Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[proactive]

Sachin was booed last evening at his home ground.

Are these people anti- national or do they lack cricket sense ?
How different are they from the Kolkata crowd that booed the Indian team ?
Can this be construed that it is a Maharashtrian behavior similar to the many comments that emanated earlier ascribing the earlier behaviour at Eden Gardens as Bengali traits ?
Should SRT have shown his middle finger to the crowd ?
Why is this DG not discussing this ??

Too many questions... too few answers...at least as of now

[gouravk]

I can understand the crowd.

[proactive]

I can understand the crowd.

Of course...If GOD can't, who can ?

Unfortunately the GOD was on vacation when the Eden Gardens episode happened 

[Blwe_torch]

this is selective God-double standards!

[gouravk]

No

[Blwe_torch]

No

That must be a master-piece of an under-statement!

[Libran]

No

The GOD was not on vacation or it is not double standards or is it an answer to both....we earthly mortals need more insight into your answers

[Blwe_torch]

Hey!...good to see you back Ravi!

[Libran]

Thanks..but posts may not be as frequent as earlier. Planning for a vacation and generally keeping off cricket related discussions till the real GC emanates. With SRT out of form and VS in his usual indifferent style of working...waiting for the floodgates to open ( I mean GC's mouth)

[tombaan]

did bheesma break his pratigya? or is SG back in the team?

[sudzz]

Sachin was booed last evening at his home ground.

Are these people anti- national or do they lack cricket sense ?
How different are they from the Kolkata crowd that booed the Indian team ?
Can this be construed that it is a Maharashtrian behavior similar to the many comments that emanated earlier ascribing the earlier behaviour at Eden Gardens as Bengali traits ?
Should SRT have shown his middle finger to the crowd ?
Why is this DG not discussing this ??

Too many questions... too few answers...at least as of now

There are a few key differences between mumbai (my city) and kolkata.

1. The fans did not burn the stadium or rip apart seats and generally stop play
2. Only one section booed and deservedly so
3. Mumbai crowd has always booed bad play (remember Shastri Haay Haay started in Mumbai)
4. Unlike the Kolkata crowd Mumbai crowd did not cost India the match
5. MCI unlike CAB has never indulged in subversive anti national activities like making pitches to ensure defeat of the home team.

[proactive]

Sachin was booed last evening at his home ground.

Are these people anti- national or do they lack cricket sense ?
How different are they from the Kolkata crowd that booed the Indian team ?
Can this be construed that it is a Maharashtrian behavior similar to the many comments that emanated earlier ascribing the earlier behaviour at Eden Gardens as Bengali traits ?
Should SRT have shown his middle finger to the crowd ?
Why is this DG not discussing this ??

Too many questions... too few answers...at least as of now

There are a few key differences between mumbai (my city) and kolkata.

1. The fans did not burn the stadium or rip apart seats and generally stop play
My reference was to the India - SA match that raised such a hue and cry about crowd behaviour. Was the game stopped ??[/i]
2. Only one section booed and deservedly so
Same was the case with the Kolkata crowd. In fact, if I recall it was not the spectators in the members stand who did the booing in Kolkata unlike what happened in Mumbai
3. Mumbai crowd has always booed bad play (remember Shastri Haay Haay started in Mumbai)
Kolkata crowd did the same to some insipid performance by the team as a whole
4. Unlike the Kolkata crowd Mumbai crowd did not cost India the match
We will know in the next two days. Bad decision by the captain has almost cost the match . Crowd behaviour will not tilt the match
5. MCI unlike CAB has never indulged in subversive anti national activities like making pitches to ensure defeat of the home team.
Not specific to Mumbai but Vidharbha CA has done it in the past.

[Jai]

Sachin was booed last evening at his home ground.

Are these people anti- national or do they lack cricket sense ?
How different are they from the Kolkata crowd that booed the Indian team ?
Can this be construed that it is a Maharashtrian behavior similar to the many comments that emanated earlier ascribing the earlier behaviour at Eden Gardens as Bengali traits ?
Should SRT have shown his middle finger to the crowd ?
Why is this DG not discussing this ??

Too many questions... too few answers...at least as of now

There are a few key differences between mumbai (my city) and kolkata.

1. The fans did not burn the stadium or rip apart seats and generally stop play
2. Only one section booed and deservedly so
3. Mumbai crowd has always booed bad play (remember Shastri Haay Haay started in Mumbai)
4. Unlike the Kolkata crowd Mumbai crowd did not cost India the match
5. MCI unlike CAB has never indulged in subversive anti national activities like making pitches to ensure defeat of the home team.

2. Excuse me? 'Deservedly so'? So who decides what's deserving and what's not? If it was so deserving, then why is everyone (and yes that includes your city Mumbai's ex-cricketers and MCA office bearers like Vengsarkar and Rajput too) condemning it?

3. So are you saying that when Mumbai crowd boos, they are booing bad play and everywhere else, the booes are completely unjustified? So we were playing excellent cricket in the WC final 96 only for the crowd to intervene?

