Well hello Michael. Some more balance from the keyboard of discontent. I must say Im impressed that you defended 2 evil aussies. I do agree though, its funny how some people can watch the match yet miss the game out of blind loyalty. I work with a Pom who proudly affirms that "most of warnes vicitms were not out." He treats all Aus like the one eyed fan that he is, projecting his limited visage outwards. When Ind were in Aus I peddled out Sachins great Sydney record and announced my hope that he would produce another SCG masterpiece. He did not let me down, although it didnt rival his previous innings from 2003, that 241* was probably the best double I have watched, taking the backfoot drive out of his game & selecting the ball he wanted to play was magic. I have also waxed lyrical about some of Vaughans innings, when he is on, he is sublime. I love to watch Dravid & Kumar S, & when Attapatu was in form I enjoyed his glorious driving. My eng mate is never so quaniminousm with his view

It's a bit of a utopian post, this one. Sport, from the lowest level to the highest, is all about who is better, and winners get on the podium while losers go home. It's an outlet for our warring instincts that we otherwise cannot vent.

At the highest level, though, due to television, there is such a thing as a "neutral viewer", who doesn't care about who wins because he doesn't belong to either (or any) of the competing teams. Unconditional acceptance of quality is much easier when you're one of them.

So yes, you're right. Akram, Gilchrist and Ponting are great players, but only when they're playing someone other than India (or whatever, depending on where you're from).

Yes, we grudgingly accept they're good long after the hurt of defeat has subsided, but to resort to a brotherly embracing of all sports practitioners that Michael advocates in his post, in my opinion, defeats the purpose of sport itself.

How many of us care Roger Federer is Swiss? I suspect the Swiss do.

Sharath I don't think Michael was postulating all fans forget country of origin & give each other a hug. I think he was merely observing that sometimes an athletes abilities transcends national loyalties (read his comments on Akram.) My previous post indicated that I love watching players from other countries. I still would like countries I support to win, but I can marvel at the skills of a Sachin or a Lara as they defiantly carve my favourite bowlers apart, or I can watch Murali humble some of my hometown heroes with silent awe. I think perhaps Jeh was speaking out against parochial fans who truly believe that their team lost due to the cheating visitor or biased official presiding over the match. If a fan cant appreciate the majesty of a superb innings or fiery spell from the opposition until after the hurt of defeat has subsided then perhaps they need to decide if they are, for e.g. a WI cricket fan, or cricket fan who is from the WI? OrBoth? Neither is wrong but recognition helps

Fair point, Tboy. I was just trying to point out (and it's hard to do it in 1000 characters, I must say) that the "all embracing" spirit we see among the viewers of Olympics is only because of the fact that most of us are "neutral" observers. For instance, New Zealand's Evers-Swindell twins beat Britain (I think it was) by a hundredth of a second. Being a neutral observer, I could appreciate the mastery displayed by the twins, but do you think it would be possible for a serious English rowing enthusiast to do the same? I doubt it.

Besides, most of the Olympic sports are what I call "passive" sports; wherein everyone's doing their own thing and whoever does it best wins. It's much easier to accept superiority in such sports, which are not like cricket (and soccer and tennis) where someone's actively stopping you from doing something, and vice versa. There's more of an illusion of a "fight" in such games.

But fair point, though. Not very realistic, but fair.

Michael,

Being a huge fan of Kumar Sangakkara, this post strikes a chord with me.

However, myself and Lightning Bolt could never be friends, as I'd like to see Mr Hayden eaten by a bear.
If they're suave, stylish, and full of grace, then I'm likely to be a fan.

Only a Sri Lankan living in Australia could have written such a hopeful article. Born in the most relaxed sporting cricketing nation and domiciled in the game's most fierce competitor. This article was a great combination of both strains of thought. Good on you machung!

In a world bereft of obsession over TRPs, website hits and readership, perhaps what Michael says is slightly easier to achieve. I say this because, this drastically cuts our exposure to "experts" who colour our thoughts, with their so called insights and objective analysis.

Fair point Sharath, but we are not talking about the olympics, we are talking about cricket, and in cricket I can appreciate other players from other countries. Im not stating I expect every fan to be able to put aside their national loyatlies and watch the game in such a way, but it would be nice for a few more fans from every nation to simply embrace players irrespective of their place of birth. I dont believe its about neutrality, just about appreciation of the game. I watched a game where y Singh scored a ton, got bowled out and then the stadium promptly emptied as Singh walked back to the pavillion with a few scattered fans giving him the applause he deserved. This was a home game, and I find it deplorable that his own fans could not appreicate his efforts, primarily because his side was about to lose (in their minds anyway, the game wasnt over yet.) These are the kinds of fans that I dislike, if they fail to appreciate the skills of their own players I have little hope for them.

