A tenner wasted, I would suggest. It’s frustration that typically leads to “temper tantrums” - which are anyway blown out of all proportion by an amoral, advertiser-dependent media which panders to the lowest common denominator - peculiar blend of public puritanism, even prurience, and moral outrage that has replaced more traditional values over the years.

It came as a relief and a joy to read an article in The Telegraph that actually reflects what is the norm in sport – the vigorous, and often foul-mouthed, exchanges that sportsmen typically have in the heat of the moment, and, more importantly, the “players’ code” that enshrines this as a necessary, even an honourable, thing:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml;jsessionid=D45O1DUT3RI4FQFIQMGCFGGAVCBQUIV0?xml=/sport/2006/09/19/srnort19.xml

As I’ve written before, problems do occur in interethnic matches, but much less so than team managements with an eye on the broader political picture would have us believe. Players of most professional sports, from whatever background, will “test” and “target” the opposition, especially the top performers and the perceived weak individuals, in an attempt at mental disintegration. The same goes for sport at semi-professional and at a decent amateur level too.

The challenge as exposed by the Telegraph’s commendably unedited (i.e. true) insight into the sporting mind is how this kind of “para-sporting” activity should be accommodated. Burying one’s head in the sand, and pretending it doesn’t exist, or drawing up ever more, and ever more complex and unenforceable, “Codes of Conduct” or “Spirits of…”, is not the way forward, in my opinion. (The whole concept of a written “Spirit” is bizarre when you think about it.) But it is surprising how rare it is to find sports administrators who are willing to attend to what actually happens in their sport, rather than allowing themselves to be collectively led into buying into a state of affairs that doesn’t exist in reality, as they construct their Missions and Values, and drive forward their careers.

Decent of you to say so; I was concerned it would come over as a bit preachy and irrelevant!

My point about the wager is that I think the Aussies will not be put under sustained pressure, and will run out easy winners. Certainly, Ponting can spit the dummy (but he’s always had a different temperament from Flintoff - and his batting seems to thrive on it), but I don’t think he’ll have sufficient cause to do so on home soil.

I don’t underestimate that ability of the B.A. to get under skins, but I think their success in doing that in this series depends on the team’s success on the field, and it’s this I’m not sanguine about.

We seem to be getting the hang of this business of winding up the Aussies… the Beeb is reporting Vaughan as saying that the selection of the squad was “easy” and that none of them will be “fazed” by playing in Australia, although he didn’t go so far as to mention Monty by name

All Englishmen are stupid…

Japaddy.Sorry-or I’ll be tasting the whip not given lightly.

Yes, the Barmy Army were so effective during all those interminable years of lose, lose, lose to the Aussies. Now that England have a few decent players that have stones to match their talents, I’m a little reluctant to give the B.A. too much credit.
They have, however, undoubtedly changed a day at the cricket from something relaxing and enjoyable to a definition of hell - especially for the poor unfortunates that are in the immediate vicinity. So that’s an achievement, I suppose….

Chappell is a very good and instictive judge,however amongst the rank and file nobody in Australia gives England much of a chance; which is a little suprising.