4. As proactive has explained, let's compare this incident with the one that happened in Eden recently and not 10 years ago. According to today's reports, the Mumbai crowd abused Englad players too including Panser. Oh wait, that should be termed as 'English whining'. But the Poms didn't whine about crowd behavior anywhere else so far.

5. In that case, Mohali has been indulging in anti national activities for a long time now until recently when the pitch there has become less green. And we all know about the mother of all anti National activities as far as pitch is concerned and which region it belonged to. Even in the domestics, all of a sudden certain pitches in certain centers (example Rajkot for Duleep Match) looked like Paki cap only because a certain batsman was taking part in it. It's a different story that he clobbered VRV and Co. to all parts of the ground in that match.

[flute202020]

Alright, I know this is a sensitive subject, here are my 2 cents. Please do read carefully and fully before attacking me or smiting me.

I din't watch that Culcutta match with SA , so not sure what exactly happened. But, going my media reports, the issue is not about booing a player or a team. My main concern was, about reports which seem to suggest that a substantial section of the crowd actually supported SA, to the extent that the SA captain , later on said in a interview that he is hoping to get the same kind of support at other venues. Substantial enough that the Indian captain pointedly thanked the crowd at the next ground for good support.

To me, if it is true, it is a matter of concern and I saw the same tendencies on this DG too, where people actually called and vowed to support every team playing against India etc.

To compare a booing incident in other venue, in this instance Mumbai and go 'oh SEEEEE, mumbai too does it, why pick on Culcutta'  is simply not tenable. There is something called, 'degree' to which something is done and a single booing incident cannot be cited as support or justification for 'not supporting your team and actually cheering the opposite team'.

both incidents are wrong, but if true, culcutta incident rankles me more. It doesn't mean , other crowds in other venues are perfect or that we need to wait for bad crowd behaviour in other venues to go 'SEEEEE, they too' type of indignation.

Bad behaviour in any part of India hurts me , be it Hyd,mumbai or Culcutta. It hurts more to see crowd cheering the opposition team. No, it doesn't mean, all the people in a particualr city of anti-national or that other crowds are better or perfect. It is also no reason to satisfyingly cite other venues bad behaviour.

[ramshorns]

I do not want to draw an analogy.  I think Mumbai crowd was right in booing SRT.  They had expectations and he did not meet them.   So they expressed it.   I am sure they will cheer him if he plays one of those blinders tonight.   That to me is the KEY. 

[cricinfo]

sduzz...funny post 

anyway just wanted to know a few things which i might have missed in the past....

1. The fans did not burn the stadium or rip apart seats and generally stop play(can you tell me which section of Eden gardens had this problem)
2. Only one section booed and deservedly so(Can you confirm if you were there or what source confirms that whole crowd booed )
3. Mumbai crowd has always booed bad play (Please confirm that India played good in Eden gardens...or point me to the relevant article)
4. Unlike the Kolkata crowd Mumbai crowd did not cost India the match(This one is a gem, so not going to comment on this)
5. MCI unlike CAB has never indulged in subversive anti national activities like making pitches to ensure defeat of the home team(Please provide me with relevant source of information on this , i will be delighted to know)

Irrespective of all that ,a section of  calcutta crowd behaviour was shocking and i was upset ..same way I am upset today for my childhood hero being booed back to pavillion.
I do believe  those folks in the crowd were  reacting negatively because they felt their local hero was not treated well and somehow forgot to remember that the game was about India Vs SA and nothing else  !!!

[ramshorns]

did bheesma break his pratigya? or is SG back in the team?

Great one TOM.  HA HA HA.   I almost missed that one on Ravi1010.  Very funny.

[bala]

In the team or not, the balls are SG's 

[Blwe_torch]

Sudzz saab!.....didn't expect this sub-standard stuff from you!
Hope, you are not having a bad day! Mumbai may be your city but, that doesn't mean you can paint one city black just to paint the other one white! Is this some kind of guilt conscience working in the background?
Calcutta has a great cultural heritage which nobody can deny. Like all great international cities, it has its good and bad. All great cities survive inspite of their bad elements, and I am sure Calcutta will. The city is known for its passion for sports all around the world, despite the fact that certain incidences have tarnished its image from time to time. Only Calcutta with its inimitable style and sense of hospitality will be able to make up for it.
I don't want to paint the Mumbai crowd black, although it is sad that they had to boo their most favorite son. There must be very deep pain which can make you do it. Calcutta too felt likewise when its favorite son Saurav Ganguly was mistreated by the authorities. I saw the match in the TV. India simply didn't play well. When, for a brief spell Sehwag and Dhoni prospered, the Eden crowd cheered naturally. But the Indian game withered that day pathetically, and understandably the Eden crowd couldn't tolerate it. They expected a much better show, as promised, for which they have been deprived to see their favorite son represent the country ( which he has done with great distinction).
Similarly, in the 1996 semifinal they couldn't tolerate the blunder that even a street boy of Calcutta won't dare to commit. It is easy knowledge that in a day-night ODI in the Eden Gardens, you win the toss and bat. But what they were exposed to was just the opposite and with disastrous results. The crowd, who had spent their hard earned money, time and comfort in good faith could not take it. Although, the violators that night will surely rue their action. Another incidence is the Shoaib Akhtar / Sachin Tendulkar collision. Actually the Calcutta crowd cannot take nuisence and cockyness easily and they let it known to the perpetrators in kind.

