Cricinfo - Blogs - Rob's Lobs - Of sticks and stones

No meaning whatsoever? I’d contest that with some vehemence. The meaning was abundantly clear: in the interests of mental disintegration, we are prepared to stoop to anything, even pathetic schoolboy pranks. That the “tactic” appeared to galvanise Zaheer Khan, however, should be seen as punishment in itself. If you’re going to stoop that low, the inherent risks must be acknowledged, as they surely are with all forms of sledging. How can you NOT know that such a gambit might inspire rather than disrupt or deflate? But let’s not confuse the pros and cons of all this with ethics. Just because you find something daft, ludicrous or even perverse should not be grounds for moral objection.

International cricketers are unluckier than most sportsmen. There is no scrum mic to catch front-rowers gnawing at each other’s ears or whispering sour nothings; no penalty-box mic to pick up the pleasantries centre-halves hurl at centre-forwards; no saddle-mic to nab jockeys abusing rivals or even horses. Would Muhammad Ali be quite so universally adored had there been a clinch mic to broadcast his taunting of Ernie Terrell or Floyd Patterson? Only tennis is as exposed as cricket.

To pretend that sledging is a recent phenomenon, a product of increasingly filthy amounts of lucre, is a bit like suggesting the Victorians had such upstanding values that they conceived their babies without recourse to intercourse. WG Grace was no less a master of verbal abuse than Steve Waugh. Any Yorkshireman with his eyes on a professional career had to know how to get under an opponent’s skin. Club cricketers of my experience have always sought to gain an edge by throwing insults, most of them sexual and crass. And they play for fun, not a living.

Earlier this summer, Alex Rodriguez, who signed the heftiest contract in any team sport when he joined the New York Yankees a few years back, incited even more hostility than usual when a TV microphone caught him calling out the baseball equivalent of “Mine” while rounding the bases, the aim brazen: to deceive the fielder as he settled under a catch. Emails to ESPN appeared to be evenly divided between those who believed that there was no place in the game for such shameless gamesmanship, and those who shrugged their shoulders. It wasn’t as if such incidents were unusual, ran the latter argument. It was a familiar divide.

Cricket still has behavioural standards that other team sports envy. In individual sports such as golf, that purported bastion of dignity and decency, hypocrisy and cheating are far more evident than the likes of Peter “Jolly Fine Shot” Alliss and Co would ever have you believe. Yet stamping out verbal self-expression in the heat of battle would be doubly unfortunate.

For one thing, it would deprive the majority of spectators (ie those in armchairs and propping up bars) of smelling and tasting a physical battle designed to involve no physical contact. Spectator sport, after all, must provide theatre if it is to have any value. In addition, suppression would, in all probability, diminish a player’s concentration and hence effectiveness. Do we really want to see neutered batsmen and bowlers pursing their lips and making like statues?

If we agree that Test cricket is currently as vibrant as it has ever been – and everyone I speak to feels just that – is that not in part because of the comparative evenness of standards (the six sides in the ICC Test table between Australia and West Indies are separated by wafers rather than gulfs; World Cups are generally open affairs)? This evenness heightens competitiveness, of which sledging is an inevitable symptom. Besides, what was that old saw about sticks and stones?

The game may no longer be the paragon the unblinkered would say it never was, but it’s still nowhere as bad as it once appeared destined to become. Lest we forget, for all Sreesanth’s dainty shoulder-to-shoulder effort against Michael Vaughan at Trent Bridge, cricket in the Burnout Era has produced nothing as low as Colin Croft’s barging of a New Zealand umpire, nothing as reprehensible as Javed Miandad threatening to decapitate Dennis Lillee, much less Trevor Chappell’s grubber to Brian McKechnie. All those incidents took place a quarter of a century or more ago.

None of this is to decry the so-called “Spirit of Cricket”, merely to apply some much-needed proportion. The MCC probably won’t concur, but sledging is as much a part of that “spirit” as walking, embedded as it is in both history and grassroots. Cricketers may be better behaved than most sportsmen but that doesn’t mean they don’t behave badly, have always behaved badly. Where, pray, would cricket folklore be (let alone the cricket book business and after-dinner circuit) without the witticisms handed down through the generations? Provided the abuse is not racist, shouldn’t players be big enough and ugly enough to look after themselves?

