Steve Smith.

I am not a big cricket fan but constant booing is not cricket and its pathetic do old school fans really want cricket crowds to turn into something like football crowds, one bloke interviewed said its awful and it should stop Vaughn (*sp) said he has served a 1 year ban boo him on his way out and back in but not during the game, what do cricket fans here think?

Totally agree. To be honest its pretty boring now. Lets just get on with ashes and create great positive atmospheres at the grounds. Support you team and players and let them deal with the opposition.
Steve Smith and co made a big mistake but they have served their ban and definately deserve a second chance.
As an aside i didn't hear anyone booing Mohammad Amir who was banned for spot fixing which in my opinion was far worse..

I think crowd have lost the respect of the game all together. When the Aussies walked on for their national anthem they got boo’d which is disgusting. You’re always going to get some banter from the crowd that’s one of the great things about the ashes but what I’ve seen so far is really poor

Yes the booing should stop, the problem is that a lot of the 'fans' at test matches only go to tests and not county matches, it's the same with T20 games, OK it brings folk into cricket, and makes good money for the clubs. But most people they do not attend county matches, and that's the pity, try a day at your local county ground - mostly quiet people interested in the game, not there for the 'spectacle' and the chance of an all day drink fest.
I'm a member of Lancashire CCC BTW

They should have a chap with a loud speaker to give them a jolly good telling off.

I think the booing is wrong. He was rightly punished and has served his time. He’s a brilliant player deserving of the respectful treatment which is one of the things many of us love about cricket.

How many of these Johnny come lately fans boo Mike Atherton when he is doing his TV duties, when England captain in the 90s he was banned for the same offence.

Chippy_Tea said:

something like football crowd

Click to expand...

Am I to understand that a higher etiquette-type atmosphere should prevail, as in golf, in your opinion?
Just curious. I don't know any of the rules of the game.

davidfromUS said:

Am I to understand that a higher etiquette-type atmosphere should prevail, as in golf, in your opinion?
Just curious. I don't know any of the rules of the game.

Click to expand...

This is a good characterisation of the ‘traditional’ cricket crowd. The administrators have been trying to attract a younger crowd into cricket for a while, including inventing shorter, more exciting forms of the game (imagine a baseball game consisting of 3 innings) plus fireworks etc. I think the louder crowds plus booing etc is one of the results of that. Plus England v Australia is always the most raucous of cricket crowds in this country

davidfromUS said:

Am I to understand that a higher etiquette-type atmosphere should prevail, as in golf, in your opinion?
Just curious. I don't know any of the rules of the game.

Click to expand...

Ajhutches post sums it up perfectly, my view is the same as Vaughn's (sp) do it when the player takes to the field and when he leaves the rest just spoils it for those not wanting to take part or who have no interest in what has gone on they just want to enjoy the game.

Like fishing...they have "etiquette" in fly fishing...well they used to...had some right arsey twerp insist I let him fish right next to me as I was catching a few AND give him a fly...OFF was the second word...

Boo him out boo him back in again, applaud his 140 whatever it was. I think the crying masks are genius and as long as it remains 'banter' is more than welcome as far as I'm concerned. It obviously doesn't work in helping to get him out, though Warner seems to get rattled by it.

Well, it seemed to me that far more home supporters were applauding him off today after his second 140 than booing. Probably some doing both - pantomime boos.

110ben said:

i didn't hear anyone booing Mohammad Amir who was banned for spot fixing which in my opinion was far worse..

Click to expand...

What - far worse??? I don't think that this is a sensible argument. As I recall, Amir was, correctly, banned for bowling a small number of no-balls at specified times. Very few matches, let alone 2-innings Tests, are decided by a couple of runs here or there. What the Aussies did was to sandpaper one half of the ball, with a view to making it swing, therefore become more difficult to play. The motive was to give one bowling side - theirs - a huge and game-changing advantage in terms of restricting scoring and taking wickets.

Ajhutch said:

How many of these Johnny come lately fans boo Mike Atherton when he is doing his TV duties, when England captain in the 90s he was banned for the same offence.

Click to expand...

Are you sure about this? I do recall the Atherton "dirt in pocket" incident, but as far as I can remember it was not deemed to be so serious as to call for a ban. I don't recall it clearly, but I think he was fined rather than banned.

