Some of you may have noticed that cricket has dominated the news for the past few days. The aftermath of the Sydney test has released a wave of recriminations, hyperbole and effigy burning not seen for many a year.
First off, cricket will survive this brouhaha as it survived Bodyline, Ray Illingworth taking his players off the field, regular attempts by Pakistan to take their bat and go home, Sunil Gavaskar not liking an Aussie umpire’s decision back in 1981 (which was a little cheeky given the standard of umpiring that faced any team touring the sub-continent around that time) and Dennis the menace’s infamous aluminum bat.
The state of play at the moment in this sorry saga is that India seem happy that their umpiring scourge, Steve Bucknor, has been dropped from the Third Test in Perth. And this was the correct decision by the ICC (International Cricket Council). Bucknor had a shocker and is at the end of the long career as an umpire. It would be better for him to bow out gracefully and take an administrative role.
The hangover is still the three test suspension given to Indian spinner Harbhajan Singh for allegedly making a racist comment to Australian Andrew Symonds. At the moment, India are content with the notion that Harbhajan’s sentence will be suspended pending an appeal. If that appeal does not happen by the time everyone gets to Perth then he will play the Third test.
One thing that seems to be forgotten is that ill feeling between Harbhajan and Symonds goes back to Australia’s tour of India back in October. This was the same tour where Symonds was taunted by sections of the crowd imitating monkeys. Even if Harbhajan had called Symonds a monkey, failing to recognize any racial connotations, he is an idiot. Still his three test suspension does seem quite harsh.
And while calls for his sacking are the worst of hyperbole that has accompanied this saga, Australian captain Ricky Ponting has not handled the situation well. As captain, he should make overtures to Indian captain Anil Kumble and sort this out between the teams. Ponting’s failure in leadership has only exacerbated tensions.
Still, the Indian cricket board (BCCI) have not covered themselves with glory either. It is not good form to complain about the lack of sportsmanship from one side while throwing a petulant dummy spit yourself. India does have legitimate grievances with regards to the umpiring and possibly with Harbhajan’s hearing. But the BCCI’s attempt to heavy the ICC and the Australian cricket Association was the wrong way to go about things.
As for the Australian team in general, yes they did display a singular lack of graciousness in victory. But the talk of Australia being arrogant and boorish is becoming boring itself.
Australia’s arrogance is more a perception that comes from the fact that they are the best bloody team in the world. While the odd team can match them for a session or a day here and there, Australia’s style of play is relentless. They train harder and play harder than any other team. Note that more than one international side has an Australian coach. Teams want to emulate that style of play. Of course the ends does not justify the means but aggressive as Australia is, other teams that point the finger in regards to their “sportsmanship” aren’t exactly squeaky clean themselves in regards to un-cricket like behavior.
Events will cool down and the players will get back to the game and the Third test will be a cracker. But thinking this issue over, there is indeed one party involved in this affair that has benefited from the barney.
Effigy makers. Especially those that do a good Ponting or Bucknor.
Elsewhere: Tony at After Grog Blog and Andrew Bartlett offer their views.
Cross posted at Sidelined
Replace Ponting. Can’t disagree with that. Replacement? Pup? Not for me.
Cricket in Australia needs a complete overhaul in the ‘attitude’ department. And the cupboard seems bare.
Cricket needs some ’swimming’ advice. Is Hansen available?
I’m not sure of the significance of this controversy for Australia, but for India it may be the equivalent of our Bodyline Controversy. On the Indian side it seems to be tied up with notions of honour and the good name of resapected individuals that India obviously believes have been falsrly accused of racial slurs or cdondoning same. I’m not sure if such notions of honour have anywhere near as much wide a significance here. Have we turned cricket from a gentleme4n’s game tro some kind of gung-ho pseudo American free-market free for all? Is the way Australia plays cricket a sign of the decay of standards of decency in our society? I don’t know.
I’ll know I’ve arrived when my effigy is burned somewhere. I’ll have to make do with a pinata for the time being.
There’s been a lot of hoohaa about this, some of it, frankly, rather exaggerated by India.
But I would say this: I was appalled that Australian players weren’t lining up to shake Kumble’s hand after such a dignified effort in the last innings. Hello! opposition captain on field, ya rude knobs.
Plus its true Ponting was being a wanker much of the time, losing his cool, setting a poor tone. I wouldnt have a school captain raising the finger like that.
And the umps did have a shocker, and not just Bucknor. The other guy was totally deaf – at least to all wood-based knick sounds.
Everyone…but…
Sean, as I tried to tell dear Harry ‘losers’ there is only one loser here and that’s punter. Mr. Roebuck is for once well & truly on the money. Rodent hubris; it’s endemic & sociologically speaking, timely eh what?
‘some Australian commentators have argued that Ponting went too far by bringing the matter to the authorities’ attention. Some have even interpreted his actions in the light of his personal duel with Harbhajan, who has a better record against him than any other bowler in world cricket.’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml;jsessionid=QBSDEWZTYE0QFQFIQMFCFGGAVCBQYIV0?xml=/sport/2008/01/08/scbrig108.xml
8 zip from memory.
Anyway here’s some more numbers to crunch.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/images/Popup_500px.jpg
It’s only a game. But, everyone’s watching.
Personally I had sympathy for the Indian team until I began to read some of what was being said by the Indian cricket board in the Indian press. If you’d like to see a whole bunch of jingoist crap I suggest going to google news and having a browse.
I suspect that this whole situation, while born out of the genuine frustrations of the Indian team, has more to do with the Indian board failed attempt to get control of the ICC board last year than anything that happened during the test. The repercussions of the events of the last few days will be around for quite some time.
I was listening on the radio, so missed the vision. By the end I was hoping for a draw, because clearly Australia didn’t deserve to win with so much help from the umpires.
Kumble’s behaviour on the field was by all accounts impeccable, but he has not helped matters in his comments later. First up he said that India played over Australia from day one. This simply wasn’t true.
Kumble then said that only one side was playing according to the spirit of cricket. I’m sure he thought that but it wasn’t diplomatic to say so.
The Australians had some problems, which I’m sure Buchanan would have sorted out, but the two most astonishing things came from the Indians.
All of India is insulted that Procter didn’t simply fall in line with Tendulkar’s view that Harbhajan was innocent we were told on the 7.30 Report tonight. Once Tendulkar has spoken no other view is possible apparently. That makes Symonds, Ponting, Gilchrist, Hayden and Michael Clarke liars.
The second was that the Harbhajan penalty had to be dropped before they would continue on the tour. I’m not sure they said as much in so many words, but it’s pretty clear that’s what they meant. The Indians need to respect due process.
The ICC review panel will duly throw the Harbhajan charge out, which they probably should, the umps on the field having heard nothing. But someone should tell the Indians that it is not OK to call Symonds a monkey, no matter what the place of the monkey in Indian culture, if Symonds is thereby offended.
