That might be your opinion but not everyone shares it. I played cricket for many years in school in India in the 60s - (was a good offspinner actually, but had to give up when I joined medical college) - and the coaches made it very clear that no teasing or taunting of opponents was allowed on the field. Anyone caught doing so were warned first and expelled the second time around. It happened to the assistant headmaster's son in my school and he was never allowed back into the team - admittedly he was an extreme case.

Sledging in any shape of form is a cheap, unsporting and disgusting practice and certainly not a 'part & parcel' of the game of cricket. As to what is or is not "offensive" depends on one's background. What is perfectly acceptable to you might cause serious offense to your opponent and so you have no right to take anything for granted and impose your will just because you think it is 'all in the game'.

Personally I would consider Monty's persistent over appealing to be far more offensive than any of the childish verbals (the key word being childish) that have been taking place between the players this particular series. Looking to intimidate the umpire with a relentless stream of nonsensical appeals that the bowler knows are not out and then showing dissent when a more marginal decision doesn't go his way are far bigger issues IMHO than the whole sledging/mental disintergration sideshow. A lack of respect to the umpire is something that merits far more coverage than the lack of respect between certain players in the two sides and the fact it gets completely overlooked because "oh well it's just Monty being over enthusiastic" grates with me.

I would be prepared to give Panesar the benefit of doubt at the moment. He comes across as an OK guy, is young, enthusiastic and perhaps justifiably basking in a bit of new found fame. His body language suggests that it is indeed over-enthusiasm and not meant to be offensive...I think his opponents see it as the same way. The demeanour of a player as a lot to do with whether he causes offence or not. Someone like Matt Prior on the other hand would be grating and offensive with his "subtle" (as a 5-ton truck) sledging most of the time.

I don't often find myself agreeing with Geoffrey Boycott, but in this case I do. There is a world of difference between being gratuitously offensive and having some light banter. F S Trueman's visits to the opponents' dressing rooms before play to tell them how lucky he was feeling and how worried they looked - and how much he understood why - at least had something to do with the game. Likewise his advice to incoming batsmen that they "don't shut that gate, lad, tha'll only 'ave t' open it again presently" raised a laugh with audiences and batsmen alike.

I'd leave the microphones on: it might encourage some genuine wit. If not, it will clean the game up as genuine cricket lovers desert the game in droves. There's nothing funny or clever about cussing and swearing at a batsman as happened at Trent Bridge, and it's not the game I want to watch - but I do want to know if it's happening, because it's my sixty quid a day these foul-mouthed blighters are taking, and there will come a point where I'd rather keep it in my pocket.

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan

I think the mic should be turned up all the time, not just during deliveries. If sledging is "part and parcel" then we should all have opportunity to listen and learn. If we find we don't like it, we can all stop watching, both live and on TV, cite over zealous sledging as a reason and be done with it. If it gets too far I suggest that's what we all do. Cricket is NOTHING without paying spectators. Take the spectators away for this reason and you'll quickly find them stopping. Sledging, up to a point, is fine.......the "mind the Windows, Tino" remark was a classic that was spontaneous, funny and got the job done without resorting to any form of aggressive verbals. Cricketers themselves keep telling us how cricket is meant to be about entertainment. Listening to twats like Prior is not entertainment. If we all turn off, he'll soon shut his dim-witted gob.

This is just YOUR opinion. I see it exactly opposite...so who is right & who is wrong???

__________________
I'm not young enough to know everything.

OK, you're entitled to your opinion. Let us leave it at that.

I wonder how much of this is Prior and how much is the entire England setup

We hear much these days of 'presence at the crease'... but this is something Thorpe, Chanderpaul and Jayawardene never had, all standing out as batsmen who could reach 50 without anyone even noticing that they had been accumulating.

One wonders if this team would rather have a batsman like Prior: in nothing like the same class with the bat... but capable of making his 'presence' felt in the middle.

In the Read / Jones controvery... Read's quiet, no-nonsense batting really seemed to get up Fletcher's nose... and Jones' beligerent 'presence' seemed to get him moved to 'senior player' status quite irrespective of cricketing ability.

To take another exampe, Bell could easily have gone through a successful career seeking advice from like-minded chaps who just let their bats do the talking... but he (as I recall) succumbed to pressure to increase his 'presence' on the field... and ended up talking to Alec Stewart instead.

The sledging (and the jelly beans) strike me as a symptom of an underlying yobbish malaise rather than as an isolated issue: what's worrying is not that it's happened.. but that it doesn't even come as a surprise.

Matt Prior is a dimwitted yob who would not know the "spirit of the game" if it was haunting him. The chances are that someone probably schooled him into making that stetment to the media. It must have been some effort.

Now Atherton is saying that Sreesanth must be banned for the beamer:

Cricinfo - Sreesanth must be banned for beamer: Atherton

__________________
My computer can beat me at chess.....but its no match for me at kick boxing.