Nationalism doesn't feature in individual sports for me. It does to an extent in team sports.

That said I'm a cricket fan who will take on unhealthy sleeping patterns to watch a test in a distant land involving two nations I have no association with. And I have favourite cricketers from most Test nations.

I like the central idea of this article..
I agree with the Englishman about Ponting being a flat track bully though. :P

Nice piece, and important questions. Roger Federer may or may not have an Australian uncle, but in fact he does have a South African mother (truly). But I wonder whether it's easier to appreciate talent in individual sports (tennis, golf) or sports where club is more prevalent than country (football), than those where players on the world stage are representing their country. I think the IPL etc will make a difference, if it becomes predominant. But real fans should be able to appreciate, if not *fully* enjoy,a great innings or bowling spell against their own team. Those who can't, are a bit sad, I think, like the guy in "Fever Pitch".

Perhaps satellite tv has done a lot for broadening our appreciation of other players. When I started watching cricket from all over the world, irrespective of who was playing, I learnt to watch it with neutral emotions - appreciating the skills of individuals and not caring about who was winning. Now that I've got three very young children (who have yet to be properly brainwashed!!), live cricket on the home telly rarely wins a contest against Thomas the Tank Engine or Dora the Explorer so this has further added to my habit of just watching cricket for the pure pleasure of individual skills rather than having the time (or being allowed to) watch an entire game and following the eventual result. When I watch cricket in snippets, I tend to just focus on short periods of interest and I'm now relatively unemotional about who wins because it's hard to get excited when you know that the channel is about to get changed. I can just about hear it now: "Mummy, Dad's watching the cricket again"

Thank-you. Finally some balance. As it has become easier to follow the game worldwide via the net it could only be the most one-eyed fan who can't see what is obvious to most of us i.e. that truly great players can come from anywhere. I have been really disappointed with some of the nationalistic drivel that has been written on cricinfo over the last couple of years,and I'm not just talking about the respondants.Some authors have taken upon themselves to stir up as much discontent as possible between fans of different nations.Whenever a player reaches a significant milestone in their career there is always some drip saying " but such and such from my great nation did it faster or better or with more style...blah,blah,blah." Any onfield incidents are seen as opportunity to stir the nationalistic pot. Just get over it. I'm an Aussie but my favourite players (Chanderpaul,Yousef,Laxman,Tendulkar, Sangakkara,Ishant Sharma and Murali)are all OS players) Oh, I forgot that "flat track bully".

One-Day Internationals

Most sixes in an innings

Player Runs Balls 4s 6s SR Team Opposition Ground Match Date Scorecard
XM Marshall 157* 118 11 12 133.05 West Indies v Canada King City (NW) 22 Aug 2008 ODI # 2749
ST Jayasuriya 134 65 11 11 206.15 Sri Lanka v Pakistan Singapore 2 Apr 1996 ODI # 1088
Shahid Afridi 102 40 6 11 255.00 Pakistan v Sri Lanka Nairobi (Gym) 4 Oct 1996 ODI # 1125
MS Dhoni 183* 145 15 10 126.20 India v Sri Lanka Jaipur 31 Oct 2005 ODI # 2290
MV Boucher 147* 68 8 10 216.17 South Africa v Zimbabwe Potchefstroom 20 Sep 2006 ODI # 2420
ML Hayden 181* 166 11 10 109.03 Australia v New Zealand Hamilton 20 Feb 2007 ODI # 2527
BB McCullum 166 135 11 10 122.96 New Zealand v Ireland Aberdeen 1 Jul 2008 ODI # 2727
Ijaz Ahmed 139* 84 10 9 165.47 Pakistan v India Lahore 2 Oct 1997 ODI # 1236
Shahid Afridi 102 46 10 9 221.73 Pakistan v India Kanpur 15 Apr 2005 ODI # 22

All of them want to be No. 1, and that is part of what makes them great. I would say Imran's record as a fast bowler and as a batsman is good, but he
has the edge with leadership. He is far and away the best, there is no doubt about that. He has a strong will, a good cricket mind, and a good cricket brain.