Hoppyland said:

Are you sure about this? I do recall the Atherton "dirt in pocket" incident, but as far as I can remember it was not deemed to be so serious as to call for a ban. I don't recall it clearly, but I think he was fined rather than banned.

Click to expand...

You may be right, but it was ball tampering.

Ajhutch said:

You may be right, but it was ball tampering.

Click to expand...

Yes, it definitely was, and it was very wrong in my opinion. But there are degrees of this.
What exactly is "ball tampering"? Well, I'd suppose that it is the fielding side altering the condition of the ball to give an unfair advantage to the bowlers.
But....... when does an advantage become an "unfair advantage"?? I've never heard anyone suggest that bowlers or fielders should not "polish" or "shine" the ball on one side, which encourages it to swing in the air. This is accepted practice, although beyond any doubt it changes the condition of the ball. But what if you are wearing sun-screen - an oily substance likely to increase the polishing effect, and some of this inadvertently gets on one side of the ball? Or maybe a wee bit more gets onto the ball, not quite so inadvertently. Or, dare I suggest, chewing jelly babies (!), and using this to apply a sugary coating to one side of the ball. At what precise point does it become unfair and unacceptable?
The opposite of polishing one side of the ball is, obviously, roughing up the other side. There are different ways of doing this. On a dry wicket, one is for the fielders to deliberately throw the ball back to the bowler or wicket keeper "on the bounce", in an attempt to scuff one side, whilst the fielders then assiduously polish the other. Currently, umpires are instructed to watch out for this. But exactly when does this become "excessive" or "unacceptable"?
Grey areas indeed. What is not a grey area is Atherton's "dirt" in the pocket. But, very wrong as it was, this surely is an order of magnitude less than using actual sandpaper!

I think it would be different if it wasn't the Aussies. I think he will be reminded of it by the players in the middle so the crowd can also do it but think they should do it in a better humoured manner.

Ball tampering isn't really that bad when you consider that all balls (smirk) are tampered with to some extent.

I dislike the Aussies for doing it in such a stupid and obvious way. (where do you even find yellow sand paper...)

Is this yellow enough or a more traditional yellow? That is available also plus you could make your own.
Tampering with the game ball is something I can relate to the paid players doing. The same is done/was done here as there. Sandpaper to scuff smooth surface or the strings, petroleum jelly hidden in numerous places to make the ball dance; plain, old spit in place of petroleum jelly; an actual nail file or emery board; various kinds of blades. I'm sure there are more methods. Not happening nearly as often now or just more devious and better at cheating.
I Googled and had no idea how similar a baseball is to a cricket ball. Only a 13g difference. All the talk about altering now makes sense.
Pro baseball uses about 100, new balls a game. Do they replace cricket balls at such a high rate?

davidfromUS said:

Is this yellow enough or a more traditional yellow? That is available also plus you could make your own.
Tampering with the game ball is something I can relate to the paid players doing. The same is done/was done here as there. Sandpaper to scuff smooth surface or the strings, petroleum jelly hidden in numerous places to make the ball dance; plain, old spit in place of petroleum jelly; an actual nail file or emery board; various kinds of blades. I'm sure there are more methods. Not happening nearly as often now or just more devious and better at cheating.
I Googled and had no idea how similar a baseball is to a cricket ball. Only a 13g difference. All the talk about altering now makes sense.
Pro baseball uses about 100, new balls a game. Do they replace cricket balls at such a high rate?

Click to expand...

From seeing the pictures, the sandpaper they used was luminous yellow!

Same tricks are/have been used in cricket and some of it is part and parcel of the game. Most fast bowlers will sport a red stain down their thigh where the ball gets polished and that is completely allowed.

Cricket balls are changed every 80 overs (480 deliveries) in test cricket. This is another factor as the ball naturally degrades over the course of the match which balances out the battle between bat and ball. one day cricket is slightly different as they use 2 balls per innings (1 per end).

David, cricket balls are harder and more durable than baseballs.

They are normally replaced every 80 overs (which is 480 deliveries) or if it goes out of shape or is damaged.

As for the booing and football type crowds, personally I have no problem with it. I think it adds to the excitement and intensity of the occasion.