Anti-national activities? ............I am not sure. I don't believe Calcutta( or any representation of Calcutta) can ever be anti-national. It had shed too much blood for the national cause for the anti-national branding to stick on to them. I feel younger guys in their twenties, without any knowledge of history fail to get the full picture in proper perspective.   

[bala]

One thing to keep in mind is that Calcutta had all these nasty RD-GC placards
Obviously it was not what transpired during the game that was the total cause for their angst.
The booing started even before SA had gone in to bat, right at the beginning of the indian innings.

It would be disingenous at best to suggest that the dropping of SG did not have to do with the boos.

In Mumbai, the boos were after Sachin got out. The teflon fielders who dropped so many did not get booed, nor did IP when he bowled tripe.

Having said that, the Mumbai crowd behavior leaves much to be desired. All the college kids who go to the game do not realize that "Hoggy is a homo" or "Flintoff is a bastard" is just not on.
You know that it is puerile nonsense, because you also hear random chants like "east stand XXX" or "bada maza aaya beep banaaya"

[j]

I do not want to draw an analogy.  I think Mumbai crowd was right in booing SRT.  They had expectations and he did not meet them.   So they expressed it.   I am sure they will cheer him if he plays one of those blinders tonight.   That to me is the KEY. 

exactly. I mean why would SRT not get booed if he doesn't score at all. Look at his last 6 innings. He didn't do anything worthwhile in Pak tests as well. If journalists can write SRT is out of touch or finished, why cant Mumbai folks boo SRT? We, the people make them superstars, have them paid millions when they do well, it is but obvious that these players be brought down when they perform so poorly. Especially now when Laxman and ganguly are being sit out, responsibility of those who are selected is more. Clearly SRT is struggling. People are not chu**yas to shell out money, sit in Mumbai heat, have great expectations from local hero and he plays a dumd shot to get out. SRT has not done anything in tests after he has been back to show that he belongs here. The pressure is only going to grow from here onwards and if we loose this match with SRT contributing nothing in second innings as well, he is going to get serious thrashing from crowd and press alike. Of course is he contributes and we win, he will be garlanded again.

[kban1]

flute:

I din't watch that Culcutta match with SA , so not sure what exactly happened. But, going my media reports, the issue is not about booing a player or a team. My main concern was, about reports which seem to suggest that a substantial section of the crowd actually supported SA, to the extent that the SA captain , later on said in a interview that he is hoping to get the same kind of support at other venues. Substantial enough that the Indian captain pointedly thanked the crowd at the next ground for good support.

newpaper reports vary but the following gist is at least common in all.

When RD walked in to bat, he was given an ovation. Only after his dismissal was he booed. Sounds quite similar to SRT’s treatment at Mumbai, does it not ?

And during and after the Indian team’s poor batting and pathetic bowling (we lost by 10 wickets on a greentop which saw our line up decimated) the crowd booed the Indian team or cheered the SA team (sometimes applauding your opponent is an indirect way of expressing displeasure at your performance).

Of course, throw in the fact that some sections of the crowd were riled that hometown hero was not in the team but had just scored 159 while his replacements / others had capitulated. All of that adds up to booing India / cheering opponent.

The S Africans enjoyed it, RD did not. SA brought it up to attempt to drive a wedge among the Indian team (psychological ploy), RD could not hide his disappointment and criticized the crowd.

There is not much to differentiate the crowds here really --both were booing bad performance. Situations were different in Calcutta, and so yes, the "hometown hero excluded unfairly" component was added to the mix.

To me, if it is true, it is a matter of concern and I saw the same tendencies on this DG too, where people actually called and vowed to support every team playing against India etc.

Actually, only a couple of people did so on the DG. Not sure if a sample of 2 is enough to draw inferences about tendencies.

To compare a booing incident in other venue, in this instance Mumbai and go 'oh SEEEEE, mumbai too does it, why pick on Culcutta'  is simply not tenable. There is something called, 'degree' to which something is done and a single booing incident cannot be cited as support or justification for 'not supporting your team and actually cheering the opposite team'.

Degree of bad behavior or booing matters before you make  a judgment ? Let me present you with 2 sides of the argument.

I
Assuming degree of behavior matters (some would say that) -- the relativism standard. In that case, shouldn't the degree of instigation or source of displeasure matter ?

