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.

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 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.

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.

Deliberate racial insults are another matter altogether. Symonds is right to be aggrieved and Harbhajan Singh must go for calling Symonds a “monkeyâ€?. “Monkeyâ€? 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 monkeysâ€? to insult Norwegians and “monkeyâ€? 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

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.