Bring back Steve Waugh. Or at the very least, bring him as an elder to help broker a temporary peace treaty. The Indians respect him as much as we do. On the other hand, he is Australian.
Why don’t we just find the most ineffectual internationally capped cricketeer of modern times to go out on the pitch and toss a coin for the final arbitration? I’m sure the MCC can help out here.
Codger, Ponting and Kumble were lined up by the referee before the match and told to report any racist nonsense to the umps. It was as simple as that.
I think Ponting tries to do the right thing and usually is thereabouts. Calls for his sacking are OTT. Roebuck has done more than most to inflame this one (and I usually find his comments interesting).
“Who’s benefiting?”
All the world’s leading cricket writers are busy renegotiating their contracts upwards while AGB’s current thread is at a record 550 not out.
“Roebuck has done more than most to inflame this one”
They don’t call him “Spanky” for nothing.
You know, I just hope that the New Zealand Rugby Union decide to stop touring the Northern hemisphere until the IRB admits that the ref screwed the All Blacks out of their quarter final win at the Rugby World Cup….
Trackback
8 zip Brian, sorry, it’s as simple as that. Bucknor out & HS to play will be next.
Too Much Monkey Business: Cricket’s Macaca Moment
“On August 11, 2006, at a campaign stop in Breaks, Virginia, near the Kentucky border, Allen twice used the word macaca to refer to S.R. Sidarth, who was filming the event as a “tracker” for the opposing Webb campaign. Sidarth is of Indian ancestry, but was born and raised in Fairfax County, Virginia. Macaca is a slur meaning “monkey” in francophone African nations, which led to speculation that Allen may have heard the epithet from his mother,[39] a Francophone who grew up in French-colonial Tunisia. Allen apologized and later said that he did not know the meaning of the word.[40]” from wiki on ex-senator George Allen.
N.B. Sidarth’s ancestry.
I think Indian Cricket Inc. is playing a tad too cute by denying the simian sledge is racist. OTOH, The Aussies have been full-spectrum sledgers for years, so Ponting’s action of reporting the incident to the umpires was spiteful and precious. Dobbing, dummy spitting and sledging might be OK for a pantomime like World Championship Wrestling, but now that Corporations run World Cricket, winning and sponsorship contracts are what matter most to the performers, not how they play the game.
http://www.smh.com.au/cartoons/
For me, the rot became unstoppable when weather forecasting and consorting with bookies named “John” was swept under the carpet. Then there were all those suit-cases chockers with US dollars that South African coppers found at Hansie Cronje’s home just after his plane fell out of the sky. The international game is as bent as a dog’s hind leg. For forty years I followed it with passion, but it’s all over now.
“The international game is as bent as a dog’s hind leg.”
It’s not a serious big money international sport until you get a good whiff of corruption.
Although I have to say rugby and soccer have been noticeably free of organised team and administration-wide chicanery and general incompetence compared to the other megabucks global sporting codes.
Farnarkling however is another matter. Dave Sorenson’s knee-deep involvement in the whole sordid Goatse.cx affair has plunged that once noble and upright sporting pursuit into a gaping pit from which I fear it will never climb out. What a big stupid arse. Definitely lost all pretensions to amateur status for starters. I only hope the kids never realise just how far their hero has fallen into the abyss.
Mr Cricket for skipper!
It’s just not cricket!
As far as Peter Roebuck’s call for Ponting to be sacked, I have to ask “for what?” Sure, he showed rather a lack of diplomacy during and after the game, but that strikes me as requiring a stern word from James Sutherland, not an arbitrary sacking. Indeed, the whole team should be read the riot act. But sacked? Hardly.
Clearly, the umpires had a shocker, without which India would have almost certainly drawn and may have won the game.
As for the suggestion that Australians should start walking, I think there’s a pretty good case that you should indeed leave it up to the umpires. The temptation to walk on the easy ones, and then not walk on a close one in a crucial situation with the expectation that the umpire will rely on your reputation and not give you out, is too great.
[cough] AC Milan [cough]
Silvio Berlusconi could sort out the ICC, I reckon.
Guys,
This story has a very plausible sequence of events leading into this sordid affair:
http://clean-bowled.blogspot.com/2008/01/inside-story.html
I think the whole thing has been blown up out of proportion. India were of course wronged, but the hysteria that appeared following their unlucky loss of the match was over the top. It seemed to be driven by a combination of some grandstanding by the Indian cricket bureaucracy (and India’s fervent supporters) and a conveniently timed airing of public dislike for Australia’s combative approach to the game.
Roll on Third Test, I say.
The insight, tact and diplomacy of those who run the game of cricket in Australia are aptly illustrated by the fact that some idiotic clown/s were allowed to name Andrew Symons Man-of-the-Match for the Sydney test. This, following his admission of bad sportsmanship in not walking when he KNEW he was out makes a mockery of the game. And this in a game when Sachin Tendulkar scored a sublime measured dignified and controversy free innings that aptly illustrated the difference between the two sides.
Cheers…
Nabakov (#15),
Perhaps this is why roebuck is called ‘Mr spanky’ – from Wikipedia
“Roebuck in 2001 was given a suspended jail sentence after admitting caning three young cricketers he had offered to coach. He pleaded guilty to three charges of common assault involving three South African teenagers between 1 April and 31 May, 1999.[1] Roebuck was originally accused of indecent assault but pleaded guilty to lesser charges of common assault. However, the judge said he did not accept the purity of Roebuck’s motives. He said: “It was not appropriate to administer corporal punishment to boys of this age in circumstances such as these. It seems so unusual that it must have been done to satisfy some need in you.” Ian Fenny prosecuting said: “Roebuck then pulled the boy towards him, in what appeared to be an act of affection. He then asked if he could look at the marks on the boy’s buttocks, something which he in fact did.”[2]”
I always thought Roebuck was a bit of a pompous ass – the whole cricket as a metaphor for life being well overdone. However I used to read his columns as he generally had something interesting to say. However – after his tirade against the Australian team yesterday (calling them a pack of wild dogs no less). He even got stuck into the last minute hero Micahel Clarke – syaing that his failures with the bat mean he shouldn’t be captain. I think he should be gracefully retired himself.
It has gone somewhat over the top, which is why there’s probably a lot more to it than a game of cricket. I enjoyed this piece in the Age: http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/waleed-aly/2008/01/08/1199554649264.html
Oh look, an issue guaranteed to offend someones sense of nationalistic pride. Bunch of jingoist crap indeed.
But seriously, this could be an interesting case study in Australian v. India soft power.
After the games in India, you really have to wonder what Harbajan was thinking saying “Monkey”, if, indeed, he did say it (though why would you make that up?).