If you happen to be one of those who sincerely believe that the players are/should be servants of the “gentleman’s game”, may I respectfully suggest that you are probably a rate-payer in cloud-cuckoo land. If it was a game confined to gentlemen, what does it say about it that so many of its greatest exponents, Lillee, Miandad, Waugh, Fred Trueman, Shane Warne, Ian Chappell and countless others, have been onfield blackguards? Would the game, our culture, our lives, really have been better off without them?

Cricket, especially at the highest level, demands more of its participants than just about any other sport I can think of, and the reason for that is the fact that it takes so damn long to play a match. At a time in their lives when patience and self-discipline can be so elusive, we expect players to endure hour upon fruitless hour going against age and nature, stifling the impatience and selfishness of youth. For the most part, they somehow manage to do so. When they fail, can we not tolerate and forgive them as we tolerate and forgive our children?

A couple of thoughts on the whole jelly bean affair...

This is the biggest non-issue I can remember in cricket. It's nothing more than a really, really weak attempt at winding someone up that's backfired chronically.

It has fewer comic credentials than a Merv Hughes "arsewipe" broadside and also, as far as sledging goes, breaks the most crucial rule: it didn't bloody work. In fact I can't think of anyone at all who would be so simple minded to actually take offence at it. Er, maybe Sreesanth. Next time, England, work out a reasonable strategy and then take it down to a few primary school children and see if you get laughed at or not. It should be a good barometer.

In fact, perhaps we should go as far as introducing it as a basic module along with First Aid and Child Protection on coaching courses? I present my personal favourite example from the season:

For some reason one of the opposition batsmen shouted to the pavilion for the tennis score during the innings (Wimbledon final day). I told him to get himself out if he was that bothered.

Next ball he played and missed, I shouted out "love 15".
Two balls later, another play & miss - "15/30".
Then another, "15/40; two break points!"
Next ball he aimed a great big swish at a straight one, and was cleaned up...

Rob the gist of your article leaves a foul taste in my mouth. Your points in support of declining standards of civility on the sports field are probably a reflection of societys decay.

You say "Spectator sport, after all, must provide theatre". Why stop at sledging why not bring on some slaves and lions at the lunch break. To me the theatre is the competition between the teams applying themselves to the game not boorish attempts to distract. I want to watch skill and talent; that is the attraction. Your apologist essay defending the decline in sportsmanship is sickening.

You say "Where, pray, would cricket folklore be (let alone the cricket book business and after-dinner circuit) without the witticisms handed down through the generations?". Is this your best justification for being nasty to someone on the field. Perhaps they would have to fall back on anecdotes about great sportmanship.

You say "Provided the abuse is not racist, shouldn’t players be big enough and ugly enough to look after themselves?". Why is a racist comment any worse than any other abuse?

Your reference to gentlemen misses the point. You don't have to be a gentleman to know right from wrong. And yes everyone of those greats you named sullied their reputations by their negative behaviour and I'm sure most would have behaved differently on reflection.

You say "When they fail, can we not tolerate and forgive them as we tolerate and forgive our children?". Two points, when children do something wrong they should be challenged, given guidance and punished if appropriate. That way they know their behaviour is wrong. In your case given your child's comments I would suggest his moral compass is fine, yours needs recalibrating.

If you want entertainment get yourself a hollywood DVD, cricket needs morals because without it the game is not cricket.

Cheers

Ahem!!!!!
I've seen quite an amount of irate people commenting on this particular issue, in this blog that is.
My point on this issue as a whole, would be best explained by one of my experiences.
Look, cricket for me is almost my life, just after
MUSIC (I am so glad that in India we now have a cricket channel entirely dedicated to this life-beat of our nation). I have been a good player of cricket when I have had a clear mind. I am the sort of person who likes to play aggressively. But I have always faltered when the opposition players were able to get under my skin. It's not that they were sledging by saying things that my mother was sleeping with some other guy or my wife's a whore or something like that, but that they would intimidate me by saying that I didn't know to play or I would not stand that pace or whatever and the end result was that I would most of the times, falter. See, here I was capable with my batting,but my mental strength needed to be higher, the mind needed to be clear,something that Greg Chappell always prophesied (the only problem I had with that great man was that he experimented a lot and spoiled that jewel called Irfan Pathan).
So here, the sledging was not racist, it was not abusive of friends or family, but it was testing the mental strength-PART, of my game, which I was found wanting. So I think that they had every right to do so. Now that's from my point of view.
Now from a neutral point, those guys should have played with their skill or tenacity, not with their mouths. :).

