Cricinfo - Blogs - Different Strokes - What is the Spirit of Cricket?

The only way for a noble but essentially irrelevant concept like this to meaningfully find its way back into cricket is for the ICC to take a firm position on what it stands for. Otherwise, it will simply become a toy gun conveniently toted by captains when it suits them. The moral high ground will merely become another cynical platform that floats on very thin ice.

For instance, what is the position on issues like walking or claiming dubious catches? Do we just leave all decisions to the umpire and accept them gracefully? Is it that “grace” that defines the spirit of cricket? Or does it go beyond a mere passive acceptance of a decision to actually walking when you know you’ve nicked it or not appealing for a catch that is clearly not out?

When it comes to the matter of sledging, is there an invisible line in the sand that all cricketers respect? Is race, religion or ethnicity placed on a higher moral plane than someone’s marriage or their sister’s alleged promiscuity or any other special category of insult designed to put them off their game? Who decides and who arbitrates? Are there special allowances to be made for cultural sensitivities and personal circumstances? Clearly, it is almost impossible to come up with a sensible line in the sand that all cricketers agree on. What’s deeply hurtful to one cricketer will be a laughing matter for another. What’s more, what might be a joke today might be a mortal wound tomorrow, even to the very same individual. So where does the spirit of cricket sit in relation to sledging or mental disintegration or any other fancy term that is used to legitimise verbal intimidation? Why is it just so-called ‘time-wasting’ that has got Ponting so worked up?

Who is judge and jury? Clearly the ICC has yet to come up with a system that is consistent and reliable. Gautam Gambhir gets suspended for making physical contact with Shane Watson by the English match referee, Chris Broad. Yet, when his own son, Stuart Broad, makes physical contact with Peter Siddle at a tense moment of a gripping Test match, the match referee sees no problem with that. That sort of inconsistency merely tempts players to test the boundaries. Ask the players and they’ll tell you it was all in the heat of the moment and they’re all big boys who can handle matters between themselves. Why was the Gambhir case not handled like that too then?

I did not recall seeing England complaining too much when the West Indies held out for a draw in Antigua recently. Strauss and his men simply accepted that it was a perfectly legitimate way to save a game. Leave it to the umpires. Similarly, when the roles were reversed, it was now England’s turn to adopt whatever strategies were available, including some fairly obvious stalling tactics, to save this Test. Australia did that in Old Trafford in 2005 when Ponting played a masterful innings. Until the umpires say otherwise, that is deemed to be an acceptable tactic for any team to adopt when faced with that situation. It makes a mockery of Ponting’s indignation - since when was the spirit only restricted to this tiny facet of the game? What about sledging or walking or gamesmanship or slow over rates or any number of other aspects of the modern game that all teams engage in when it suits them?

And how does Strauss keep a straight face when he claims that “our intentions were good”? Why not just come out and say “yes, we did everything possible to drag out the game and save the Test?” Where’s the shame in that?

In the end, it was left to Nathan Hauritz to bring some much-needed honesty to the debate by admitting that he would have done the same thing if the role was reversed. The only thing surprising about this whole episode is the ridiculous pretence that the spirit of cricket actually exists when there’s a game to be won or saved. For the spirit to be reincarnated, it needs to be an “all or nothing” approach to honesty and fair play. In an era where we now have third-umpire referrals, even for catches, it’s foolish to expect that.

Excellent article. I guess its time to chuck the term 'spirit of cricket' out from our dictionary so that no captians can use it to express their indignation.
We could easily point out if we wanted to that Ponting's appeal claiming Collingwood's catch at silly point and the subsequent dissent against the decision (or mere disapproval depending on how you look at it) was against the spirit of cricket. No cricketer has a right to show dissent against an umpire's decision and its against the spirit of the game. Isnt it?
How about an Australian captian (Ponting) asking his bowler (Siddle) to bowl a 'Bodyline' length to a English batsman (Swann) whose caliber is much less than the great Don Bradman. Is that withing the spirit of the game??
It's about time Ricky Ponting and the other captians get honest with themselves and stop throwing verbal punches at the opposition under the 'spirit of cricket' tag.

Spirit of Cricket is a term used by ALL nations to their own benefit when it suits them. The issue I had with what England did is that it was so obvious that it makes the game look bad. If they wanted to waste time, change gloves once, then do some tapping down of the wicket, have a mid over conference with your batting partner. Don't send the 12th man and physio out twice in 2 overs. It looks very poor... Nassar Hussain's response is the best one I have seen on this matter. However, ALL nations use the Spirit of Cricket when it suits them. Many Indian players are warned for over appealing and the carry on when they get wickets is insulting, however, they are so quick to blame the Aussie team at every chance they get, ignoring their own teams issues. The Aussies DO sledge, at at times take it too far. But no team is perfect in this regard so all teams should stop being critical of others about player behavior.

Forget about how vauge the spirit of cricket is. Law 42.10 is pretty clear that time wasting by batsman is against the rules. Law 42 is the same law that tells us that a high full toss is a no ball, so why pick and choose which parts of it to enforce?

I don't care who is wasting time, it is against the rules (not just the spirit) and there are detailed instructions for the umpires to follow in these circumstances.

I don't understand why the umpires didn't uphold the rules here. Nor do I understand why North wasn't called for a no ball (instead of just having it pointed out to him by the umpire!) when his back foot cut the return crease.

We've go rules. Enforce them or get rid of them.

Excellent article. There are large areas of the game "the spirit" is decidedly absent, and claiming another team is operating outside it can be a bit rich. Trying your luck with the appeals, & standing your ground when you've nicked it are completely acceptable in current format. But it is televised internationally, with benefit of slow motion replays - your character & your team's reputation becomes smeared if you arent careful with how far you go on the field. People remember when it clearly goes to far, a few posts so far have listed such recent memories. Unfortunately I think people will remember the consecutive over visits from the glove bearing 12th man and the physio as a ridiculous tainting a thrilling finish. Strauss's comments in defense were pathetic. It will feature in the 2009 ashes dvd for wrong reasons. One visit to deliver message and bring on some nice fresh gloves was plenty.

What is with the Aussie bashing? We seem to all want to take a shot at the big dogs without having a look at our own teams. The Aussies are no worse (probably better) than all other teams out there but we are continually yelling out "but they did it once too" as justification to lower ourselves that little bit further and push the boundaries further.
The game is to be played hard and fair, its really that simple. If someone believes the 'fair' part has been abused he has the right and obligation to do something about it. That's not whining, its protecting the integrity of the game.
For all those who keep bringing up the Aus v India series as a reference, go back and watch it to see if you can actually see something that Australia did wrong! Its easy to take a shot at those on top but its tough to take a good hard look at ourselves, and thats what really needs to be done if the 'Spirit of Cricket' can ever really exist.