Mr Laurie’s very detailed thoughts on the game:
http://troywheatley.blogspot.com/2008/01/great-white-cricket-conspiracy.html
Forgive me for being cynical, but I can’t help feeling the whole thing’s been cooked up to inject a bit of interest in what was really a very boring test series. We all knew India had little hope and will have less hope in the future once Tendulkar retires. This way, with a bit of cooked up on-field shenanigans and bad behaviour, the ratings will be up and the sponsors and effigy manufacturers will be happy. I think someone on LP suggested a handicap system some time back for Cricket and I reckon it’s time to implement it (start Australia on -400 and see how they go).
I thought it was John Howard who was supposed to put sport on the front page.
It’s the media silly season and most of them are still weeping in their beer over the election result. All that space to fill, nothin’ much to say and no prospect of cushy jobs on PM Costello’s staff. Sport to the rescue.
Sporting teams not liking each other is nothing new, and the teams that most dislike each other often turn on the best sport. Think Collingwood versus just about anyone else in the AFL.
That said, Australia didn’t win the second test, the umps gave it to them, and it wasn’t just Bucknor.
I guess my view isn’t politicaly correct at the moment, but my view is that Ponting has done NOTHING wrong in the Sydney test at all. Let’s look at the charges:
[Failed to shake hands with Indians after the game]: Yes he did. They did the backslapping thing first which is absolutely standard after a wicket and particularly after the last wicket of a game. Suggest watch a replay rather than listen to the crap which passes for cricket commentary these days.
[Ungracious at press conference/after match interviews]: Nothing could be further from the truth. Ponting is invariably gracious towards opponents and was so on this occasion.
[Appeals]: It has been the case for 50 years at least that players appeal if there’s a chance of a wicket. Why not? That’s only commonsense.
[Walking after a nick]: With few exceptions this hasn’t been done for 50 years. Which in my view makes the umpire’s job simpler, since the umpire will otherwise be in the position of effectively calling a batsman a cheat if he gives out a player that hasn’t walked.
[Claimed catch - Clarke]: Clarke said he caught a catch and the replay did not conclusively prove him wrong. Ponting’s role was to make it clear to the umpire that Clarke believed he had taken the catch and should therefore be given out under the terms of the series agreement between Ponting and Kumble.
[Claimed catch - Ponting]: Ponting doesn’t dispute the ball popped out of his hand on impact. However, he believed he had controlled the ball in the air. Under the laws he’s wrong, but that’s a matter of interpretation for the umpires. Not cheating!
[Sledging]: One of the joys of sport at all levels. Some of the best has come from Englishmen, Jamaicans and South Africans. Not a problem so long as it’s not malicious. I’ve heard nothing to indicate the Aussies were being malicious.
So why is Ponting being attacked as being arrogant. I suggest the following factors are conspiring against him.
- Whoever followed on from Steve leprosy-colony Waugh was going to struggle for acceptance.
- Much of the cricket world including Australians is heartily sick of the Aussies winning and would have loved to see India win the Sydney test.
- For whatever reason, Australia has been getting the best of the umpire’s decisions in Australia for a few reasons, and for some reason I can’t quite fathom, that’s seen to be our fault.
- Cricket Australia pissed off some journalists this season by restricting press access. This is payback.
- The media has become increasingly strident about many things in recent years in the ongoing circulation wars. So any dispute in the cricket is automatically exaggerated.
- Tall poppy syndrome.
Except, Brian, that the incident was apparently preceded by a good whack of sledging about everything except the colour of the man’s skin.
There’s a good article on it by David Hopps over at The Gruaniad which I tend to agree with.
What the Australian team has been doing is the moral equivalent on ganging up on some poor kid in the schoolyard and poking, prodding and pinching him until he loses his temper and takes a swing at the nearest of them – then running to teacher to dob.
They should turn the stump mikes up, so we can hear exactly what the two teams are saying to each other – that would give us all a better indication of who’s at fault on the field.
“It has gone somewhat over the top, which is why there’s probably a lot more to it than a game of cricket. I enjoyed this piece in the Age: [link] ”
~Kymbos
———-
I agree with you. That’s easily the best article I’ve seen on the issue.
Kumble’s got some cheek, I tell you. He sends Sharma out with two right-handed gloves in one of the more transparent and shameful time-wasting tricks I’ve seen (in relation to which the Australians exercised considerable restraint in not appealing for the batsman to be timed out), he fiddles with short-leg on last balls of the over (another transparent cheat that even school-age cricketers would be all over) and we’ve got Harbhajan Singh taking Ponting’s wicket and indulging in the most ecstatic and unsportsmanlike celebrations half-way to the stands. Kumble’s post-match soundbite? The Australians aren’t playing in the spirit of the game. Absolutely true, but criticism doesn’t come richer. A pox on both their houses.
BBB
David Rubie, i agree.
Now in answer to the question…So who benefits from the Australia v India cricket stoush? Media.
While the news departments have virtually closed down for holidays, outlets can hand over all fill in space to sports newsdesks who are on the deck anyway.(this story filled 20 mins on 7.30 report)
Same as it ever was, in the silly season, as orstralians are supposed to forget, entirely, what is happening in the real world.
A joyous group hug and a bit of bouncing around to celebrate a win is ungracious and bad sportsmanship, unless you are the Australian netball team and you have just beaten the Kiwis when it is a source of great national pride. The hypocrisy and overreaction to all of this by the press, past players and random commentators is the real issue here.
Andrew (#24), maybe we could sort this whole thing out by putting Peter Roebuck in a room with Ricky, Bhajji, the BCCI and a cane? They all need some harsh lovin.
The Hopps’ article would have to be one of the best that I have read on this issue, and highlights the gross hypocrisy of the Australians.
While Peter Roebuck’s now infamous article was over the top and poorly argued, his point that the Australian cricket team are insulated from the consequences of their actions is a good one, and has been the case for at least two decades. The team as a whole should have been told a long time ago what is not acceptable, and any transgressions strictly dealt with.
To crack down on one form of abuse (racial), and all but ignore others, is not only illogical, but counter productive, as events in Sydney have clearly shown.
And please spare me sympathy for the umpires. Anybody else who performed as appallingly in their job as both of them did would not be getting their next gig until a few ‘issues’ were sorted out.
Roebuck’s suggestion that even if Bhajji did have a racial crack at Symonds, it should be put down to a Sikh warrior’s intemperance, is also pretty objectionable. Are Sikhs to be viewed a hot-heads who are at the mercy of their emotions and their martial heritage? I’m surprised the SMH published such racist nonsense.
BBB
Comment 33: Glad someone has finally pointed out Instant Karma’s rank gamesmanship with the wrong glove ruse. BBB, you are spot on.
Comments 30 and 35: I reiterate the comments of Jenny and Grant.
Since when has it been wrong to react like the Aussies did after the last wicket fell?
Did anyone criticise the Strayan players when they formed a mass hug after they won the 1999 World Cup semi-final against Sorth Efrica?
Does anyone criticise the baseballers who pile on top of each other when they win the World Series?
Does anyone criticise Olympic relay swimmers when they win and have a cuddly foursome?
No, no, and no, with a bonus no for good measure.