I would put Botham next because not only did he get a lot of wickets, he could also bat very well, like Imran. I think they rank really close together.

Between Dev and Hadlee, I think Hadlee was a slightly more destructive bowler. He is the best line-and-length bowler I have ever faced at pace - not just medium pace, but genuine pace. You would be lucky if you got one ball to hit for a four in eight overs. He carried the New Zealand attack just like Kapil carried India. India haven't had a great seam bowler after him. They have had one or two good bowlers, but he was a great bowler. He could swing it on flat pitches, and he was a destructive batsman at times.

long live CRIC

It's bit incongruous to read an article that begins "The great thing about the Olympics " and
find that it's about cricket -the only major sport excluded from the Olympics. Let's don't kid ourselves, outside of the cricket world noone knows Tendulkar or Bradman's names - however Phelps's face has been all over the world recently. Cricket must strive to be a part of the 2012 Olympics, or risk falling further behind.

The odd thing about cricket is that is, at least in my view, more impressive when seen from the losing perspective. I'm an Aussie who became a fan when the West Indies were thumping seven shades of the proverbial out of us in the early '80s.

eg Australia would get three WI batsmen out cheaply. Feverish thoughts of a rare victory would fill my head. And then Viv Richards would swagger in, chewing his gum and magnificently and memorably destroy my hopes. If it wasn't Viv it was a Gower or Hadlee.

Later on it was Ambrose, or even Flintoff.

Great memories.

In a strange way I envy the fans of other countries who got to see Adam Gilchrist do the same thing to them batting at seven.

Oops. I forgot Botham. Damn, there goes my whole argument. Aaargh, that infernal man!

I think you enjoy the game more when you can appreciate the class and skill of an opponent while he's destroying your team. Although, as an Aussie, that hasn't happened as much to me as to other fans around the world in recent times!

It also helps if the player is not a complete imbecile. For that reason it's hard to admire Harbhajan Singh or Botham (I can understand people putting Hayden in that category) and easy to enjoy the performances of Akram, Tendulkar, Lara and Muralitharan.

Disappointingly there are two current bowlers whom I love to watch, but I might never see them in international cricket again: Shane Bond (wake up to yourself, BCCI) and Mohammad Asif (oh dear). Bond always saved his best for games against us.

I should also point out Ponting's runs scored on very un-flat pitches in Sri Lanka against Murali, England against Flintoff, Harmison etc, and South Africa against their seamers.

Daniel, you're spot on mate. Much easier to like players who respect common decencies. Guys like Brett Lee, Hussey and Gilly fall into that category. Likewise Lara, Tendulkar, Sangakkara, Jonty Rhodes, KP, Vettori, Flintoff etc. Lots more good guys around but there are those 'other' players who just make it difficult to be loved, whether they are from home or away. I feel that way sometimes with Harbajhan, Andre Nel, Moin Khan and the younger McGrath (and others).

Cricket is a nationalistic sport. Everyone is patriotic by heart. So its very difficult to appriciate opoosite country's great player because he is playing a major role in your sides defeat. Now thanks to various sports channels and youtube etc. There skill can be truly appriciated. As a Indian , i hated greats like Wasim Akram, Glenn Mcgrath etc because they were playing a big role in India's defeat. . Thats why i loved IPL because it broke down nationalistic barrier and gave the world a chance to see some high quality contest that were missing in inter country match. I loved when brett lee was clocking 150+ in seeing heat against gilchrist and other ausi who were trying to maul him. As a delhi daredevil saupporter i was cheering for glenn mcgrath and mohammad asif, something that was unthinkable few years back. There might be odd downside to it, if this trend grows. I once met a english fan, during Fifa world cup who wanted England to lift world cup but did not want Beckam to score.

I think Einstein said it best: "Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind." George Orwell is perhaps a close second: "Nationalism is power hunger tempered by self-deception."

The nation-state is just another tool for whipping up support for a cause that can't be justified by any rational means. I'd contend that a notion that leads people to use the word 'hate' in relation to sportsmen from another country has rather a lot to answer for.

Why can't people just appreciate people and their abilities regardless of where someone drew a line on a map some considerable number of decades or centuries ago? I just imagine a time when I'd prefer to see Australia win the Ashes 5-0 than England win 2-1.

Nationalism is natural. As humans, we're still animals and by nature, territorial. These are basic instincts, much like food, sex, learning and the like. Exceptions aside, one cannot change nature.