Mumbai -- SRT performed badly
Calcutta --- 1) whole team batted badly
                 2) team lost by 10 (yes 10!!) wickets on a bowling friendly pitch
                 3) the hometown hero was out of the squad because of a high profile spat with a coach (thats what the crowd believed anyways)

So, yes if degree matters, then so should the underlying factors.

II
Some people will say Mistake is a mistake (irrespective of degree of transgression) -- the consistency standard. No arguments, will leave you with a story here.

Winston Churchill is at a dinner party. Conversation turns to what people would do for money. As the comversation progresses, WC asks a lady (who had been making a few statements of her own):

WC: Would you sleep with another man for money ?
Lady: maybe, if the money is right.

WC: And how much would be th right sum ?
Lady: a million pounds.

WC: Would you sleep with me for a million pounds ?
Lady: for a million pounds, yes.

WC: How about 10 pounds ?
Lady: for 10 pounds, do you think I am a prostitute ?

WC: I think we have established that already, we are just haggling about the price.

The point is its tough to draw conclusions or pass judgments using either the relativity or the consistentency angle.  Everything that you argue vis-a-vis why Mumbai is condonable and Calcutta is condemnable can be legitimately countered using a variation of the above two arguments.

The fact is a lot of people jumped on the disgraceful crowd behavior bandwagon during the SA ODI and now there is a legitimate question of why similar behavior should not be criticized as well.

If you criticize Calcutta, criticize Mumbai, if not, do not crticize either.

[gouravk]

kban
Did RD criticize the crowd ?? this is news to me.

[kban1]

gouravk:

Couple of times.

First time was oblique reference --he thanked the crowd at the next venue as a contrast to the Calcutta crowd.

Second time was in an interview -- when he was more direct but sarcastic. he mentioned something to the effect of this --he had told the Indian team that they should hold their heads high and wear the booing as a badge of honor because even the great SMG was booed in Calcutta and then proceeded to quote all the wrong background regarding the SMG incident.

[ramshorns]

gouravk:

Couple of times.

First time was oblique reference --he thanked the crowd at the next venue as a contrast to the Calcutta crowd.

Second time was in an interview -- when he was more direct but sarcastic. he mentioned something to the effect of this --he had told the Indian team that they should hold their heads high and wear the booing as a badge of honor because even the great SMG was booed in Calcutta and then proceeded to quote all the wrong background regarding the SMG incident.

Gouravk:Not to say right or wrong Kban1 is right there.  At the time I read after we lost the match RD sounded a little sarcastic.  I felt the same way.   May be the competitor in him made him make those remarks in the heat of losing.  Today he may not say that.

[cardus]

he had told the Indian team that they should hold their heads high and wear the booing as a badge of honor because even the great SMG was booed in Calcutta and then proceeded to quote all the wrong background regarding the SMG incident.

What? Are you insinuating that the great student of the game does not know elementary history? May you rot in hell, kban!

http://www.cricketvoice.com/cricketforum2/index.php?topic=1689.0

[toney]

Second time was in an interview -- when he was more direct but sarcastic. he mentioned something to the effect of this --he had told the Indian team that they should hold their heads high and wear the booing as a badge of honor because even the great SMG was booed in Calcutta and then proceeded to quote all the wrong background regarding the SMG incident.

He said that in a public interview too. But is there anything wrong with that? He felt thtat the te team was booed, not for their poor showing but for other matters. Obviously, he was hurt.

[kban1]

toney:

I did not say there was anything wrong in that. Gouravk asked a question, I was responding, no value judgment involved there.

[ramshorns]

I do not want to draw an analogy.  I think Mumbai crowd was right in booing SRT.  They had expectations and he did not meet them.   So they expressed it.   I am sure they will cheer him if he plays one of those blinders tonight.   That to me is the KEY. 

exactly. I mean why would SRT not get booed if he doesn't score at all. Look at his last 6 innings. He didn't do anything worthwhile in Pak tests as well. If journalists can write SRT is out of touch or finished, why cant Mumbai folks boo SRT? We, the people make them superstars, have them paid millions when they do well, it is but obvious that these players be brought down when they perform so poorly. Especially now when Laxman and ganguly are being sit out, responsibility of those who are selected is more. Clearly SRT is struggling. People are not chu**yas to shell out money, sit in Mumbai heat, have great expectations from local hero and he plays a dumd shot to get out. SRT has not done anything in tests after he has been back to show that he belongs here. The pressure is only going to grow from here onwards and if we loose this match with SRT contributing nothing in second innings as well, he is going to get serious thrashing from crowd and press alike. Of course is he contributes and we win, he will be garlanded again.

Well said J.  Applause for you.

[toney]

toney:

I did not say there was anything wrong in that. Gouravk asked a question, I was responding, no value judgment involved there.

Actually I knew that. I am seeing ulterior motives in everything Pardon me.
And here's the applause that I owe you from sometime back.

[ramshorns]

toney:

I did not say there was anything wrong in that. Gouravk asked a question, I was responding, no value judgment involved there.