But in all cases, once the initial rush of elation passes, they soon break off to shake hands with the opposition.
Which is exactly what the Aussie players did on Sunday as they all went to shake Kumble’s hand before Kumble was off the field.
The zeal with which people have turned this into this so-called offence makes me sick.
“[Sledging]: One of the joys of sport at all levels. Some of the best has come from Englishmen, Jamaicans and South Africans. Not a problem so long as it’s not malicious. I’ve heard nothing to indicate the Aussies were being malicious.”
Maybe not on this occasion. Problem is that we don’t know what was actually said. Given the track record of the Australians, who have an extensive record in making malicious comments – McGrath to Sarwan ‘So what does Brian Lara’s dick taste like?’ – the Australians are hardly in a position to take the high moral ground over whatever Harbijan Singh might or might not have said. Besides, ain’t it supposed to be the Aussies who say that what happens on the field should stay on the field?
Cheers..
From the Waleed Aly article in the Age:
The present outrage, therefore, has a longer gestation. In purely cricketing terms, it expresses a long-held anger at Australia’s often aggressive and uncompromising approach. New Zealanders summarise this in one word: underarm. But the most recent nadir here is Steve Waugh’s all-conquering team earlier this decade. Waugh’s men proudly pursued what they called the “mental disintegration” of their opponents. Everyone else called it sledging: the hurling of often personal verbal abuse, particularly at batsmen, with the aim of disrupting their concentration and eroding their confidence. Most of the cricketing world considered Australia beyond the pale.
Yep, that’s it in a nutshell. I haven’t followed the Australian cricket team for over 10 years, because even if they’ve managed for most of that time not to ‘break the rules’, their behaviour is consistently obnoxious, arrogant, culturally insensitive if not outright racist. The team has developed a taste for pyschological sadism, enjoying nothing more than completely crushing an opponent. There’s no joy in the game, no sense of respect or goodwill. Then there’s been the dodgy deals with bookies, and on it goes.
This has been a long-time coming. You can look at what happened in the Second Test and conclude that Australia is being judged too harshly, and India to leniently, but most people are seeing it as the straw that broke the camel’s back.
And for cricket fans with a genuine respect for all players, to see what is no doubt Tendulkar’s last tour of Australia so tainted is miserable. Here’s the hands-down inheritor of Bradmans’s mantle and his team is treated by the Australian opposition with contempt.
I only hope this actually causes some self-reflection on the part of the Australians and those who cheer on their completely unsportsmanlike behaviour.
“Yep, that’s it in a nutshell. I haven’t followed the Australian cricket team for over 10 years, because even if they’ve managed for most of that time not to ‘break the rules’, their behaviour is consistently obnoxious, arrogant, culturally insensitive if not outright racist. The team has developed a taste for pyschological sadism, enjoying nothing more than completely crushing an opponent. There’s no joy in the game, no sense of respect or goodwill. Then there’s been the dodgy deals with bookies, and on it goes. … I only hope this actually causes some self-reflection on the part of the Australians and those who cheer on their completely unsportsmanlike behaviour. ]
~myriad
————–
Well, no actually. Like many of the silly articles around at the moment your comment is full of unsubstantiated twaddle. Which I guess is hardly surprising from someone who hasn’t followed the game for 10 years. I’d love to argue with you on the facts but that’s the problem with so much of the shrill nothingness flying around at the moment; you haven’t presented any.
Well, no actually. Like many of the silly articles around at the moment your comment is full of unsubstantiated twaddle. Which I guess is hardly surprising from someone who hasn’t followed the game for 10 years. I’d love to argue with you on the facts but that’s the problem with so much of the shrill nothingness flying around at the moment; you haven’t presented any.
goodness, did the acid drop get stuck half way down? What I said was that I haven’t followed – ie cheered, rooted for, barracked for – the Australian cricket team for 10 years. I go for the team they are playing against. So actually, I’ve followed the game closely, just not with green and gold blinkers on.
If you’d like to step out of the rarified atmosphere of the Channel 9 cricket commentary and into the big wide world of international cricket, you’ll find a long history of many respected commentators, players etc. being deeply disturbed and at times outright disgusted by the behaviour of the Australian cricket team. Those not so blinded by aussie-oy-oy-oy can see it clearly.
Unsportsmanlike?
Let’s see: aside from being pretty good with bats and balls, the Aussie team is arrogant, aggressive, ruthless, think winning is everything, set out to intimidate and demoralise their opponents, will bluff the umpires if they can get away with it, and there must be some suspicion that they’re culturally insensitive. Except for the cultural insensitivity, and perhaps bluffing the umps, I’ve heard all of the above praised in sports broadcasts. These things are routinely presented as completely sportsmanlike.
That raises the question of what commercial sport has become. The game’s no longer the thing. These are professionals playing for money, and the ethics of business (look after No 1) apply, not those of sport.
“If you’d like to step out of the rarified atmosphere of the Channel 9 cricket commentary and into the big wide world of international cricket, you’ll find a long history of many respected commentators, players etc. being deeply disturbed and at times outright disgusted by the behaviour of the Australian cricket team. Those not so blinded by aussie-oy-oy-oy can see it clearly.”
~Myriad
——————–
Oh I see. No need for specifics if you can find somebody that agrees with you. Sorry to be so slow on the uptake. But given that I am so slow, would you mind spelling out what Ponting has actually done wrong. You know, just to catch up with enlightened fellows like yourself.
Jenny,
you do realise that the quote I pulled is from the article and then agreed with was the one that you agreed was “easily the best article [you've] seen on the issue”? So I have to ask – did you read that article, because what it said was pretty much what I said under what I considered to be the summary paragraph, and then spelled it out from my own perspective a lot less diplomatically.
In short, you seem rather confused.
You then said
would you mind spelling out what Ponting has actually done wrong
which makes me wonder if you read the bit in my first post which said “You can look at what happened in the Second Test and conclude that Australia is being judged too harshly, and India to leniently, but most people are seeing it as the straw that broke the camel’s back.” – in other words, while the reactions to this particular test are probably overblown, it’s because it’s been a long-running issue that has built and built, not an isolated incident. The second test became a trigger.
As for what the bad behaviour was of Ponting et al in the second test, many respected Australian and overseas commentators have spelt it out in reams of text over the last few days. I see little point in repeating it, and if you can’t see it, my condolences.
No need for specifics if you can find somebody that agrees with you.
As for the above, there are literally millions of people who agree with my perception of the Australian team – including for that matter nearly all my cricket mad friends to a one. We rarely go to games where Australia plays (admittedly being in Tas limits the number), but given the choice, invariably choose to watch two other teams play. It also means you get to avoid the obnoxious behaviour of a subset of the Australian supporters as an added bonus.
Here’s one specific, Jenny:
>Former Test cricketer and current Pakistan coach Geoff Lawson says the Australian team needs to improve its onfield behaviour as the fallout continues from India’s tour.
