I hope you're feeling a little better!
The thread has been more about Watson's actions or likeability - aside from his batting & bowling achievements.
He certainly is playing good cricket, so no argument from me there. By bringing up his stats though, Koenig, it does remind us of how sad his record was until his re-emergence in England last year.
I hope you're feeling a little better!
Re: Watson - Love him or hate him?
I won't say that I 'love' him, but I am a supporter of Watson and thats due mostly due to his on-field achievements and his attacking nature to the game of cricket.
I don't think me, you or anybody else outside of his friends/family/acquantances are in any position to judge the character of Watson. As our opinions of his character are built up almost entirely of seeing him on the cricket field, and if you have played sport before you should know that most people's demeanour changes when in competition.
I wish people would just treat sportsmen as sportsmen, comment about their sporting form and not their characteristic flaws - of which we all have atleast one and Sober Symonds is doing a fine job of demonstrating that.
Sober Symonds;387144 said:The thread has been more about Watson's actions or likeability - aside from his batting & bowling achievements.
He certainly is playing good cricket, so no argument from me there. By bringing up his stats though, Koenig, it does remind us of how sad his record was until his re-emergence in England last year.
I hope you're feeling a little better!
I won't say that I 'love' him, but I am a supporter of Watson and thats due mostly due to his on-field achievements and his attacking nature to the game of cricket.
I don't think me, you or anybody else outside of his friends/family/acquantances are in any position to judge the character of Watson. As our opinions of his character are built up almost entirely of seeing him on the cricket field, and if you have played sport before you should know that most people's demeanour changes when in competition.
I wish people would just treat sportsmen as sportsmen, comment about their sporting form and not their characteristic flaws - of which we all have atleast one and Sober Symonds is doing a fine job of demonstrating that.
Re: Watson - Love him or hate him?
Cricket's first and foremost rule, before anything else is even considered, is spirit of the game. If people don't see that they shouldn't be playing, watching or commenting. That is what holds the game together.
If one player doesn't follow that on-field requirement then they haven't even passed the first point of likeability, therefore popularity plummets.. Commodification and commercialism of the game is really getting to some people's minds these days.
Cricket's first and foremost rule, before anything else is even considered, is spirit of the game. If people don't see that they shouldn't be playing, watching or commenting. That is what holds the game together.
If one player doesn't follow that on-field requirement then they haven't even passed the first point of likeability, therefore popularity plummets.. Commodification and commercialism of the game is really getting to some people's minds these days.
Re: Watson - Love him or hate him?
Mate, I'm an advocate of the spirit of the game aswell. I do not sledge, am honest about catches and believe in a fair go, and yes, Watson has been charged with a breach of the spirit of the game when he was clashed into by Gautam Ghambir, however there is much worse people going around and if Shane Watson's representation of the spirit of the game was appaling as most people would have you believe I don't think he would be playing so much international cricket as there are Umpires and Match Referees assigned to police this.
Boris;387252 said:
Mate, I'm an advocate of the spirit of the game aswell. I do not sledge, am honest about catches and believe in a fair go, and yes, Watson has been charged with a breach of the spirit of the game when he was clashed into by Gautam Ghambir, however there is much worse people going around and if Shane Watson's representation of the spirit of the game was appaling as most people would have you believe I don't think he would be playing so much international cricket as there are Umpires and Match Referees assigned to police this.
Re: Watson - Love him or hate him?
I don't think Watson's behaviour and misconduct is bad enough for that sort of thing to happen, but it affects his the public opinion of him. That is quite an important thing these days, but most of all it's just for us to know that we like this guy and he is performing well at the same time. It's a bit hard to like someone that doesn't try his best to act like the rest of his team in team spirit, but at the same time you can like his performance levels.