Actually I knew that. I am seeing ulterior motives in everything Pardon me.
And here's the applaud that I owe you from sometime back.

Good Job Toney.  Way to go.

[kban1]

Toney:

no ulterior motives. RD might have had a legit grouse - and he expressed that.

Thanks for the applause

[suraj]

flute:

I din't watch that Culcutta match with SA , so not sure what exactly happened. But, going my media reports, the issue is not about booing a player or a team. My main concern was, about reports which seem to suggest that a substantial section of the crowd actually supported SA, to the extent that the SA captain , later on said in a interview that he is hoping to get the same kind of support at other venues. Substantial enough that the Indian captain pointedly thanked the crowd at the next ground for good support.

newpaper reports vary but the following gist is at least common in all.

When RD walked in to bat, he was given an ovation. Only after his dismissal was he booed. Sounds quite similar to SRT’s treatment at Mumbai, does it not ?

And during and after the Indian team’s poor batting and pathetic bowling (we lost by 10 wickets on a greentop which saw our line up decimated) the crowd booed the Indian team or cheered the SA team (sometimes applauding your opponent is an indirect way of expressing displeasure at your performance).

Of course, throw in the fact that some sections of the crowd were riled that hometown hero was not in the team but had just scored 159 while his replacements / others had capitulated. All of that adds up to booing India / cheering opponent.

The S Africans enjoyed it, RD did not. SA brought it up to attempt to drive a wedge among the Indian team (psychological ploy), RD could not hide his disappointment and criticized the crowd.

There is not much to differentiate the crowds here really --both were booing bad performance. Situations were different in Calcutta, and so yes, the "hometown hero excluded unfairly" component was added to the mix.

To me, if it is true, it is a matter of concern and I saw the same tendencies on this DG too, where people actually called and vowed to support every team playing against India etc.

Actually, only a couple of people did so on the DG. Not sure if a sample of 2 is enough to draw inferences about tendencies.

To compare a booing incident in other venue, in this instance Mumbai and go 'oh SEEEEE, mumbai too does it, why pick on Culcutta'  is simply not tenable. There is something called, 'degree' to which something is done and a single booing incident cannot be cited as support or justification for 'not supporting your team and actually cheering the opposite team'.

Degree of bad behavior or booing matters before you make  a judgment ? Let me present you with 2 sides of the argument.

I
Assuming degree of behavior matters (some would say that) -- the relativism standard. In that case, shouldn't the degree of instigation or source of displeasure matter ?

Mumbai -- SRT performed badly
Calcutta --- 1) whole team batted badly
                 2) team lost by 10 (yes 10!!) wickets on a bowling friendly pitch
                 3) the hometown hero was out of the squad because of a high profile spat with a coach (thats what the crowd believed anyways)

So, yes if degree matters, then so should the underlying factors.

II
Some people will say Mistake is a mistake (irrespective of degree of transgression) -- the consistency standard. No arguments, will leave you with a story here.

Winston Churchill is at a dinner party. Conversation turns to what people would do for money. As the comversation progresses, WC asks a lady (who had been making a few statements of her own):

WC: Would you sleep with another man for money ?
Lady: maybe, if the money is right.

WC: And how much would be th right sum ?
Lady: a million pounds.

WC: Would you sleep with me for a million pounds ?
Lady: for a million pounds, yes.

WC: How about 10 pounds ?
Lady: for 10 pounds, do you think I am a prostitute ?

WC: I think we have established that already, we are just haggling about the price.

The point is its tough to draw conclusions or pass judgments using either the relativity or the consistentency angle.  Everything that you argue vis-a-vis why Mumbai is condonable and Calcutta is condemnable can be legitimately countered using a variation of the above two arguments.

The fact is a lot of people jumped on the disgraceful crowd behavior bandwagon during the SA ODI and now there is a legitimate question of why similar behavior should not be criticized as well.

If you criticize Calcutta, criticize Mumbai, if not, do not crticize either.

Kban-

did you see the same match tht I did at Calcutta??? I saw the whole match live and everytime RD laid a hand on the ball, walked in to bat, got out, any screen shot of his- he was booed- it was disgusting. I am not saying Calcutta is bad and Mumbai is not- bad behaviour anywhere is irreprehensible but this is exactly wht hapeened there.

To your point tht Calcutta booed a bad performance by India and applauded a good one by SA- again not true at all. The booing and cheering had already started when the teams came into the field and was not dictated by the course of game. Huge designer placards against RD were not imported during the match- they were brought in before the match.

I agree to your point that we shd not justify one crowd over the other but the facts you stated are wrong- it was a premeditated move by some of the crowd (not all)  at Calcutta and the course of the match wud have had no bearing on that section because the bone of contention was SG's abscence, not the Indian team performance.

[flute202020]

flute:

I din't watch that Culcutta match with SA , so not sure what exactly happened. But, going my media reports, the issue is not about booing a player or a team. My main concern was, about reports which seem to suggest that a substantial section of the crowd actually supported SA, to the extent that the SA captain , later on said in a interview that he is hoping to get the same kind of support at other venues. Substantial enough that the Indian captain pointedly thanked the crowd at the next ground for good support.

newpaper reports vary but the following gist is at least common in all.