>Lawson is returning to Pakistan to prepare his team to face Australia in March and he has told Sydney radio station 2KY he felt let down by what he saw in the second Test at the SCG.
“There’s certainly been a lot of feeling from ex-players who think the baggy green has been disrespected and some of these players need to be spoken to,” he said.
“I certainly don’t agree with dragging (Ricky) Ponting’s captaincy, I just think a little bit of counselling needs to be done.
“As an ex-Australian player I was pretty disappointed.” http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/09/2134930.htm?section=sport
“you do realise that the quote I pulled is from the article and then agreed with was the one that you agreed was “easily the best article [you’ve] seen on the issueâ€?? So I have to ask – did you read that article, because what it said was pretty much what I said”
~Myriad
———-
I was impressed with the article from the point of view of explaining the Indian perspective. And as it happens I have heard some sledges from the Waugh era that seem to be over the top. But the guy under the pump at the moment is Ricky Ponting and I am quite baffled by this. As he says he has made a conscious effort to clean up Australia’s record in this regard and the number of disciplinary referrals in recent times would tend to support this. But there’s nothing wrong with sledging anyway, unless it is malicious in intent.
—————-
“You then said: would you mind spelling out what Ponting has actually done wrong. … While the reactions to this particular test are probably overblown, it’s because it’s been a long-running issue that has built and built, not an isolated incident. The second test became a trigger. As for what the bad behaviour was of Ponting et al in the second test, many respected Australian and overseas commentators have spelt it out in reams of text over the last few days. ”
~!Myriad
—————–
In post #30 I have attempted to refute much of the accepted wisdom as to Ponting’s faults in regard to the second test. Nobody has actualy challenged me on any of my points on this one. In challengiong you for specifics I was keen to know which of my points you disagree with so that any debate could move forward rather than allowing you to get away with the generalities which have unfortunately been the substance of some of the more offensive anti-Ponting articles in the media over the last few days.
————-
“There are literally millions of people who agree with my perception of the Australian team – including for that matter nearly all my cricket mad friends to a one.”
~Myriad
————
Then you should be in a better position than most to explain what Ponting has actually done wrong. It can’t be sledging because you can’t hear what’s said on the field. It can’t be not walking because that’s common to all cricket playing nations. So what is it?
I’ve travelled in India since the mid-80s. It used to be Indians would ask you “where are you from?” and upon hearing Australia, they’d immediately smile with delight and say something like “David Boon, very fine batsman!”, and then happily discuss in great detail their enormous respect and enjoyment in watching the Australians play.
All that’s gone. I wouldn’t hesitate to say that this is in part, as Aly correctly identifies, that modern post-colonial nationalism is well on the rise in India, as it starts to flex its economic etc. muscle. But that’s certainly not the whole story, and the loss of respect for the Australian cricket team from one of the most hospitable and cricket-crazy nations on the earth began long before. Everything from Shane Warne loudly declaiming how he hated the food and brought hundreds of tins of baked beans with him to Indian tours, to the incessant sledging with more than a hint of racism, which is completely antithetical to Indian culture and sport, particularly cricket.
Then there’s the treatment of muralitharan – although probably more so by Australian fans than the players. It’s taken a long time to erode the huge good will the subcontinent felt for us as a nation and cricketers, but congrats to those who’ve worked so hard, they did it.
“Everything from Shane Warne loudly declaiming how he hated the food and brought hundreds of tins of baked beans with him to Indian tours”
~Myriad
———
Not Ponting’s fault. That’s an off-field remark from an individual player who no longer plays with the Aussies. I’d suggest that the better performances of the Aussies in their last two tours of India owes much to the wilingness of Wasugh then Ponting/Gilchrist to embrace the Indian culture and enjoy the experience. I’m not making this stuff up. Both Waugh and Ponting have waxed lyrical on the subject.
———-
“incessant sledging with more than a hint of racism, which is completely antithetical to Indian culture and sport, particularly cricket”
~Myriad
———-
Like I said, I accept that some sledging, particularly in the Waugh era, was over the top. Obviously there is still chat on the field, but there’s a system in place for reporting it and in the absence of any reports other than the petty Hogg one, I can’t see how you can condemn the Aussies for the quality of their sledging. I would struggle for common ground with you anyway, because in a variety of sports that I have played, sledging has been both common and fun. Removing sledging from the game would remove much of the pleasure from playing sport.
———–
“Then there’s the treatment of muralitharan – although probably more so by Australian fans than the players.”
~Myriad
———–
I’ve heard no sugeston ever that Murali has been treated unfairly by the Australian cricketers. In fact most fans have also been hugely supportive at games I’ve attended, with the exception of a small yobbo group. Not Ponting’s fault.
How about giving Ponting a break. He plays to win and the result is usually exciting cricket. He speaks well and in conferences/interviews he is unfailingly gracious. With the possible exception that he doesn’t enjoy having journalists suggest he is a cheat. Neither would I.
In post #30 I have attempted to refute much of the accepted wisdom as to Ponting’s faults in regard to the second test. Nobody has actualy challenged me on any of my points on this one.
While obviously only able to speak for myself, I’d say this is because most people understand that this incident is not just about Ponting’s behaviour. As for your rebuttals, I’d disagree with nearly every one. I can’t recall ever seeing another test end where the winning captain didn’t immediately shake the hand of the opponent. More particularly to this incident it was a test of Ponting’s leadership. By dathe last day he was more than aware of the poor umpiring decisions and growing bad blood between the teams – all the more reason the first thought in his head should have been to make a respectful and conciliatory gesture, because he knew as well as every other person following that Australia only won as a result of terrible umpiring. It was also his chance to make up for his poor behaviour throughout the test.
You think sledging is wonderful – I think it’s a macho pointless blight on the game that leads to only one place, and that’s abuse, bigotry, disrespect and racism – which is exactly where it’s led us.
and on we could go. You say not walking is common – I’d say that I’ve seen players from every other team walk when they know they’re out, and have watched Gilchrist get pilloried by his own team and the Ausralian cricket cheer squad in the press because he likes to adhere to the highest standard of the game and walk when he knows he’s fairly out.
etc etc etc
but the real crux is this:
In challengiong you for specifics I was keen to know which of my points you disagree with so that any debate could move forward
but it doesn’t move ‘the debate’ forward because you consistently fail to understand that the argument resulting from the second test is about much bigger issues; the test itself was symptomatic of them.
great post Shaun –
this debacle has everything and the kitchen sink – so we may as add in: Damien Martyn pushing Indian cricket chief Sharad Pawar off the podium for their ‘winners are grinners’ pic in the Champions Trophy presentation in 2006 and Ponting impatiently grabbing the trophy.
“Ponting was also criticised for appearing to gesture to Pawar to hand over the trophy and move off the stage.
Ponting, visibly impatient after the long presentation ceremony, gestured towards Pawar with his forefinger, asking him to quickly give away the trophy which Australia had won for the first time in five attempts.”
