Posts
Loading ...?
Just the facts, Ma’am
By Scott 2 years ago, mid-December Leave a comment on this post
There’s an old saying where you only believe half what you read. Sadly, that applies to cricket journalism, too. For example, in the Times, Simon Wilde is writing about Ricky Ponting, and how to thwart him. Wilde thinks Ponting’s temper is his weak spot, and he writes:
And only three months ago, in a meaningless one-day tournament in Malaysia, he lost his rag so completely when umpire Asad Rauf made a call of “wide†that he was fined his entire match fee. Revealingly, the Sydney Daily Telegraph reported the story under the headline “Ponting’s bullying tactics: here we go again.â€
In fact, Ponting didn’t lose his temper at all. I was watching it on television. What actually happened was that Ponting reacted to umpire Asad’s call with a mixture of disbelief and scorn. It was the sort of scorn that doesn’t look good and it was that disrespect that he was fined for. Not ‘losing his temper’.
Why did Wilde make this blunder? I rather doubt it was from malice. I think he just read about the incident in the Australian papers, and took them as gospel. It is remarkable how gullible cricket writers are towards other writers, just as great salesmen can not resist other salesmen.
But who are you going to believe? Me, or your own lying eyes?
Tags: ricky-ponting, simon-wilde, the-times, writing |
5 Responses to “Just the facts, Ma’am”
December 10th, 2006 at 7.48 pm
December 11th, 2006 at 12.11 am
I don’t see an awful lot of difference between losing your temper and showing scorn and disbelief to the umpire.
December 11th, 2006 at 1.29 am
Well, Kathy, there is. My facial expressions can indicate my feelings without my ranting and shouting in a complete loss of temper. Having seen the incident cited, I can assure you that Ponting in no way lost his temper. More to the point, Ponting was right - Rauf had blown it. Ponting was justified in his feelings, and was punished far too severely. With his track record, that makes some sense - but was still wrong.
As far as the Prat Incident goes - that was one of the most unsporting acts I’ve ever witnessed in cricket, and Fletcher should be damned forever for engineering it. It’s interesting to note that the English are once again flirting with the much-vaunted Spirit of Cricket with their constant rotation of players.
December 11th, 2006 at 2.05 am
Disbelief is stock in trade for every bowler - that the ball didn’t find the edge, that the batsman didn’t walk, that the umpire couldn’t see what was a glimpse of the bleedingly obvious. Scorn tends to follow, and is an even less attractive trait. I saw Ponting’s reaction, and he didn’t lose it.
This was just poor journalism - I suspect tnat the original reporter didn’t see it either.
As for the Pratt incident - yes, he did lose it, and I blame him only for doing so in public. Even Michael Brearley at the time considered the tactics a departure from the spirit of the game - not the use of Pratt as a specialist fielder per se, but the rotation policy that saw him in frequent use
December 11th, 2006 at 3.50 am
If you have to believe Rod Marsh, Ponting is more humble than he looks and acts…check this great write-up by Rod Marsh on Guardian http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/sport/2006/12/10/in_the_presence_of_greatness.html
—————————————————-
I have another memory of Ponting just before that tour. The World Cup was about to start in Australia; Ricky had been training at the Adelaide Oval with the other Academy boys and he asked me whether he could stay behind rather than go home with the rest of them. ‘Why?’ I asked.
‘Because the Indians are coming to practise here and I want to watch Tendulkar.’
Sachin Tendulkar was reputed to be the best, so the young Ponting wanted to learn from him. Even now he is always keen to learn more. That’s what’s good about him and all the champions in sport. I was happy to grant him my permission.
—————————————————
Comments
« Christmas limericks with a cricket theme | Main | Video of Murali’s run-out v New Zealand »