The English are supposed to be very racist (by people from other parts of the world), maybe it's right also, but it should also be noted that these people who say so, do not show respect to people from the lower castes, in their own countries too. So, I must say, that "Charity begins at Home", and "First put your home straight, before you point your finger at your neighbour".

England sledging, or for eg; Matt Prior sledging, I do not have any qualms about the same, but it should be decent, it should not be out of the interests of the game, now don't ask me what are the limits, I guess everyone's been taught the basic manners at home by your mothers, those will be applied here too, in this game of "Gentlemen".

Verdict: Sledging should be there, Mics shall be turned off, as Umpires are there on the field (they are not dummies) and if they hear or see anything untoward, they should deal with it. Aussies, English or for that matter anyone can sledge as well as they might, but in the end it is their skill and team spirit that will win the game. But I must say JELLY BEANS AIN'T A PART OF SLEDGING.....

LONG LIVE CRICKET

Rob - Why do we swing to extremes in trying to prove the point, like in this statement: "Do we really want to see neutered batsmen and bowlers pursing their lips and making like statues?". When there is talk of a line to be drawn, the talk is about having two sides to a line, a certain amount of banter is certainly acceptable, the problem arises when the banter turns into filthy abuse, whether racist or not - and such abuse is not acceptable period. So what if abuse is common from Victorian times or if the Romans indulged in orgies... do we believe they did the right thing then? What is wrong, is wrong, and does not become a right by virtue of it being followed over a long period of time.

Cricket is a game of bat and ball, and in the heat of the moment, with cameras on and 20,000 spectators screaming from the aisles, it is possible that something might slip out, but the thing that appalls me is the attempt to institutionalize the whole thing, to make it part of the game. Why are good balls and brilliant hundreds being replaced by lousy epitaphs? Are these players trying to win at cricket or at slanging? Or do they believe that they are not good enough to win with the bat and ball, so they can utilize their verbal skills to set off that disadvantage? If the answer to the previous two questions is yes, I would seriously consider switching my loyalties to Reality TV or to the WWE. And there we get to another point.

Crowds don’t watch cricket to see A abusing B, they watch the cricket for a contest between teams capable of, primarily, playing cricket. They do not watch the game to watch someone who is picked from the social gutter because he is good at ‘abusive language’, they watch the game because they like see Sachin’s cover drive, or Shoaib’s yorker. In short, crowds watch the game for cricket, not for slanging matches, which can be good side events, but maybe, as someone suggested, we could have a session between innings (an A-rated one) where the teams could compete on their abusing skills, but I suspect, it would lose its charm pretty quickly.

Finally, if any arguments fail to convince the proponents of the "verbal" matches... lets turn the stump mike volumes up, as someone recommended. If it is right and acceptable, let everyone hear it, the kids have the right to know all the things that they need to learn when they try to emulate their heroes.

I am no longer as avid a follower of cricket as I was, partly because of the beamers, cheating, match-fixing and sledging that goes on. Let us consider the most important part of Rob's article, however: discussing it with his son.
I was put in the position of having to discuss Alex Rodriguez's baseball actions with my own 11-year-old and let me tell you: it wasn't pretty but it was clear-cut: DON'T DO IT.

We used to learn that it is better to lose honestly than to win by cheating. In this, baseball has a few pointers that cricket could well emulate: a hit on the batter's body ("body-line bowling") leads to a partial run. A disputed call is handled on the spot between the umpires, coaches and players so the wounds of unfairness do not fester. Cheats like Pete Rose are banned for life.

It is time cricket got out of its hypocricy and put in place some quick, immediate, checks and balances for all disputes instead of having to refer to a 1000-page rule book that led to the World Cup final fiasco recently.

Make no mistake: what starts with jellybeans, if left unattended, ends with beamers, name-calling and, inevitably, racism. Penalize the jellybeans and you will stop the beamers, racism and potential split in cricket. Take care of the pennies and the pounds will take care of themselves.

I started reading the article for a evaluation of the current incident with 'common decency' as a standard against which the actions will be evaluated.

But the article infact goes on about "traditions of cricket". The jelly-bean incident is just not 'immature' it is immoral, indecent and cowardly. Why does one have to recourse to such tactics if they have belief in their skill an ability? Or are such tactics being taught as necesasry 'skills'?