I would never dream of dropping Watson, or anything at that professional level, but I wouldn't be surprised if CA haven't already given him a very big talking to because he is bringing the opinion of himself, his team mates, his team and his country down by acting like that. That in turn loses viewer followings, spectator levels, and sponsorship deals. That loses money and that in the end loses the cricket that we love and joy in this day and age. It's why Symonds was booted out of the team for doing exactly what guys in the 70s did all day long, public opinion and loss of money. Watson is a threat to the profitability of CA by not following the 'spirit of the game' code of conduct, which covers everything you do in a match situation.
Koenig;387256 said:
I don't think Watson's behaviour and misconduct is bad enough for that sort of thing to happen, but it affects his the public opinion of him. That is quite an important thing these days, but most of all it's just for us to know that we like this guy and he is performing well at the same time. It's a bit hard to like someone that doesn't try his best to act like the rest of his team in team spirit, but at the same time you can like his performance levels.
I would never dream of dropping Watson, or anything at that professional level, but I wouldn't be surprised if CA haven't already given him a very big talking to because he is bringing the opinion of himself, his team mates, his team and his country down by acting like that. That in turn loses viewer followings, spectator levels, and sponsorship deals. That loses money and that in the end loses the cricket that we love and joy in this day and age. It's why Symonds was booted out of the team for doing exactly what guys in the 70s did all day long, public opinion and loss of money. Watson is a threat to the profitability of CA by not following the 'spirit of the game' code of conduct, which covers everything you do in a match situation.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
Banned
Re: Watson - Love him or hate him?
That's crap Boris, Watson has had one main transgression. When he gave Gayle a send-off, although you could easily argue that Watson was provoked by Gayle and / or the rest of the West Indies team.
Other teams have used that excuse in the past, such as India when Gambhir made contact with Watson as he passed him to complete a run. The common theme in that case was that the people that start it need to be given a harsher penalty. The likes of Gavaskar have been spitting that line out for years.
I disagree with that line of thinking, but it is an example of how people, depending on what team they support, form an opinion on a matter. Gavaskar was basically implying that if an Indian player has done something wrong then he must have been provoked.
People may dislike Watson because he doesn't mind a bit of a sledge or eye contact with the batsmen but it doesn't look right because of Watson's appearance. They think his a 'poser' so to speak which is crap.
This spirit of the game IMO refers to how you play the part of the game that really isn't governed by hard and fast laws or areas that can be exploited by teams. Like subgate in the Ashes 2005 when England was trading fast bowlers for gun fieldsmen, or when the physio came out on the field to waste time, or when teams slow down their overs when the other team is looking for a declaration.
That's crap Boris, Watson has had one main transgression. When he gave Gayle a send-off, although you could easily argue that Watson was provoked by Gayle and / or the rest of the West Indies team.
Other teams have used that excuse in the past, such as India when Gambhir made contact with Watson as he passed him to complete a run. The common theme in that case was that the people that start it need to be given a harsher penalty. The likes of Gavaskar have been spitting that line out for years.
I disagree with that line of thinking, but it is an example of how people, depending on what team they support, form an opinion on a matter. Gavaskar was basically implying that if an Indian player has done something wrong then he must have been provoked.
People may dislike Watson because he doesn't mind a bit of a sledge or eye contact with the batsmen but it doesn't look right because of Watson's appearance. They think his a 'poser' so to speak which is crap.
This spirit of the game IMO refers to how you play the part of the game that really isn't governed by hard and fast laws or areas that can be exploited by teams. Like subgate in the Ashes 2005 when England was trading fast bowlers for gun fieldsmen, or when the physio came out on the field to waste time, or when teams slow down their overs when the other team is looking for a declaration.
lewissaffin
New Member
Re: Watson - Love him or hate him?
Aha! Gary made Ponting look I right -ahem- Pratt! To rub salt in Ricky's wounds, Gary Pratt now plays club level cricket! Seriously though, do you honestly expect us to put on a crap fielder as a sub?