When RD walked in to bat, he was given an ovation. Only after his dismissal was he booed. Sounds quite similar to SRT’s treatment at Mumbai, does it not ?

And during and after the Indian team’s poor batting and pathetic bowling (we lost by 10 wickets on a greentop which saw our line up decimated) the crowd booed the Indian team or cheered the SA team (sometimes applauding your opponent is an indirect way of expressing displeasure at your performance).

Of course, throw in the fact that some sections of the crowd were riled that hometown hero was not in the team but had just scored 159 while his replacements / others had capitulated. All of that adds up to booing India / cheering opponent.

The S Africans enjoyed it, RD did not. SA brought it up to attempt to drive a wedge among the Indian team (psychological ploy), RD could not hide his disappointment and criticized the crowd.

There is not much to differentiate the crowds here really --both were booing bad performance. Situations were different in Calcutta, and so yes, the "hometown hero excluded unfairly" component was added to the mix.

To me, if it is true, it is a matter of concern and I saw the same tendencies on this DG too, where people actually called and vowed to support every team playing against India etc.

Actually, only a couple of people did so on the DG. Not sure if a sample of 2 is enough to draw inferences about tendencies.

To compare a booing incident in other venue, in this instance Mumbai and go 'oh SEEEEE, mumbai too does it, why pick on Culcutta'  is simply not tenable. There is something called, 'degree' to which something is done and a single booing incident cannot be cited as support or justification for 'not supporting your team and actually cheering the opposite team'.

Degree of bad behavior or booing matters before you make  a judgment ? Let me present you with 2 sides of the argument.

I
Assuming degree of behavior matters (some would say that) -- the relativism standard. In that case, shouldn't the degree of instigation or source of displeasure matter ?

Mumbai -- SRT performed badly
Calcutta --- 1) whole team batted badly
                 2) team lost by 10 (yes 10!!) wickets on a bowling friendly pitch
                 3) the hometown hero was out of the squad because of a high profile spat with a coach (thats what the crowd believed anyways)

So, yes if degree matters, then so should the underlying factors.

II
Some people will say Mistake is a mistake (irrespective of degree of transgression) -- the consistency standard. No arguments, will leave you with a story here.

Winston Churchill is at a dinner party. Conversation turns to what people would do for money. As the comversation progresses, WC asks a lady (who had been making a few statements of her own):

WC: Would you sleep with another man for money ?
Lady: maybe, if the money is right.

WC: And how much would be th right sum ?
Lady: a million pounds.

WC: Would you sleep with me for a million pounds ?
Lady: for a million pounds, yes.

WC: How about 10 pounds ?
Lady: for 10 pounds, do you think I am a prostitute ?

WC: I think we have established that already, we are just haggling about the price.

The point is its tough to draw conclusions or pass judgments using either the relativity or the consistentency angle.  Everything that you argue vis-a-vis why Mumbai is condonable and Calcutta is condemnable can be legitimately countered using a variation of the above two arguments.

The fact is a lot of people jumped on the disgraceful crowd behavior bandwagon during the SA ODI and now there is a legitimate question of why similar behavior should not be criticized as well.

If you criticize Calcutta, criticize Mumbai, if not, do not crticize either.

kban1, as I requested earlier in the my post, looks like you did not read my post completely. Where did I condone Mumbai booing? I only said, for me, actually cheering your opposition team is bigger concern than a isolated booing of a single player, that too on a single occasion. To me booing is still bad but degree and mode of dissent matter big time.

1. Degree of instigation Vs Degree of bad behaviour :

Now, you can employ all the relativity or consistency logic etc., BUT, simply stating perceived reasons is not valid. If crowd wants to cheer the opposition team  because local hero is not in the team(as one of the reaons), it is very sad and reflects badly on the crowd. It riled me no end that the SA captain, with a smirk wants to get the same support everywhere.

Remember also, there are enough reasons if one wants to perceive them to add up to same level of bad behaviour in Mumbai
1. RD messed up by opting to bowl
2. Indian team dropped catches like there is some slippery oil on their hands
3. VS, Jaffer, Yuvi, SRT , everyone got out to bad shots
4. India is at a significant disadvantage in the test right now , with the possibility of a loss real.

Do you think Mumbai crowd will actually cheer Eng now or if we loose on fifth day?

Also, you seem to legitimize the bad behaviour by giving reasons for bad behaviour. As I stated above, your degree of instigation is not valid to justify bad behaviour.


