Sledging is a term used more commonly within on-field players, rather than what comes from spectators mouths.Sawajiri Erika wrote:When Australians are dishing it out it's sledging. When it comes the other way they cry abuse.
Australia v New Zealand
Moderators: Randoman, Ernie Cooksey, Forum Admins
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60413
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 129 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
Ignore this signature
- God Tongue
- Promising Junior
- Posts: 288
- Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 11:47 am
Re: Australia v New Zealand
Sledging/banter/heckling... call it what you like but if you want to dish it out be prepared to take it back.
English is weird. It can be understood through tough thorough thought, though.
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60413
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 129 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
I agree but can't recall too many times when fielders sledged/heckled spectators.God Tongue wrote:Sledging/banter/heckling... call it what you like but if you want to dish it out be prepared to take it back.
Ignore this signature
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
They'd be stupid to react.Bomber wrote:I agree but can't recall too many times when fielders sledged/heckled spectators.God Tongue wrote:Sledging/banter/heckling... call it what you like but if you want to dish it out be prepared to take it back.
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60413
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 129 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
Nothing more than supporting the mob winning and doing their best for my country. Some see them as nasty bully boys, well, so be it. Why should I care?N5 1BH wrote:I guess you really need to be an australian to like the australian cricket team, even then...
Ignore this signature
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
Do you not find is embarrassing though when the bullies are crying that they're being bullied?Bomber wrote:Nothing more than supporting the mob winning and doing their best for my country. Some see them as nasty bully boys, well, so be it. Why should I care?N5 1BH wrote:I guess you really need to be an australian to like the australian cricket team, even then...
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60413
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 129 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
Time and place. Spectators commenting on wives/kids is all class I suppose. Heat of the battle between two teams on the field is th e difference you're missing. Plus I don't see anyone "crying" as opposed to answering some questions fired at them by journalists.God is an Englishman wrote:Do you not find is embarrassing though when the bullies are crying that they're being bullied?Bomber wrote:Nothing more than supporting the mob winning and doing their best for my country. Some see them as nasty bully boys, well, so be it. Why should I care?N5 1BH wrote:I guess you really need to be an australian to like the australian cricket team, even then...
Do you care that everyone thinks Millwall supporters are considered thugs and bad eggs?
Ignore this signature
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
Thought I'd answered this already. Simple answer really - no one likes us, we don't care.Bomber wrote:
Time and place. Spectators commenting on wives/kids is all class I suppose. Heat of the battle between two teams on the field is th e difference you're missing. Plus I don't see anyone "crying" as opposed to answering some questions fired at them by journalists.
Do you care that everyone thinks Millwall supporters are considered thugs and bad eggs?
Fact 1: your coach recently encourage crowds to abuse a player
Fact 2: one of your players is now having a cry because the crowd abused him
This just highlights Aussie crickets hypocrisy AGAIN.
So for you Bomber - who was wrong here?
A) Lehman
B) Warner
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60413
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 129 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
Who's Lehman?God is an Englishman wrote:Thought I'd answered this already. Simple answer really - no one likes us, we don't care.Bomber wrote:
Time and place. Spectators commenting on wives/kids is all class I suppose. Heat of the battle between two teams on the field is th e difference you're missing. Plus I don't see anyone "crying" as opposed to answering some questions fired at them by journalists.
Do you care that everyone thinks Millwall supporters are considered thugs and bad eggs?
Fact 1: your coach recently encourage crowds to abuse a player
Fact 2: one of your players is now having a cry because the crowd abused him
This just highlights Aussie crickets hypocrisy AGAIN.
So for you Bomber - who was wrong here?
A) Lehman
B) Warner
"Abuse" vs personal family attack - I know even you can work that one out given recent history, but as usual, everything is black and white with you (when it suits)
Ignore this signature
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
So Broad didn't get any personal abuse? Abuse which was encouraged by your coach.
So, who was wrong?
A) Lehmann
B) Warner
So, who was wrong?
A) Lehmann
B) Warner
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60413
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 129 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
Which family member of Broad was verbally attacked?God is an Englishman wrote:So Broad didn't get any personal abuse? Abuse which was encouraged by your coach.
So, who was wrong?
A) Lehmann
B) Warner
Re your question, I'd have to phone a friend on that as one I can't recall who stated clearly it was ok to attack family members by either A or B.
Ignore this signature
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
Well I personally heard broad's father the subject of abuse.
Lehman encouraged abuse, was that ok?
Is it OK for Warner then to whinge because the crowd abused him?
Lehman encouraged abuse, was that ok?
Is it OK for Warner then to whinge because the crowd abused him?
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60413
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 129 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
When a reporter asks him about it, what do you expect him to say, yeah just good banter mate? You might see it as a whinge, but I know you get confused with the term as you do enough of it yourself only to call it "merely stating facts".God is an Englishman wrote:Well I personally heard broad's father the subject of abuse.
Lehman encouraged abuse, was that ok?
Is it OK for Warner then to whinge because the crowd abused him?
Whoever abused Broad's father to him was a numbskull, no doubting that.
Ignore this signature
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
A lot of numbskulls there then.Bomber wrote:When a reporter asks him about it, what do you expect him to say, yeah just good banter mate? You might see it as a whinge, but I know you get confused with the term as you do enough of it yourself only to call it "merely stating facts".God is an Englishman wrote:Well I personally heard broad's father the subject of abuse.
Lehman encouraged abuse, was that ok?
Is it OK for Warner then to whinge because the crowd abused him?
Whoever abused Broad's father to him was a numbskull, no doubting that.
It seems to be your definition of whingeing cannot include anything done by an australian and everything done by an Englishman.
