Livingstone playing some shots

[Parkside]

Think you need a new dictionary. Cowardly is the word that, by definition, equates to lack of bottle, courage or spineless, surely.

Recklessness is a different concept entirely. And not related to cowardice at all. Partly the reverse in fact. You can have reckless acts of courage, but reckless cowardice is pretty much an oxymoron.

I beg to differ. Certainly recklessness infers in certain contexts,specifically in this cricketing one, a lack of bottle courage or to a degree of being spineless.
I'd appreciate that you don't offer to me unsolicited advice. As in common with most of your posts, a degree of modesty would not be amiss.
Different dictionaries will offer varying contexts in which a word may be used. I'd take the view that you're taking a very rigid view on the meaning of recklessness.
Unlike you,I wouldn't claim your view is incorrect.

 

[Fleagle]

I beg to differ. Certainly recklessness infers in certain contexts,specifically in this cricketing one, a lack of bottle courage or to a degree of being spineless.
I'd appreciate that you don't offer to me unsolicited advice. As in common with most of your posts, a degree of modesty would not be amiss.
Different dictionaries will offer varying contexts in which a word may be used. I'd take the view that you're taking a very rigid view on the meaning of recklessness.
Unlike you,I wouldn't claim your view is incorrect.

I felt the tone of the post I referred to was in the nature of what you object to. It felt very much like “ha ha you said reckless, that proves my point because reckless means what I say it means about bottling etc”. Without justification. If I came across as confrontational, that’s because I think you were. But I think it’s legitimate to ask, if you say recklessness is “by definition” what you stated it to be, at least provide an objective definition. Words have meanings. Those meanings can be fluid to a degree. But we can’t all be Humpty Dumpty and make up our own.

For me, in the context of sport:
Courageous is taking a risk that you believe to be justified, even though it may damage you if it doesn’t come off;
Reckless is taking a risk that isn’t justified;
Cowardly is ducking a risk that is justified because it gives you an easy life.

It’s clear that at least the first two can coexist. And they very much do in the current England team, which is profoundly reckless in its approach. Which doesn’t always succeed. Although it does markedly better than its predecessor, which could genuinely be cowardly, such as when it declined to chase 270 at three and an half against New Zealand. The reckless approach sometimes fails. And sometimes succeed gloriously. And could be something you like or loathe. That’s a legitimate difference of opinion.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. But that doesn’t mean you can’t argue that some opinions are plain wrong. And I will insist that the opinion that reckless means cowardly is plain wrong.

Also, if you are going to be sanctimonious about definitions of words to try to score a point, you would do well to be sound in your own. You need to look up infer and imply while we’re at it.

 

[Parkside]

I felt the tone of the post I referred to was in the nature of what you object to. It felt very much like “ha ha you said reckless, that proves my point because reckless means what I say it means about bottling etc”. Without justification. If I came across as confrontational, that’s because I think you were. But I think it’s legitimate to ask, if you say recklessness is “by definition” what you stated it to be, at least provide an objective definition. Words have meanings. Those meanings can be fluid to a degree. But we can’t all be Humpty Dumpty and make up our own.

For me, in the context of sport:
Courageous is taking a risk that you believe to be justified, even though it may damage you if it doesn’t come off;
Reckless is taking a risk that isn’t justified;
Cowardly is ducking a risk that is justified because it gives you an easy life.

It’s clear that at least the first two can coexist. And they very much do in the current England team, which is profoundly reckless in its approach. Which doesn’t always succeed. Although it does markedly better than its predecessor, which could genuinely be cowardly, such as when it declined to chase 270 at three and an half against New Zealand. The reckless approach sometimes fails. And sometimes succeed gloriously. And could be something you like or loathe. That’s a legitimate difference of opinion.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. But that doesn’t mean you can’t argue that some opinions are plain wrong. And I will insist that the opinion that reckless means cowardly is plain wrong.

Also, if you are going to be sanctimonious about definitions of words to try to score a point, you would do well to be sound in your own. You need to look up infer and imply while we’re at it.

Chill! It's a sport's forum. You're entitled to express your view as I mine. So we have opposing views on the interpretation of recklessness. Is it really necessary to adopt such a confrontational and condescending attitude to posters who you don't even know on such a trivial issue?

 

[Fleagle]

Chill! It's a sport's forum. You're entitled to express your view as I mine. So we have opposing views on the interpretation of recklessness. Is it really necessary to adopt such a confrontational and condescending attitude to posters who you don't even know on such a trivial issue?

Because calling someone a coward is a big deal. Or should be. Time was, you’d have to answer for that by being called out in the true sense of the word. I don’t think that was a particularly civilised time and I don’t wish to go back to it. But it should still give us pause.

There are plenty of things that are reasonable matters of opinion. That the current England team are too casual, too reckless, that they got too pissed between the second and third tests for example. And that they got soundly beaten isn’t even a matter of opinion. I just have this old-fashioned view that you need to be sounder in your ground if you call someone coward. And you aren’t sound in your ground. You haven’t justified why you think the England team are cowards in any remotely objective sense.

We tolerate too much because it’s just keyboard warriors talking bollocks. This particular part of the SMB is usually pretty good at avoiding the worst of that. Or justifying it where it’s necessary. I felt you fell short. And I don’t apologise for reacting to that. But we are going round in circles. If you feel the need to put a response down go ahead, but I’m done. We just see differently on this.

 

[Parkside]

Because calling someone a coward is a big deal. Or should be. Time was, you’d have to answer for that by being called out in the true sense of the word. I don’t think that was a particularly civilised time and I don’t wish to go back to it. But it should still give us pause.

There are plenty of things that are reasonable matters of opinion. That the current England team are too casual, too reckless, that they got too pissed between the second and third tests for example. And that they got soundly beaten isn’t even a matter of opinion. I just have this old-fashioned view that you need to be sounder in your ground if you call someone coward. And you aren’t sound in your ground. You haven’t justified why you think the England team are cowards in any remotely objective sense.

We tolerate too much because it’s just keyboard warriors talking bollocks. This particular part of the SMB is usually pretty good at avoiding the worst of that. Or justifying it where it’s necessary. I felt you fell short. And I don’t apologise for reacting to that. But we are going round in circles. If you feel the need to put a response down go ahead, but I’m done. We just see differently on this.

Yes,We just see differently on this.Yes,perhaps cowardly is too strong a term-I use it in the sense of not facing up to responsibities. You've presented hundreds of words on the issue and you belittle keyboard warriors.