2. Degree of Bad behaviour: This again is not valid for the following reasons.

a. I see a lot of Indians who satisfyingly say , 'see, corruption is everywhere, even in USA, there is lot of corruption in the higher places'. They say this whenever there is some sex scandal or stock related unethical issue comes out into the open. Now, applying your logic, we all can be happy that both USA & India are both corrupt and leave it at that. Do you think it is valid though? Don't you know the difference in degree? don't you know the fact that is all the more endemic, more all pervading in India? We will only be fooling ourselves if we say USA & India are corrupt by citing one instance of corruption.
b. To me booing a player , at one instance is different from, actually booing your whole team and to add insult to injury, cheer the opposition team. Of course, we can try and invent explainations like, ' it is indirect way of expressing displeasure etc.), but the fact remains that that mode of displeasure actually brings down the home team spirit and will leave them scarred, going by some accounts and going by diplomatic, hurt statements from RD.

Home crowd support is one of the many facets of playing in your home country and it does add to  pressure on the opposition team. For a section of the culcutta crowd to negate it for reasons of bad play from home team and for dropping of their local hero is deplorable and sad.

Yes, Mumbai crowd booing is bad too but to me both are not comparable simply because mumbai crowd is not bringing down the home team, last I heard, they are still cheering Indian team.

[kban1]

suraj:

did you see the same match tht I did at Calcutta??? I saw the whole match live and everytime RD laid a hand on the ball, walked in to bat, got out, any screen shot of his- he was booed- it was disgusting. I am not saying Calcutta is bad and Mumbai is not- bad behaviour anywhere is irreprehensible but this is exactly wht hapeened there.

To your point tht Calcutta booed a bad performance by India and applauded a good one by SA- again not true at all. The booing and cheering had already started when the teams came into the field and was not dictated by the course of game. Huge designer placards against RD were not imported during the match- they were brought in before the match.

I agree to your point that we shd not justify one crowd over the other but the facts you stated are wrong- it was a premeditated move by some of the crowd (not all)  at Calcutta and the course of the match wud have had no bearing on that section because the bone of contention was SG's abscence, not the Indian team performance.

Not defending the calcutta crowd here at all. I know they came in incensed at SG being left out --I made a mention of that in my post.

But I read at least 3 or 4 newspapers from all over the country which said RD's arrival was greeted with cheers and his departure with boos.

And I am not saying the boo's were not their before either. But its not as if all of it were boos --there were cheers too for VS and MSD as Blwe pointed out.

The crowd (or at least some sections of it) were angry, India's poor performance gave them the license to vent their anger and the residual issues connected with the SG dropping. Thats what I meant.

[suraj]

kban,

I am actually quiet clear on wht you meant but just pointing out wht I actually saw. sure there might have been a few ppl cheering RD when he walked in but atleast on TV the boos just drowned any cheers at all. There is no doubt tht the bias really was overwhelming and was totally unrelated to any performance.

My brother-in-law who actually does not follow tht much cricket (if someone asks you "who's playing today"- you can gauge how much they follow; I refuse to even tell the score to ppl like these ) walked in during the match and for 5 mins was totally under the impression the match was being played at SA going by the crowd's reactions.

[kban1]

Flute:

kban1, as I requested earlier in the my post, looks like you did not read my post completely. Where did I condone Mumbai booing? I only said, for me, actually cheering your opposition team is bigger concern than a isolated booing of a single player, that too on a single occasion. To me booing is still bad but degree and mode of dissent matter big time.

1. Degree of instigation Vs Degree of bad behaviour :
Now, you can employ all the relativity or consistency logic etc., BUT, simply stating perceived reasons is not valid. If crowd wants to cheer the opposition team  because local hero is not in the team(as one of the reaons), it is very sad and reflects badly on the crowd. It riled me no end that the SA captain, with a smirk wants to get the same support everywhere.

I did not suggest you condoned booing in Mumbai. I suggested that if you are using the relative degree of offense argument, then you need to use the relative degree of instigation clause as well.

Its not about perceived reasons. It is pretty well established that certain sections of the crowd was upset over the SG exclusion. The poor performance by India gave them the license to vent their anger by booing the Indian team and cheering the SA team.

Remember also, there are enough reasons if one wants to perceive them to add up to same level of bad behaviour in Mumbai
1. RD messed up by opting to bowl
2. Indian team dropped catches like there is some slippery oil on their hands
3. VS, Jaffer, Yuvi, SRT , everyone got out to bad shots
4. India is at a significant disadvantage in the test right now , with the possibility of a loss real.

Do you think Mumbai crowd will actually cheer Eng now or if we loose on fifth day?

Frankly, I do not think the reasons you are providing (1.5+ days of inept cricket when SRT was dismissed) is the same as what happened with the SG case. Please do not simplify the case.

Also, you seem to legitimize the bad behaviour by giving reasons for bad behaviour. As I stated above, your degree of instigation is not valid to justify bad behaviour.

This is your perception.

A call for fair judgment is not legitimizing behavior by providing reasons for it. This is a logical fallacy.