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60413
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 129 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
And the reverse with you.God is an Englishman wrote:A lot of numbskulls there then.Bomber wrote:When a reporter asks him about it, what do you expect him to say, yeah just good banter mate? You might see it as a whinge, but I know you get confused with the term as you do enough of it yourself only to call it "merely stating facts".God is an Englishman wrote:Well I personally heard broad's father the subject of abuse.
Lehman encouraged abuse, was that ok?
Is it OK for Warner then to whinge because the crowd abused him?
Whoever abused Broad's father to him was a numbskull, no doubting that.
It seems to be your definition of whingeing cannot include anything done by an australian and everything done by an Englishman.
Ignore this signature
-
- Squad Player
- Posts: 1762
- Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 3:29 pm
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
And the reverse with you.[/quote]Bomber wrote:
A lot of numbskulls there then.
It seems to be your definition of whingeing cannot include anything done by an australian and everything done by an Englishman.
I'd deny that obviously but as long as you can see your own errors then that's fine by me
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
so on a thread about the hypocritical whingeing of the cons, all you have is my quoting error.Bomber wrote:.......says the bloke who can't quote properly (after so many years).
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60413
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 129 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
"all I have......."God is an Englishman wrote:so on a thread about the hypocritical whingeing of the cons, all you have is my quoting error.Bomber wrote:.......says the bloke who can't quote properly (after so many years).
You're off your game today, maybe as it's Monday............but at least you can admit to your error so that's fine by me .
Ignore this signature
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
Yes, my biggest error is deleting a bit too much. I will hang my head in shameBomber wrote:"all I have......."God is an Englishman wrote:so on a thread about the hypocritical whingeing of the cons, all you have is my quoting error.Bomber wrote:.......says the bloke who can't quote properly (after so many years).
You're off your game today, maybe as it's Monday............but at least you can admit to your error so that's fine by me .
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60413
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 129 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
Far bigger errors whilst your hanging you head in shame:
- hooking up with an Aussie bird
- Millwall
- thinking being a pom is something that needs to be instilled into others as being some sort of advantage
- whingeing about anything and everything any "nasty Aussies" does
- calling us convicts when the real ones came from Britain (remember its all about "blood" according to some)
- thinking Muscat is some sort of demi-god
Shall I go on or let you play around with those for a while?
- hooking up with an Aussie bird
- Millwall
- thinking being a pom is something that needs to be instilled into others as being some sort of advantage
- whingeing about anything and everything any "nasty Aussies" does
- calling us convicts when the real ones came from Britain (remember its all about "blood" according to some)
- thinking Muscat is some sort of demi-god
Shall I go on or let you play around with those for a while?
Ignore this signature
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
None of those were errors thoughBomber wrote:Far bigger errors whilst your hanging you head in shame:
- hooking up with an Aussie bird
- Millwall
- thinking being a pom is something that needs to be instilled into others as being some sort of advantage
- whingeing about anything and everything any "nasty Aussies" does
- calling us convicts when the real ones came from Britain (remember its all about "blood" according to some)
- thinking Muscat is some sort of demi-god
Shall I go on or let you play around with those for a while?
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60413
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 129 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
So where did convicts come from?God is an Englishman wrote:None of those were errors thoughBomber wrote:Far bigger errors whilst your hanging you head in shame:
- hooking up with an Aussie bird
- Millwall
- thinking being a pom is something that needs to be instilled into others as being some sort of advantage
- whingeing about anything and everything any "nasty Aussies" does
- calling us convicts when the real ones came from Britain (remember its all about "blood" according to some)
- thinking Muscat is some sort of demi-god
Shall I go on or let you play around with those for a while?
Ignore this signature
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
England, Ireland, Greece... They then went on to form the people we know as Australians. As an Englishman that means I'm not a descendant of a convict and therefore not a Pom.Bomber wrote:So where did convicts come from?God is an Englishman wrote:None of those were errors thoughBomber wrote:Far bigger errors whilst your hanging you head in shame:
- hooking up with an Aussie bird
- Millwall
- thinking being a pom is something that needs to be instilled into others as being some sort of advantage
- whingeing about anything and everything any "nasty Aussies" does
- calling us convicts when the real ones came from Britain (remember its all about "blood" according to some)
- thinking Muscat is some sort of demi-god
Shall I go on or let you play around with those for a while?
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60413
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 129 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
God is an Englishman wrote: England, Ireland, Greece... They then went on to form the people we know as Australians. As an Englishman that means I'm not a descendant of a convict and therefore not a Pom.
I'm guessing vast majority came from England. You're always on about "what's in the blood" so sorry, "cons" were more English than anything else.
Ignore this signature
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
originally yes they were majority English. However, are the descendants of those cons australian or English? Were they entitled to a British passport at birth? Unless they have purely bred with other English people then the English blood has been diluted.Bomber wrote:God is an Englishman wrote: England, Ireland, Greece... They then went on to form the people we know as Australians. As an Englishman that means I'm not a descendant of a convict and therefore not a Pom.
I'm guessing vast majority came from England. You're always on about "what's in the blood" so sorry, "cons" were more English than anything else.
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60413
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 129 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
So maybe you need to factor this in when referring to "cons" - ie, vast majority of Aussies wouldn't fit the bill.God is an Englishman wrote:originally yes they were majority English. However, are the descendants of those cons australian or English? Were they entitled to a British passport at birth? Unless they have purely bred with other English people then the English blood has been diluted.Bomber wrote:God is an Englishman wrote: England, Ireland, Greece... They then went on to form the people we know as Australians. As an Englishman that means I'm not a descendant of a convict and therefore not a Pom.
I'm guessing vast majority came from England. You're always on about "what's in the blood" so sorry, "cons" were more English than anything else.
Plus blood doesn't have nationality - it has blood types, so has little relevance as opposed to upbringing and national "traits".
Ignore this signature