Slightly off-topic but it was worth a dig
LIONS then DAYLIGHT;387302 said:
Aha! Gary made Ponting look I right -ahem- Pratt! To rub salt in Ricky's wounds, Gary Pratt now plays club level cricket! Seriously though, do you honestly expect us to put on a crap fielder as a sub?
Slightly off-topic but it was worth a dig
TeeJay1860
New Member
Re: Watson - Love him or hate him?
But the best players, by best I mean those of better character, would rise above it, prefering to let their performance do the talking. Steyn almost always flips out when he gets a wicket, especially if its KP's! but he doesnt pump his fists or shout at KP, that sort of behaviour is just childish imo, for anyone that does it, if its watson, broad anyone. it doesnt need to be in the game
LIONS then DAYLIGHT;387302 said:
But the best players, by best I mean those of better character, would rise above it, prefering to let their performance do the talking. Steyn almost always flips out when he gets a wicket, especially if its KP's! but he doesnt pump his fists or shout at KP, that sort of behaviour is just childish imo, for anyone that does it, if its watson, broad anyone. it doesnt need to be in the game
a for effort
Active Member
Re: Watson - Love him or hate him?
The crux of what LIONS then DAYLIGHT is trying to say is that Australia is never ever at fault for anything and it is always the other team trying to damage the integrity of the glorious Australians, especially England.
The crux of what LIONS then DAYLIGHT is trying to say is that Australia is never ever at fault for anything and it is always the other team trying to damage the integrity of the glorious Australians, especially England.
TeeJay1860
New Member
Re: Watson - Love him or hate him?
My apologies both LtD and A for effort.
being an ignorant pom i fail to see through the clouds of failure up into the glorious sunshine in which the mighty baggy greens reside. i shall now return to my queues, drizzle and complaining
sorry for wasting your time
a for effort;387311 said:
My apologies both LtD and A for effort.
being an ignorant pom i fail to see through the clouds of failure up into the glorious sunshine in which the mighty baggy greens reside. i shall now return to my queues, drizzle and complaining
sorry for wasting your time
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
Banned
Re: Watson - Love him or hate him?
Not at all, Australia has had players transgress over the years, mainly with regards to dissent towards umpires.
This summer we had Watson, Haddin and Johnson all correctly cited for bad behaviour, Watson just went over the top, sure. Haddin and Johnson should have known better, especially Haddin, brandishing your bat at another player is not good.
But does this come under the 'spirit of cricket'?
For mine their is a distinction between the spirit of cricket and the laws of the game.
What Haddin and Johnson and Watson all did was all clear transgressions.
The spirit of cricket covers things were aren't strictly against the law of the game but not part of 'spirit of the game'. Conversely, laws that are part of the game but rarely upheld also fall under the spirit of the game.
You don't appeal for handled ball when the batsmen picks it up to throw it to the fielder because its not in the spirit of the game, even though technically it can be given out.
The same applies with the timed out law.
Fact is, Australia rarely has played cricket outside the spirit of the game, despite what the headline journos print, it has however from time to time had players who have transgressed with regards to onfield behaviour.
Shane Watson is disliked because people see his pretty boy image and then they see him staring a batsmen down or mouthing off and they see that as an act.
a for effort;387311 said:
Not at all, Australia has had players transgress over the years, mainly with regards to dissent towards umpires.
This summer we had Watson, Haddin and Johnson all correctly cited for bad behaviour, Watson just went over the top, sure. Haddin and Johnson should have known better, especially Haddin, brandishing your bat at another player is not good.
But does this come under the 'spirit of cricket'?
For mine their is a distinction between the spirit of cricket and the laws of the game.
What Haddin and Johnson and Watson all did was all clear transgressions.
The spirit of cricket covers things were aren't strictly against the law of the game but not part of 'spirit of the game'. Conversely, laws that are part of the game but rarely upheld also fall under the spirit of the game.
You don't appeal for handled ball when the batsmen picks it up to throw it to the fielder because its not in the spirit of the game, even though technically it can be given out.
The same applies with the timed out law.