2. Degree of Bad behaviour: This again is not valid for the following reasons.
a. I see a lot of Indians who satisfyingly say , 'see, corruption is everywhere, even in USA, there is lot of corruption in the higher places'. They say this whenever there is some sex scandal or stock related unethical issue comes out into the open. Now, applying your logic, we all can be happy that both USA & India are both corrupt and leave it at that. Do you think it is valid though? Don't you know the difference in degree? don't you know the fact that is all the more endemic, more all pervading in India? We will only be fooling ourselves if we say USA & India are corrupt by citing one instance of corruption.

b. To me booing a player , at one instance is different from, actually booing your whole team and to add insult to injury, cheer the opposition team. Of course, we can try and invent explainations like, ' it is indirect way of expressing displeasure etc.), but the fact remains that that mode of displeasure actually brings down the home team spirit and will leave them scarred, going by some accounts and going by diplomatic, hurt statements from RD.

I get the point you are making but I do not think you are getting mine. My point is not denigrating the relative standard (degree of misbehavior) or dismissing it. The point is simple – if you use the standard, then account for the underlying causes as well. Do not use the standard to pass a judgment in vacuum.

If you use the consistent standard, then there is not much to say except blame or exonerate both crowds.

Btw, I am not sure what your experience of attending cricket matches are. But a crowd expresses its reaction in many ways – applause for the home team, applause for the visiting team, booing, slow clapping, egging / cheering the opposition etc. There are numerous nuances –these are not invented reasons, they happen in real life. Suggested reading for you would be three books  by Tony Greig about the game, players and the conditions (I do not remember the names –a google search would help you find them)

[kban1]

suraj:

I am actually quiet clear on wht you meant but just pointing out wht I actually saw. sure there might have been a few ppl cheering RD when he walked in but atleast on TV the boos just drowned any cheers at all. There is no doubt tht the bias really was overwhelming and was totally unrelated to any performance.

My brother-in-law who actually does not follow tht much cricket (if someone asks you "who's playing today"- you can gauge how much they follow; I refuse to even tell the score to ppl like these ) walked in during the match and for 5 mins was totally under the impression the match was being played at SA going by the crowd's reactions.

I wish i could direct you to a long conversation that I had with inoc after the Calcutta ODI where we discussed the Calcutta  crowd's behavior, the change in the composition of the Calcutta crowd over the years (thanks to JD commercialization et all), but the Purdue DG is down.

Anyways, the gist is this.
1) On either side of the clubhouse in Eden are enclosures of seats which were usually reserved for the cricket loving, understanding crowd (associate member stands where the former cricketrs, cricket admins, first class cricketers used to sit).
2) Over the last 15 years, JD has commercialized the ticketing allocations, the pricing structures etc etc in such a way that
a) a significant portion of the knowledgable cricket crowd has been driven away
b) the remaining section has been banished to the other corners of the ground
c) the former associate member stands have been filled up by people willing to buy the expensive tickets but with little knowledge or understanding of the game.

Unfortunately, these stands are also the ones just next to the clubhouse, and thereby contribute to the max visual as well as the constant sound exposure to the main cameras. I know from first hand accounts of people who went to the match that these 2 sections were the main culprits in the booing, cheering et all. This was also reflected in the reports in local dailies.

Thus, what you hear in TV's is not the entire picture. In fact if you know the logistics of Eden and the changes in crowd composition, you can understand perfectly how the behavior would get amplified on TV.

Does that mean I am saying nothing happened ? far from it -- a lot happened. But perception based on TV and reality is a bit different here.

[Blwe_torch]

But, what happenned in Mumbai is far more deplorable. Imagine, a legend being booed at his own hometown!....I can never imagine SRT being booed anywhere in India. After all that he has achieved for Indian cricket. Whatever respect India has in world cricket is largely thanks to SRT. Can anyone deny this?

[flute202020]

Remember also, there are enough reasons if one wants to perceive them to add up to same level of bad behaviour in Mumbai
1. RD messed up by opting to bowl
2. Indian team dropped catches like there is some slippery oil on their hands
3. VS, Jaffer, Yuvi, SRT , everyone got out to bad shots
4. India is at a significant disadvantage in the test right now , with the possibility of a loss real.

Do you think Mumbai crowd will actually cheer Eng now or if we loose on fifth day?

Frankly, I do not think the reasons you are providing (1.5+ days of inept cricket when SRT was dismissed) is the same as what happened with the SG case. Please do not simplify the case. [/quote]
Kban1, to deal with your longer posts, I hit upon this idea. I will break up my responses and we can have easy, readable rsponses. 

Anyway, let me understand this clearly. Do you mean to say that the culcutta crowd had more reasons for cheering SA team? How, unless we throw in SG into the mix? if the booing of Indians and cheering of SA team is mostly because of SG not being in the team and not related to bad performance(I think the performance has been pretty much bad in both occasions), don't you think it is all the more deplorable even if we consider the degree of instigation?
Any which way we see, to me, cheering SA team, heckling Indian players on the boundary(as recounted by RD) etc. is more deplorable in Culcutta simply because it borders on not supporting your team if a particular team from your area is not in the team. Don't you think?