What should a comtemporary cricketer tolerate those 'lofty' heights of behaviour set by WG Grace, when he is just going about his business and playing for his country?
If WG Grace was a sledger so what? That doesnt make sledging acceptable, ...it will just make WG Grace unacceptable.

Just because Steve Waugh, McGrath used to sledge does it mean that it is good. Then lets all forget cricket and get on with sledging .. the sharper the tongue the higher the score. And coming to teams being more-or-less equal as sledging being necessary(!!!). Isn't equality supposed to make players to imrpove and take the game forward .. NO jus foul-mouth each other no bother if you cant play cricket.

Or why not introduce beam-the-batsmen concept where fielders can throw jelly-beans,jelly-babies and all the goodies they have tucked in their pockets? RIDICULOUS. For gods sake its a gentlemans game!!!

The problem with sledging is that the English world sees it from their cultural perspective. In the sub continent it is unacceptable to abuse some ones wife, mother or call names of the family. If some one did that and got a few teeth broken, the police would possibly turn a blind eye against the assailant. So guys like Mcgrath are lucky that the guy he abused was Sarwan and not an Yuvraj. It is time these cricketers grew up and stop such Juvenile nonsense.
Sledging which is not filled with personal insult or racist is fine, but players should remember or learn what is acceptable in other cultures.
Alas, in these pages I also see double standards; there was no public censure of James Anderson for barging into Runako Morton a month ago; but Sree is pilloried. Sree deserves the dressing down, he went beyond what is acceptable. But then Sree is also some one who is not a typical Indian player; in fact most fans say atlast there is some one in the team who gives back to the opponents in the same language. A typical Indian player is Zak, who will be enraged enough and answer with the ball. Or a Dravid, who will put his head down and stay put for the next 3 sessions. It is hot headed players like Sree who will try to get back at the game and appear crass, as these guys have no coaching at doing it in the domestic level, certainly not in English.

"Sreesanth must be banned for beamer: Atherton". When Atherton was seen on the field as a teenager, he was famously referred to as, FCE, Future Captain of England. It's a shame to see a good exponent of batting and captaincy, if not a great, making a weak statement against an Indian bowler for bowling a beamer at, arguably, England's best batsman. I would like someone to point out to Mike that the whole England team is lucky to have escaped the crack of the whip from the Match Referee for the infamous 'jelly bean' incident. It was a clear case of tampering with the conditions of the playing surface (Remember Rahul Dravid's 'cough lozenges' saga in during the 2003 Australia tour that was referred to as tampering with the Ball?). I can't understand why no action has been taken against their act although Ian Chappell has indicated in his columns before about the same. I understand that it was a dangerous delivery, but definitely wasn't lethal as Kevin has mentioned in one of his columns. There have been more lethal deliveries bowled in cricket over the past 100 odd years the game has been played for. It is pitiful to see Kevin complain like a school-kid who has just been bullied, a real Cry baby. English Cricket has always tried to find loopholes in the opposition's camp to cover their own deficiencies and short comings. Their inability to play the swinging ball and pick reverse swing made them call Pakistan bowlers, ‘cheats’. England hasn’t produced a bowler of the capability even close to a Wasim Akram or Waqar Younis in the past few decades, even more perhaps. The fact that they conquered Australia in 2005 Ashes using the same reverse swing made it an ‘Art’ all of a sudden and the real creators of the art were termed 'cheats of the game'. Shameful! When they lose to Australia, which is more often than not, they like to term the Aussies as bad mannered cricketers who like to talk, but when the same applies to them, they would like to call it playing hard and tough. Flintoff would run around Wankhede Stadium taking his shirt off and it is left unnoticed, but when Ganguly does the same at Lord's, it becomes a shameful act. Isn't the game of Cricket supposed to have the same 'A gentleman's game' tag, regardless where it is played? All in all, it really takes the focus off such an intensely fought series between India and England. Cricket, after the failure of the 2007 edition of the world cup, has been waiting for a series such as this, but the players acts, organizer’s failure to notice and punish/warn offenders straightaway, and the players and commentators sheepish defense/attack for/against other players is ludicrous and shocking to say the least and must be stopped before the game’s popularity and the reputation as 'A gentleman's game is further jeopardized. Someone ought to put up his hand and put an end to this ongoing nonsense and bring the focus back to the 'Centre of the pitch' where the real action is supposed to take place for which all of us have gathered from around the world. That someone has to be from the Game organizing body. Hope someone’s listening…….