Fact is, Australia rarely has played cricket outside the spirit of the game, despite what the headline journos print, it has however from time to time had players who have transgressed with regards to onfield behaviour.
Shane Watson is disliked because people see his pretty boy image and then they see him staring a batsmen down or mouthing off and they see that as an act.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
Banned
Re: Watson - Love him or hate him?
Very well said, I agree with all of it.
:eek
TeeJay1860;387312 said:My apologies both LtD and A for effort.
being an ignorant pom i fail to see through the clouds of failure up into the glorious sunshine in which the mighty baggy greens reside. i shall now return to my queues, drizzle and complaining
sorry for wasting your time
Very well said, I agree with all of it.
:eek
Caesar
Member
Re: Watson - Love him or hate him?
That's a fairly narrow view of the concept, and somewhat at odds with the definition included in the Preamble to the Laws:LIONS then DAYLIGHT;387315 said:
Now I am a big fan of the Australian team, but under the official definition quite a number of their players violate the Spirit of the Game almost routinely.
Thumbs up
Member
Re: Watson - Love him or hate him?
Perhaps we could simplify the notion of the spirit of cricket.
It is somewhere in between doing anything to win a game and golf.
I do not think that any distinction could be as definite as some have suggested. There are rules that when enforced are not in the spirit of cricket, think mankad. Equally there are ways of contravening the rules and not breaching the spirit (over stepping). This does not prove the division LtD has proposed, as some laws were invented to protect the spirit of the game (leg side fielding restrictions)
The spirit of cricket, for me, comes from a decency based, largely on the structure, history and governing rules of the game, but not exclusively. But then these are just my thoughts on the matter.
Perhaps we could simplify the notion of the spirit of cricket.
It is somewhere in between doing anything to win a game and golf.
I do not think that any distinction could be as definite as some have suggested. There are rules that when enforced are not in the spirit of cricket, think mankad. Equally there are ways of contravening the rules and not breaching the spirit (over stepping). This does not prove the division LtD has proposed, as some laws were invented to protect the spirit of the game (leg side fielding restrictions)
The spirit of cricket, for me, comes from a decency based, largely on the structure, history and governing rules of the game, but not exclusively. But then these are just my thoughts on the matter.
breeno
Active Member
Re: Watson - Love him or hate him?
Apparently the great G.McGrath was one of the worst sledgers going around, he was so brutal with it that he would actually abuse the batsman, calling him everything under the sun. Nothing witty, just abuse. No one cares too much about that though because he appears to be, and I have no doubt is a really nice guy off the field. Whereas people think Watson appears to be a pretty boy, similar to Broad, so they take anything he does on a cricket field that isn't scoring runs or taking wickets as blasphemy.
Apparently the great G.McGrath was one of the worst sledgers going around, he was so brutal with it that he would actually abuse the batsman, calling him everything under the sun. Nothing witty, just abuse. No one cares too much about that though because he appears to be, and I have no doubt is a really nice guy off the field. Whereas people think Watson appears to be a pretty boy, similar to Broad, so they take anything he does on a cricket field that isn't scoring runs or taking wickets as blasphemy.
Re: Watson - Love him or hate him?
Watson has had these issues ever since he started professional cricket. I remember in his second or third season him going off at Hodge after his run out attempt accidentally (presumably) hit him. Watson almost exploded and didn't take it nicely at all. If that happened to Chris Gayle he would have been calmer than a hippie in the middle of a marijuana field (although Gayle isn't exactly a representative of the spirit of the game).