“Hopefully, we haven’t offended him too much and we’ve got to be aware of those sort of things in the future. We’ve got to show the due respect to everyone that’s around us — that’s part of representing your country.
“I’ll decide once I’ve spoken to him (Pawar) and got a bit of an idea about how he’s taken the whole thing, and not just listen to what’s been said by the Indian journalists and what a fuss they’re making of it.”
If only he’d listened to Pawar….instead of Lawsie. Oils ain’t oils, Ricky.
I also remember hearing this mother speak on radio about her young-ish son playing a game with steve waugh a few years ago, not sure what was the context – but she was appalled that he sledged her kid!
How about giving Ponting a break.
I’m Tasmanian. I’ve watched Ponting since he began as an oustandingly gifted teenager. He was a little cocky git then. Via pub brawls and other unseemly incidents he’s grown into a half-decent human being who clearly doesn’t have either the intelligence, diplomacy or maturity (take your pick) to be a good captain. As the captain he’s meant to uphold the very highest standard of behaviour, and he’s failed more than once. I really don’t owe a man paid ridiculous amounts of money to play a game & who repeatedly shows himself a poor ambassador for our country anything.
I also find it odd that your almost single-minded focus out of all this is defending Ponting. The issue is much bigger than him. No, he’s certainly not responsible for what went before, but he’s responsible now, and there’s an nigh-on overwhelming consensus that he has failed.
If it helps you at all, I don’t think he should be sacked.
Seconding myriad. It was pretty obvious that it had all gone to Ponting’s head on the last day when he and Gilly interrupted their post-match interviews to take swipes at Tony Grieg — it was a moment where they had a chance to be gratious in victory and cool some of the rising tensions and they used it to settle some piddling score.
Grow the fuck up fellas.
One things for sure – I’d advise a certain “intemperate Sikh warrior” to stay well clear of Chez Roebuck.
Suspect he’s being groomed for a jolly good spanking.
To those who say that Kumble sent Sharma out with two handed gloves, how can this be so? Kumble was on the field, batting, at the time.
Sharma came out after two wickets fell in consecutive balls. Chances are he had to get out there faster than he expected and he picked up two right gloves by mistake.
Either way, what’s timewasting compared to claiming nonexistant catches and failing to walk?
jo, there has been a story going around for a number of years regarding Steve Waugh sledging a young grade cricketer. Waugh has claimed that it never happened. The club of which the player allegedly was a member was prepared to back Waugh on this issue. I believe Paul Sheehan was responsible for spreading this story at one stage.
On the other hand, a few years ago after work one day, a friend of a friend was telling about the time he made his first grade debut some years prior. Mike Whitney was bowling and gave the new guy a terrible time with both the ball and sledges. So it does happen.
Sledging sometimes is best countered with a quick response. I forget the player (I think he was from NZ) but this chap came out to bat against Australia and Mark Waugh gave him a torrid time with the verbals. At one point Waugh commented the player was one of the worst he had ever seen or words to the effect. The plucky blokes response was “Well, at least I’m the best player in my family.”
It is hard to make sense of Bollyline. There are a multitude of strands to this saga and it is hard to disentangle them.
But I’ll try
Firstly, the umpiring in the second test was appalling. Which most probably wouldn’t have been an issue if the errors and the questionable decisions balanced themselves out. They didn’t. The errors and judgments went significantly Australia’s way. That said, it makes sense for the Umpires to be rested. In part on the final day, because the Australian team sensing blood in the indecisiveness of the umpiring went for the kill. I know that in a tight contest on the last day the fielding team can become a tad frisky and intemperate. But considering the poor decisions that had preceded the final day and the controversy that had already erupted around Singh’s alleged comments. I would have thought it was prudent for the Australians to pull their heads in rather than unleashing the hounds. I know the argument is that that is the way that sport is played at the elite level. If that is the case I don’t want a part of it.
Secondly, in relation to the Singh controversy. If he did make the comments that he is alleged to have made then unquestionably the comments were reprehensible and racist. It doesn’t matter the cultural context in which Singh made his comments any form of abuse is dependent on how it is received. The only exception is ignorance at the time of the first offence. If Singh had been made aware that his comment was considered racist and he had been asked to desist and continued with the racial abuse then he deserves to be punished – if the allegations were proven. There are a couple of issues that trouble me. Was there any provocation? Was there any independent corroboration? I don’t expect the matter to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, but even on the balance of probabilities you would expect independent evidence – and sorry I don’t accept the word of Symonds’ team mates as independent. Following on from this though I find the manner in which Ponting handled the allegations are bit hard to swallow. I don’t have an issue with him taking the matter to the Umpires clearly by the rules he had an obligation to do so. An acknowledgment of the past behaviour of Australian players, if not a degree of embarrassment, from Ponting wouldn’t have gone astray.
Thirdly, the boorish behaviour of the Australian team has for some time troubled me. Yes, I know other teams can be boors to, but that is for their nations to worry about. As an Australian I’m concerned about the way that the Australian team represents Australia. Don’t have a problem with Australia winning (OK I like them to at least draw the occasional test and for someone to provide them with some competition to keep it interesting) and don’t have a problem with Australia playing hard. Have a problem with sledging, the lack of sportsmanship (see my comments concerning Umpiring) and the lack of grace in victory that has become a hallmark of the Australian team. That said, I don’t think that Ponting should be replaced as Captain, mainly because I don’t think it would make one iota of difference to the team culture.
A little more context
Speaking for the first time since his post-Sydney Test outburst, touring captain Anil Kumble claimed a lack of foresight from Ricky Ponting was a major factor behind the crisis that could yet lead to India’s withdrawal from the tour.
As revealed yesterday, Kumble phoned Ponting after the third day of the Sydney Test, imploring his counterpart to deal with the Harbhajan Singh-Andrew Symonds matter in-house.
Ponting’s refusal frustrated Kumble, who yesterday insisted the highly public race row could have been avoided had the Australian captain exercised more discretion.
“He said the complaint had already been made,” Kumble said in Canberra after a team training session.
“I did make a request that it should be. I asked if it could be sorted out between us. He went up to the match referee.
“Having played cricket for this long, (I knew) such an allegation would definitely spiral into what it has now. I anticipated that it would spiral into a larger issue.”
He also stressed that the team would not feel vindicated until Harbhajan was cleared of the racism charge of which he was found guilty on Monday morning.
“It’s been tough … I think the entire team is together on this and really backed him. I would really like to thank the BCCI for fully backing us. We all are with Bhaji,” Kumble said.
“From what I gathered, from what I was told by my teammates — the two players on the pitch — it wasn’t said.
“I don’t know whatever people believe … he didn’t use the word which was supposedly used. We’re hopeful we will get the right decision (in the appeal).”
http://www.theage.com.au/news/cricket/indian-tour-remains-under-threat/2008/01/09/1199554741798.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
[ I can’t recall ever seeing another test end where the winning captain didn’t immediately shake the hand of the opponent.]