I think sledging is perfectly acceptable, and it's a natural reaction to the intense pressures of test cricket, and heightens its drama. The jellybean episode was quite amusing to read about, and while Zaheer may have been less than amused while it occured, he might look back on it later and chuckle. It was just the reaction of a team completely on the back foot for three days, a team which had been outplayed throughout that game. Banter can sometimes cross the line and become abuse, and I'm okay with that as well; I mean, whenever I play underarm tests with my friends, frustration usually leads to swearing. It's a natural human reaction, and the players surely don't mean every word they say... It's time the media grew up, and allowed the players to express themselves. I'm sure the umpires know what to do if a situation gets out of hand. And if two players have a 'let's see who blinks first' contest, or if someone barges into someone else, it adds to the spectacle of a highly competitive, emotionally charged sport. Test cricket is the richer for it - one dayers are usually dull in comparison. The players surely have enormous respect for each other, even if they sometimes appear to hate each others' guts. Swear away, gentlemen! And let's not be too sensitive to racist undertones, I mean - we should be able to see it as a very immature thing to racially abuse someone, and ignore it. Getting all worked up about it is a waste of time.

Richard, Murray - I'm sorry to say that you misunderstood the whole point that I was trying to make. It’s so easy for you guys to use racism as a defense, aye?
For starters, I never defended Sreesanth for bowling a Beamer. It was wrong and if not accidental, must be punished. If you watched the match, Sir Geoff Boycott was commentating and I guess, knows cricket better than you and I. He immediately saw the release in slow-mo and said it had slipped and no sooner the bowler apologized, the game was ok to go on. The point I am making is that, Mike Atherton comes back after two days of the test having finished, and asks the Indian captain to sack the bowler. He now believes that it was intentional. Why didn't he post his views during the post-match commentary? Kevin Pietersen is a guy I have enormous respect for. But, he uses the beamer as an excuse for his loss in concentration and his dismissal. Well, for the amount of cricket I have played in India and now for the past 6 yrs in Australia, I can very well say that it was the previous delivery that he nicked, that left him, prior to the delivery that swung in and bamboozled him. The fact that he was given 'not out' and without any recovery time, the next one was a 'ripper', caught him off guard. But why is he so sheepish? Brett Lee bowled a beamer at him a few years back. He referred that as a potential killer delivery. Did you or Atherton ask for him to be sacked? Was he sacked? I think he is quicker that Sreesanth, don’t you? I called English Cricketers sheepish and cry babies after much deliberation. But isn't it true? I think English cricket has always gone through a lot of frustration and that reflects in your attitude and results. Cricket was England's gift to the world. Now Aussies are the best exponents of the game, Sub continental teams control the financial implications as well as excitement through their unpredictability, West Indians were always known for their flair and even though, they are at an unfortunate crossroad, people around the world want them to bounce back. Kiwis are forever loved for their attitude; South Africans for their team work, Even Kenyans, Zimbabwe, Ireland and Bermuda have had their share of well wishers around the world. Not many people are fond of English Cricket are they? Has England won any major competition? I think last year's VB series in Australia was their best in years. Was it a fluke? I think so. Collingwood can never repeat what he did to Australia during that series. It’s all over. Sad, but true. It’s the attitude of the Poms, players, administrators that you always seek a throne and a crown, but can never be graceful in defeat. Its you who use racism as a tool for defense. It’s an easy game isn't it mate? I would wish you good luck but you wouldn’t know what to do with it if you got it.

Sorry Vishy, you seem to be reading a different set of comments!

Do you remember what happened sometime after Lee’s bouncer? Pietersen was trapped plumb by a ball ranging between Yorker/full toss length. Pietersen acted as though he had just been assaulted, and not just received a legitimate delivery. Why? Because at the time of delivery Pietersen didn’t know if it was going to be another beamer… which is why I think a fast-bowled, in-line beamer should immediately lead to the removal of the bowler - yes, even if accidental, because this means that on at least one occasion the bowler demonstrated he does not have suitable control. And nothing to do with race.

I pointed out your silly subcontinent reverse racism (which is just passive racism as it turns out) and you reply “It’s so easy for you guys to use racism as a defense, aye?”. Come on, learn to judge a situation on its merit and leave race out – as I mentioned previously, the Indians I played cricket with never brought race into anything, so why are you so obsessed? And sorry, they ALL loved English cricket, followed it very closely, and wished England well anytime they were not playing India! Maybe you should find some new people to hang around, or just open your eyes once in a while.

