Talk:Sledging (cricket)/archive

This page is an archive of all topics to November 2008.

Offensive?

The humorous and offensive section should probably be merged with the humorous section - most of the latter are just as offensive. Nzbassist 09:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC) Eh? That's the POINT of sledges, they're meant to be offensive.[reply]

Although McGrath did say that what is interesting is the verbals that went before. McGrath asked him "what does Brian Lara's dick taste like?", to which the answer was "Ask your wife!"

(This already seems to be in - which McGrath occasion is being referred to?) Hyperman 42 13:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Waugh

The Steve Waugh sledging to Gibbs is NOT true. Steve Waugh has been asked in various interviews recently and he said he said "looks like you've dropped the match." Steven Fitter 11:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard this as well, modified the article to reflect this. Dannow 07:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same goes for the Cairns story, Cairns himself has denied that it ever happened

Monkey trials

"In Australia and New Zealand, sledging is seen as fair game and part of masculine discourse. Adult males commonly insult each other as part of social relations, particularly in sport; they believe that "What's said on the pitch stays on the pitch". In this cultural context, sledging is not seen as a negative issue; those who complain about it are derided as immature and un-masculine"

In view of the Singh/Symonds controversy, should this be revised?Serpren (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UK stories

The Frank Tyson story is told by Fred Trueman in "You nearly had him that time", but attributed to himself. Is this simply a name slip in the article, or is there a source? Trueman also tells the story of the two Gloucestershire batsmen with runners, but names them as Sam Cook and Tom Goddard. He does have a Bomber Wells story; one day he actually hit a ball but stood there admiring the stroke rather than running. His captain, George Emmett, said, "Next time, call!" And Bomber said, "Heads!" Likewise Denis Compton's erratic running is confirmed by a statement attributed to Len Hutton, "When you're running with Denis, you don't call, you pray." Hyperman 42 13:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urdu and Hindi sledging

Would this really be sledging if the opponents can't understand it? 81.129.0.53 21:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

linguists consider Urdū and Hindi to be the same language. Albatross2147 23:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Views

Removed a non-NPOV line from the 'Cultural Views' section - "and generally avoided in such multiethnic, multireligious communities where racial and religious sensitivities are often boiling just below the surface." User:xpanderin 01:54, April 16 2006 (UTC)

Why is this non-NPOV? The whole cultural views section seems to be based on the format of Culture X is like this henceforth this why they believe Y about sledging. Wouldnt the above removed line be a useful piece of information for a NPOV reader understanding South Asian views on sledging? --210.55.22.162 23:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments on the The South Asian Attitude to sledging.

There is a big difference between the way the Indian/Pakistani/Srilankan team use sledging. This should be broken down into Countries. Ask any southasian they will tell you the difference in temprements between Indians and a Pakistani is very distinct. This is also probably to do with the preferred style of bowling, Indians historically have produced spinners and Pakistan fast bowlers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.10.121 (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sledging is not just cricket

Is the World Cup Final provocation another example of sledging? Alanmoss 16:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Up

The clean up message has been on the article for 5 months. I don't see how to report on sledging and to do so in a clean way. Views? Should the clean up notice be removed? Alanmoss 16:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Albatross2147 23:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. Alanmoss 04:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be replaced. The article is still a mess, and with some effort the subject can be reported on tidily, if not cleanly. The sentences are often ungrammatical and the language over-the-top. It seems the examples were just cut-and-pasted from internet articles and tabloid news articles. I don't mind the humour of some of the language, but it is still excessively colloquial — contrary to wikipedia's guidelines. For a piece in a tabloid, the article is acceptable, but not for wikipedia's proposed standards. Rintrah 09:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree: the Bomber Wells example, for one, is far too long and "chatty" for an encyclopedia article. I also think there are far too many examples given: it's starting to look like it should be called List of sledges that various editors think are funny! Loganberry (Talk) 20:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that a dirty topic does not have to be slovenly written and thoroughly disorganised (cf. Sex positions, Erotic art in Pompeii and Herculaneum & Latin profanity). Rintrah 12:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion

Leave the most notable instances of sledging, and move the rest to a different page. And clean up the style of the language! 14:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

That is probably one right thing to do.. But there is no place to move to, so just remove. And it is not the junk alone, the page just doesnt look like an encyclopedia article. The entertainment aspect was given a bit too importance one'd think :) .. and yeah became of junkyard of quotes

--Su30 11:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I think Sledging is a notable topic, but this article is an eyesore. Rintrah 14:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the majority of the quotes as they were in violation of living people policy, being unsourced, and mostly negative. However, one incident, removed here is actually well documented, and is not negative in nature. How do people feel about putting it back? Ansell 22:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Examples of Sledging in Cricket - inappropriate section?

An anon editor put this lot in. I removed the list per Ansell above. Other anon editors (at least one of them from exactly the same IP as inserted the list in the first place) have now replaced and expanded the list. As I write there are 15 examples listed, which seems vastly excessive - especially as not one of them is sourced. I'm not keen to get into an edit war here, so haven't removed the list again, but I feel quite strongly that (in its current form at least) it is inappropriate. Loganberry (Talk) 23:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be only anon-editors who are putting the list back in, and are not discussing their changes. I would prefer that they discussed their changes, even though I am still adamant the statements are in violation of the living people policy. Ansell 00:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Any objection to linking to some Youtube videos of sledging? No foul language in either of them.

I think th examples are fantastic!!! Put them back! Tmothyh 08:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as they are unsourced, they violate WP:BLP as the players concerned will get a poor reputation for being vulgar, etc - some of the examples are obscene and others bring into question the humanity of those alleged to have made the comments. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, stuff like Flintoff's "Mind the windows Tino" and McGrath's tirade have been caught on camera. Having a couple of the more humorous examples (Merv Hughes' "Tickets please" to Salim Malik as well as Flintoff's jibe) would certainly add to the quality, but overloading it with pointless quotations is equally bad. Start a wikiquote page, perhaps? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.44.74.74 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Dearie me, I logged onto this page recently and what was a funny and very slightly risque page has turned into the driest, least informative bit of dross imaginable. I take the point about citing indivuals, but this stuff is all in the paper press one place or another. The new version reads like a victory for high-minded pomposity, shame on you.

Neutrality?

I guess lots of people here don't like neutrality. They seem to like misrepresenting stuff to the users. It seems they think there's only one side to a coin. I have been editing the "Sleging (Cricket)" article and have been adding credible sources like the Guardian UK, BBC, etc as sources so what I say.

But it seems some so called "English" cricketers and cricket pundits like to slant the articles in their favour, obviously overlooking Rule no. 1 of Wiki - "Neutrality".

I request you people to please indulge in some good reasoning instead of senselessly reverting edits to suppress the reality.

Thanks. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ It seams biased to me this article - on first reading it seams that the south asians section is the largest yet im sure i could find over 100 austrailan or Englsh examples of sleging and maybe just a handful of south asian ones.

the quote about ganguly ive removed as its STILL got no source !!

13:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)tazzcricket

Sledging v barracking

I've deliberately avoided mentioning the edit warring until now, but I think the underlying issue probably does deserve a note here. This article is specifically about sledging, which refers to words being exchanged between people on the pitch. Comments from the crowd are therefore not sledging. In Australian terms they're "barracking"; I don't think there is a specific English term, though I'll happily stand corrected if there is. Whatever, abuse from the crowd directed at players is not sledging. Loganberry (Talk) 15:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok mate i see your point but i think that the Crowed involvement in sledging needs to be covered.

also the bit about ganguly being the bad boy of international cricket (like a lot of the article) is not cited and probobly beeds removing as i have done a search for this quote and i cant find it.

the article needs a rewrite but i will stay away from doing it as im new hear and will discuss any changes here befor making them.

many thanks

Tazzcricket 11:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)tazz[reply]

Oh, I'm not saying that the crowd abuse isn't notable - it clearly is, since it has several articles about it on Cricinfo and other major sources. It just shouldn't be detailed in this article, that's all. Loganberry (Talk) 15:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]