Please take a moment or two to read this and see if you agree with me:
I have written a paper on commodification of cricket, and I theorised that these days spirit of the game comes down to money. I would hazard a guess that of all the population of true cricket lovers, approx. 80% believe in the spirit of the game and want to see it still in full action in cricket presently. That means that the ICC, and in particular the independent boards world wide, have to cater for this public interest. Therefore if a player doesn't show a minimum standard of spirit of the game - on and OFF the field, money will be lost due to the sponsorship cycle being broken as a result of public disinterest, and through many various reasons that I won't go into (unless you ask for clarification). This may be minimal as it is, but why keep playing someone that reduces the interest of cricket and not following guidelines set by over 200 years of cricket, when someone similarly talented can follow those basic guidelines and play with at least half a brain for sportsmanship can bring in more revenue for the board and themselves, plus create a greater public interest. Would it be more interesting to see Watson succeed then say Phil Hughes? I think majority would say no, most would prefer to see Hughes do the things Watson is doing. This is why Symonds lost his contract on the spot, he had lost the board too much money, and although he was averaging 55 in Tests over the past three series and 50 in ODIs, plus being the best T20 player in the world, they couldn't stand to lose that money when they could replace him with someone who could do a similar job. He wasn't irreplaceable, and neither is Watson. He needs to pull his head in and understand that by him doing things that allow for even threads like this to be created means that sponsors will not enjoy sponsoring him as much as if he was a decent guy on and off the field. Sportsmen are role models, and I wouldn't like anyone's son growing up like Watto.
Watson has had these issues ever since he started professional cricket. I remember in his second or third season him going off at Hodge after his run out attempt accidentally (presumably) hit him. Watson almost exploded and didn't take it nicely at all. If that happened to Chris Gayle he would have been calmer than a hippie in the middle of a marijuana field (although Gayle isn't exactly a representative of the spirit of the game).
Please take a moment or two to read this and see if you agree with me:
I have written a paper on commodification of cricket, and I theorised that these days spirit of the game comes down to money. I would hazard a guess that of all the population of true cricket lovers, approx. 80% believe in the spirit of the game and want to see it still in full action in cricket presently. That means that the ICC, and in particular the independent boards world wide, have to cater for this public interest. Therefore if a player doesn't show a minimum standard of spirit of the game - on and OFF the field, money will be lost due to the sponsorship cycle being broken as a result of public disinterest, and through many various reasons that I won't go into (unless you ask for clarification). This may be minimal as it is, but why keep playing someone that reduces the interest of cricket and not following guidelines set by over 200 years of cricket, when someone similarly talented can follow those basic guidelines and play with at least half a brain for sportsmanship can bring in more revenue for the board and themselves, plus create a greater public interest. Would it be more interesting to see Watson succeed then say Phil Hughes? I think majority would say no, most would prefer to see Hughes do the things Watson is doing. This is why Symonds lost his contract on the spot, he had lost the board too much money, and although he was averaging 55 in Tests over the past three series and 50 in ODIs, plus being the best T20 player in the world, they couldn't stand to lose that money when they could replace him with someone who could do a similar job. He wasn't irreplaceable, and neither is Watson. He needs to pull his head in and understand that by him doing things that allow for even threads like this to be created means that sponsors will not enjoy sponsoring him as much as if he was a decent guy on and off the field. Sportsmen are role models, and I wouldn't like anyone's son growing up like Watto.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
Banned
Re: Watson - Love him or hate him?
I agree somewhat with what you say. When McGrath was involved in some incidents (spitting at a batsmen (98), abusing Tendulkar with a send-off (00), incident with Sarwan (03) there was uproar - people didn't excuse that behaviour with excuses about his off-field character - and nor should they.
The incident with Tendulkar (MCG boxing day test 1999) was disgraceful in terms of cricket behaviour, and it spoiled a great contest between the two which McGrath ultimately won on the occasion.
breeno;387335 said:
I agree somewhat with what you say. When McGrath was involved in some incidents (spitting at a batsmen (98), abusing Tendulkar with a send-off (00), incident with Sarwan (03) there was uproar - people didn't excuse that behaviour with excuses about his off-field character - and nor should they.
The incident with Tendulkar (MCG boxing day test 1999) was disgraceful in terms of cricket behaviour, and it spoiled a great contest between the two which McGrath ultimately won on the occasion.