As for Sreesanth’s beamer… when I read about it at the time (I didn’t see it live) I assumed it was accidental. After watching it, looking at his facial expressions and body language, and reading about it I was unsure. Though notice I never said the beamer was deliberate!. Anyway, since you think the white world is raging against you, I raise your ‘Boycott’ opinion with a ‘Christopher Martin-Jenkins’, ‘Mike Selvey’, and a ‘Michael Holding’.

Yogesh Zaveri - there certainly seemed to be a gulf between Atherton’s ability/reputation and average, an average that is curiously immune to manipulation through selective time periods.

However, the comment “With a batting average of under 38, the only Test team he could have made other than England was Zimbabwe” is both harsh and wildly incorrect. Just take a quick glance at the Indian openers that played against England teams containing Atherton - apart from Sidhu, they ALL have lower averages. That list includes Prabhakar (32.65), Shastri (35.79), Rathour (13.10), Jadeja (26.18), and Mongia (24.03). I would venture a guess that the same is true for Pakistan, Sri Lanka, New Zealand, and the West Indies (he’d have partnered both Haynes and Gayle). His average would have pushed Marsh and Elliott out of the Australian team, as would his ability over Slater (i.e. Slater’s tendency to expose the #3 batsman). .

So, apart from India, Pakistan, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Australia, and the West Indies, Atherton would have indeed struggled to play Test cricket for anther country. I’m sure he can handle being outperformed by only the South African openers in his time…

Richard, Murray - I must apologise for blowing out. Talk of racism is incorrect and inappropriate in any sport and I did injustice to my mates in Australia who have been so welcoming and love the sport. However, I guess the talk of the 'beamer' incident is being blown out of proportion. My reasons for calling Kevin pieterson's attitude as that of a 11 yr old kid is purely based on the apreciation that I have for batsmen of the era of uncovered pitches, sub-standard batting equipment and limited restrictions to Bowlers. I believe that with the bouncer rules, flat pitches around the world, good quality bats, Helmets etc have actually taken the heart out of the modern day batsman. Not just Kevin, there are others. Even, Sachin got hit on the helmet in the first innings of this test. I dont remember Sunil Gavaskar being hit on the hear so often, viv Richards, Sobers, Bradman, the list goes on. The great batsmen of the past played on uncovered tracks against bowlers who would more often than not make them smell the leather with one that swishes past their nose. That is why it is disgraceful of a commentrator and a Player himself to brag on about a mere beamer. I would say move on mate, play the next ball. Shoib Akhtar bowled one at Dhoni during a test in Pakistan last year after being hit for three consecutive boundaries. There were no apologies. Shoaib is definitely quicker than Sreesanth. The next ball he bangs one in short and Dhoni crashes it to the Mid-wicket fence. Its all about the attitude. I used the above example because the intensity was higher than any other game that I saw before and because its about two of Modern days flamboyant cricketers. This case is the same. Pietersen is a flamboyant batsman and so is sreesanth. Its time we move on from this and let Cricket go on. Just imagine, how exciting it would be if in the third test, Sreesanth is bowling at Pietersen and gets smacked for a couple of boundaries...U bet there's not going to be another beamer. It would be an interesting delivery and that's the excitement that I want and look forward to in a game of cricket. That's why I watch and play the game...and I guess that's why the other Billions of followers of the game.

Sledging has only purpose - to distract a player from concentrating fully on their task at hand, whether it be batting, bowling, fielding or captaining. In this respect, jelly beans on the pitch are sledging.

Some players react positively to distraction techniques (bat better or bowl faster), and some go negatively (the tennis scores, bowling beamers, etc).

Someone said to respect cultural differences. These are the very basis of distraction! Find out what annoys them and use it to your advantage.

If it is OK to say to a batsman "gee you're batting like a rusty gate" or "keep your eyes on the ball next swing" then it is OK to say to Murali "oh no, not another chuck!"?

If it is OK for a fielding side to leave jelly-beans on the batting crease, is it also OK for a batting teams (say the non-striker) to put small ball bearings on the bowlers front line to make him slip or be wary of putting his foot down?

Leave the darn stump mikes on and see if Gilly does his advertising speeches again. Sure shut them off in a trice!