~Myriad
———-
You’re wrong. Half the time the match ends with the batsmen scoring the winning runs and it’s standard for the captain of the fielding side to shake hands with the winning batsmen. The other 50% is the Sydney scenario where the match ends with a wicket and I’ve never seen that happen without an immediate celebration by the fielding side. Of course in all cases the real shaking hands process is a few minutes later when the two sides file past each other shaking hands. Thus it is. Thus it always has been. And always will be.
————
[By the last day he was more than aware of the poor umpiring decisions and growing bad blood between the teams - all the more reason the first thought in his head should have been to make a respectful and conciliatory gesture, because he knew as well as every other person following that Australia only won as a result of terrible umpiring.]
~Myriad
———–
I concede that point although I’m not convinced Australia couldn’t have won without the decisions. You’re probably right but it’s in the ‘what if’ category.
———–
[You think sledging is wonderful - I think it’s a macho pointless blight on the game that leads to only one place, and that’s abuse, bigotry, disrespect and racism - which is exactly where it’s led us.]
~Myriad
———-
We’ll have to agree to disagree. I couldn’t imagine sport without sledging. It’d be nearly as empty as sport without trying to win.
———-
[ You say not walking is common - I’d say that I’ve seen players from every other team walk when they know they’re out, and have watched Gilchrist get pilloried by his own team and the Ausralian cricket cheer squad in the press because he likes to adhere to the highest standard of the game and walk when he knows he’s fairly out. ]
~Myriad
———-
Gilchrist’s walking was international news because it was unusual not just for an Australian but internationally. I think you’re getting confused with the standard (and somewhat hypocritical) practice of batsmen walking when there’s no reasonable prospect of being given not out. Personally, I’m against walking since it puts the umpire in the position of effectively calling a batsman a cheat if he gives out a known walker who hasn’t walked. After all it is entirely possible for a batsman to genuinely believe he hit the ground or the pad with his pad when he has also got a fine nick. Far better to leave the whole thing to the umpire and to be very tough on batsmen that show public dissent with the decision.
Good summary Styx.
And I still cannot see the logic or point in cracking down on one form of abuse (racial) and ignoring others that happen to be dignified with the euphemism ’sledging’.
As in I just sledged a person at the pub and got my head kicked in.
Styx wrote:
Agree. It is quite likely that the NZ High Court judge hearing the appeal will find that the evidence doesn’t support a determination one way or the other, and that therefore Procter erred in making a finding “beyond reasonably doubt”.
Another question which nobody has raised yet: could some of the emotion on the Indian side of the ledger be blowback from the disgraceful treatment of Dr. Mohammed Haneef by Australian authorities, which could hardly have inspired confidence in the depth of Australia’s commitment to justice and fair play?
Not since the neocons spead lies and half truths about WMDs have I seen so many whoppers as has been published by the Indian media.
Former Test greats such as Herb Eliot and John Bertrand have attacked present day players. Just look it up in the India media.
But strangely, I cannot find one single article during the past two Tests about poor behaviour by the Australian team. Not one peep by Roebuck. NOT UNTIL KUMBLE made that eztraordinary claim after the game. He virtually accused Ponting of cheating.
Also, Kumble was given (and accepted) the same instructions as Ponting on reporting racist slurs. So who has the integrity? Ponting was acting on strict instructions from the match referee on racist slurs.
It is nonsensical for Kumble to say Ponting should not have followed instructions on this. Kumble got the same instructions and he said nothing at the time. He never protested to Procter at the time. Ponting showed integrity which is lacking in Kumble.
What would have been said of Ponting if he left Symonds high and dry for convenience sake?
“It doesn’t matter the cultural context in which Singh made his comments any form of abuse is dependent on how it is received. The only exception is ignorance at the time of the first offence. If Singh had been made aware that his comment was considered racist and he had …”
Only prob with this argument is that if Singh was ignorant of the significance of the “monkey” sledge he was on another planet when the Australians visited India recently. If it had of been caught on a microphone goodbye Mr Singh. It was only heard by likely biased witnesses and should be struck out on that basis.
joe2 I agree. My argument was hypothetical based on the standard response to offensive and harassing behaviour in the workplace. From the media reports, if they are true Singh does have form and was advised the the term was derogatory, if that is true, and if independent evidence can be obtained then I have no problem with Singh being disciplined. My concerns are the apparent lack of independent witnesses and whether there was any provocation that might need to be considered as mitigating the punishment.
Brendan, I agree, if the report is accurate, according to the instructions given prior to the test the Captains were obliged to report any racially offensive behaviour. My concern is at the hearing stage where, if the reports are accurate, there was no independent produced. On the balance of probabilities, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt, I don’t believe a guilty finding could be sustained.
Hubris is the sin of the age and cricket is over the top with excessive appealing, incessant questioning of umpires’ decisions, and hateful sledging. There has to be a difference between swearing, swearing at another player, taunting an opposition team member, and targetted racial insults. Malevolent swearing at other players steps over the line.
Deliberate racial insults are another matter altogether. Symonds is right to be aggrieved and Harbhajan Singh must go for calling Symonds a “monkey�. “Monkey� was once widely used by white people in Southeast Asia as a derogatory term for the local people. The term is a widely-used form of racial and national abuse and it appears in insults between different religions and racial groups throughout the Middle East, South Asia and South-East Asia. Even Danish football supporters, it seems, use the term “mountain monkeys� to insult Norwegians and “monkey� has been used in a variety a racial epithets slurring African-Americans in the United States. In 2004, black English players were taunted with the monkey slur in Spain, leading Spanish soccer authorities to apologise and similar incidents have occurred in other European countries with racist fans throwing bananas at black players. This places the behaviour of sections of Indian crowds during last year’s world cup, and Singh’s insults to Symonds then and now, into its true, nasty perspective and there is no question that Harbhajan Singh should pay the price if he used the term.
So what about sportsmanship, Ponting’s captaincy and Australian behaviour?
More on this at http://jmcdonald.org/opinion/archives/16
Cheers,
Jim
Well said Jim, both here and on your link
Styx, I disagree with you about the balance of probabilities. As I understand it the balance doesn’t have to be overwhelmingly tipped in one direction. I reckon it’s at least 60:40 probable that he’s guilty as charged. But apparently the standard required was ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. The ABC commentators thought it had no chance of succeeding and I agree that it will probably be thrown out on appeal.
Tonight Ponting agreed that he and his team mates could have handled things better. It seems that there has been a reserve of goodwill amongst the players and a desire on the part of both captains to sort things out. The third decision of the ICC was to send the chief referee (I think a Sri Lankan I’d never heard of) so sit down with the two captains before the next test.
Largely I agree with Jenny’s original defence of Ponting. Criticism of him was overdone. He’s continued Steve Waugh’s tradition of playing attractive cricket and of making declarations that give the other team just a little sniff. 4.625 runs per over was not impossible and even looked a bit likely before Dravid was falsely given out. Border wouldn’t have declared unless he was 500 in front and my memory of Tubby is similar. I don’t recall adventurous declarations from Grieg, but I do remember numerous times when the English played for a draw from about lunch on the first day.
Tubby had in-groups and out-groups within the team and could never motivate the team after the series had been won. Waugh changed that and since then we seldom have a draw. Ponting seems to get even greater on-field commitment than Waugh. I get the impression the team would walk over hot coals for him.
Peter Roebuck’s column yesterday though a little pompous was spot on and brings some balance. India playing ball on Bondi Beach was not a good look and their over rate was disgraceful. On the first day in six and a half hours they managed 89 overs, 45 of them spin, from which the Australians scores 376 runs. Ponting clearly understands that cricket today is about entertainment.
Roebuck is concerned, as am I, that Tim Nielson as coach does not seem to provide the restraining influence Ponting needs. The Chappelli/Warne view that the coach is for organising the buses is perhaps coming to be. Gideon Haigh expressed a similar concern on the radio yesterday.
I hope the issue of sledging is revisited both by the Australian team introspectively and on an official level. It would be an extremely difficult area for umpires and referees to police. For example the Australian sense of humour can move seamlessly from gentle, affectionate teasing to cutting ridicule. Chappelli says that comments directed at the batman should be banned. That’s only part of the problem. I believe the Australians habitually talk about the batsman, his weaknesses and how they plan to get him out. Frankly Waugh’s notion of seeking the “mental disintegration” of the opposition is a worry. I’m not sure it’s fixable while allowing gentle sledging as Jenny would wish. Cricket seems structured to promote bullying.
I think I’m finally starting to understand the Indian position on the Harbhajan matter.
(1) He didn’t use the term ‘monkey’.
(2) Even if he did, you can’t prove it.
(3) Even if you can prove it, it was only because of Symond’s sledging.
(4) This term he didn’t use is not a racist term but is actually praising Symonds by comparing him to some Monkey God in India.
(5) In any case you’d better find him not guilty or we’re gonna take our bat and ball and go home.
Jenny, I think you are pretty close to the mark. I saw part but not all of a press conference Tendulkar gave on the day of the match. He was saying that it was a friendly remark, but didn’t actually deny that Harbhajan used the term ‘monkey’ while I was watching. Tendulkar seemed to be totally blind to the notion that a remark intended in a friendly manner could nevertheless be offensive.
The context was Symonds (unecessary to Indian eyes) intervention following Harbhajan giving Lee a pat on the backside and saying something to him as he walked back to his mark. (I think players are wise not to deliberately touch other players, especially fast bowlers, during the course of a match.)
According to an Indian report the saintly or godly Tendulkar was the one who texted the Indian authorities after the hearing telling them that Harbhajan was innocent and recommending the action that was taken. I’m not sure whether Tendulkar was one of the Indian players Ponting said he sat down with after the hearing and, he thought, dampened the whole thing down.
Brian, I agree the evidence does not need to be overwhelming, it just needs to be more likely than not.
Hypothetically, as the case seems to be have been assessed based on ‘Beyond Reasonable Doubt’, on the balance of proablilities, I’m still not entirely convinced that the case is proven. My position is based on the fact as we know it that there is no independent witness nor evidence to support that Singh said what it is alleged that he said. That said, if it is true that the Channel Nine video caught Symonds, responding to Singh, asking if what Singh said was “monkey’ that would be enough evidence for me on the balance of probabilities.
In assessing the level of punishment you would need to consider the context: Was there any provocation? Was the comment intended for Symonds (or was Singh just muttering under his breath and Symonds picked it up)? Was there prior form and had Singh been warned? I would hope that Proctor took these matters in consideration. Having said that, the media does suggest that he did but the nature of the hearing is such that we don’t know for certain.
The Indian cricketers, board and fans have made a complete mockery of themselves during this entire saga. Firstly Symonds had to put up with the blatant racist remark made by Singh during our last tour of India for the ODI series there just a few months ago. Then he had to put up with large sections of their crowds giving it to him and now he once again has to accept this from Singh. Oddly it was Sourav Ganguly who provided the truth that Singh is a known hot head. Frankly with how much I’ve seen of this character over the last deacade against all other nations, I’m surprised someone hasn’t taken a swing at him yet. He’s got form in stirring up trouble and racist trouble. With this form of course the three Australian players should be believed over the two Indians. Tendulkar and Kumble have not done themselves any favours this tour. Kumble’s comment after the Test was laughable at best considering not only the way the Indians have always played but their form in that very Test. Tendulkar might’ve not heard the monkey remark but that certainly does not mean it didn’t happen and where there is previously known smoke there is fire. His disgraceful text to the head of the BCCI in suggesting they boycott the remainder of the tour if Singh’s ban was not overturned will rightly be a mark aganst his name. Personally I’ve always considered Tendulkar to only ever be in it for himself by the way he bats much akin to a Damian Martyn or a Brad Hodge.
If Singh did not call Symonds a monkey why then did he clearly (thanks to Channel Nein) apologise to the umpires after a stern talking to and then an obvious attempted apology to Symonds which Symonds visibly refused? Also after the game why did Symonds privately seek out Singh only to have Singh aplogise to his face if what was supposed to have been said wasn’t said? It’s as clear as day that the BCCI are just trying their usual tricks. This is just a power struggle between the Indian cricket board and the ICC that has been going on for a while now. Australia’s Test team are just pawns in this feud.
The carry on by the Indian public is nothing but the usual noise. They pull this shit any opportunity they get. I’ve been reading many blogs about all this and the majority of their gripes can be viwed as “you play so aggressive, we don’t like that” and “how can the opinions of aussie players possibly be taken over that of our Little Master”. Also I saw a fair bit of “monkey is not a racist term here” stuff too. Translation: “we are sick and tired of Australia being so bloody dominant over the last decade while for at least the same amount of time our beloved heroes have been a laughing stock”. You can bet it grates that we can produce 11 players from a country of 21 million far superior to any 11 they can come up with in a country of 1.2 billion. There is also the cultural difference (intentionally used) with the Indians. Peter Lalor wrote how his son was playing in a kids game just recently against a team of kids who had a predominantly Indian background. The wicketkeeper from Lalor’s son’s team was continually trying to stump one of the indian kids while he was batting. The father of one of the indian kids then stepped in and called a holt to the game and threatened that they would walk away from the match if the keeper continued trying to stump the indian kid. In other words Indians don’t like aggressive play and thus it should be banned and described as cheating. Pure garbage and probably goes a long way to explaining why the Indian cricket team have been derided the world over for so long (excluding of course their contemptuous notion that others don’t play within the spirit of the game).
My thoughts on Ponting? He’s a tosser and a personality I rate only slightly less irritable than a Lleyton Hewitt.
Aussies youre Wrong mates!!!!
Ure team is shear display of effrontery