[zasanya]

1)The controversy is about a)Harbhajan Singh an Indian professional cricketer being branded a racist and banned for 3 tests b)The umpires' (all 3 ) sense of fairness c)The extent of aggression/gamesmanship shown by one of the teams d)The Match Referee's interpretation of evidence and sense of fairness.
What does money have to do with these issues?Did the 'money-gang" somehow instigate all these issues?
2)I am an Indian fan.I do not see Harbhajan as Ponting's nemesis although he may have got Ponting out a few times.I do not think, it is a conspiracy against a particular individual.It is simply gamesmanship which has degenerated into what Peter Roebuck has termed"turning a team of professional cricketers into a pack of wild dogs."
3) It certainly shouldnt have happened.
4)The suspension is due to allegedly racist remarks (which only accusers heard )not because of any backside patting.BTW Dennis Lillee had kicked repeat kicked the bat wavers backside before he waved the bat.
5)Good question .I for one would believe a person who is standing near the person who is said to have made the comment.BTW Harbhajan if annoyed would use much more colourful 'Punjabi' words than monkey.
6)Why should the recordings not be available to officials?As for the definition of acceptable sledging the present definition seems to be "whatever the Austrailian team does is not sledging and whatever Indian team does may or may not be acceptable sledging depending on the ICC's mood."
7)Good questions which a certain Mike Proctor seems to have ignored.
8)Does it not show that aggression is acceptable but shouldnt go beyond a lmit?
9)When a sizable number of honest people start doubting the integrity of 'judiciary' the system is already fallen apart.Time for a revolution now?
10)Ultimately any sport will thrive if and only if there is sufficient money in it.However we are misreading the situation if we insinuate that the present situation has somehow been engineered by Indian money men.

[jikl]

Realistically, I think he said it. Realistically, I don't think he should have been banned because there were no witnesses. It is a case of "He said, she said" (not putting either of the cricketers involved as the female, it is just an expression that aptly describes this scenario) My reasoning for thinking he said it is that there was footage of him trying to apologise to a lot of people just after talking to the umpires, nothing more. He may not have said it, who knows? That is the key, noone does; he should not have been banned.

Now, in reference to the term monkey. This is far more complicated. This has come most likely from European Football (Soccer). Many African players are taunted with that in Europe and find it highly offensive, being that they are the only players of colour on the teams. Andrew Symonds is the only person of colour in the Australian team. Symonds said himself he didn't really care about what happened in India, it was mainly the media that made a big thing of it. After what happened in India recently, it was deemed this was inappropriate. "If" he said it, he deserves to be punished and banned as he was. "If" he didn't say it then Symonds should be ruled out for much longer. The fact is noone knows what was said. Some people have said when the appeal clears Harbajhan Singh (which will happen since the ICC have no balls, but I will get to that later) that he should sue for defamation. He will then be told not to pursue it since it is unwillable. There are too many hot heads thinking about money at the moment.

Some people have mentioned the money issue, as I have myself. There is a view outside of the sub-continent that it does not matter if all countries vote against something, it will come back to the money from the TV rights there. Pakistan have had an umpire sacked, now India have too. There is no way Bucknor will umpire again, but the fact is, should a team be allowed to do that?

The answer is NO.

If the West Indies asked for an umpire to be sacked would they be listened to? If England did it, doubtful. If Australia did it I think the answer would be not a chance. All of the cricket decisions are being made with consideration of the money from the TV rights in the sub-continent. Now there is a good argument that this is where the cricketer's pay is coming from worldwide, including Australia. However, do we want to see this?

The ICC was setup to be a unifying body of world cricket. In the earlier days it was considered to basically be England and Australia based. And that was the wrong way to set it up. Currently the ICC is only listening to the money. The ICC are a joke, much like the IOC (International Olympic Committee) who recently changed when swimming finals would be held to suit American television (finals are currently held in the evening but will be in the morning for Beijing despite decades of heats in the mornings and finals at night to suit American TV even though they don't really care about swimming at all unless they are winning). The MCC used to have some backbone, but not much. So then we come down to the current situation.

In the current setup, the Indian board are in control, to a lesser extent Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

As I mentioned before, if the ICC had any balls they would enforce Harbajhan Singh's suspension, but they will rollover. India will then ask for Mike Proctor to be sacked, and he probably will be. Then everything will go on as it is now. A cancer.

Let's look at what happens if they force the suspension.

India will cancel the tour, they will be fined a couple of million dollars which they will refuse to pay. Then there will be law suits from some test venues in Australia, who knows what will happen there since there are very complicated insurance issues related to loss of revenue due to unforseen circumstances which may or may not be covered. So India have refused to play, Australia already are nervous about going to Pakistan in a couple of months, would this make them more nervous? In fact they are also due to host Bangladesh shortly after the West Indies tour also this year. Would Bangladesh come if India asked them not to? Then the big one, Australia is due to tour India this year, will this happen in this scenario?

This is an ugly situation. There can be no winners.

Sure India control the money, but if they want to control the game do it the right way; not the way it is being done now.

Sean

[jikl]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/cricket/icc-...9554654297.htmlhttp://www.theage.com.au/news/cricket/lege...ge#contentSwap1

This is what I am talking about.

Should a country basically be allowed to blackmail the whole game because of a poor decision?

Sean

Edit: And Zasanya, I don't know whether you have read this one from Peter Roebuck or not, but:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/cricket/pete...ge#contentSwap1

Sean

(decided to include another article:)

http://www.theage.com.au/news/cricket/icc-...9554654297.html

[pdmunro]

I recall that when the Australians took the field on the last day, they formed a huddle on the field. When the on-field camera man tried to get in close, Ponting shooed him away. The camera guy moved far enough away so that that Ponting's words couldn't be heard, but you could see that everyone in the team huddle was listening intently to what he had to say. It was probabaly along the theme of: "Let's take one wicket at a time, make every chance count, remember we got the poms (English) out in one day, remember our plan for each batsman. Focus, focus, focus." He might have even included a typical gee-up used by every Australian captain of any sport, at all levels: "We can beat these bastards". It's not meant to be offensive, it's just what's said to focus the mind on winning the game.

Whatever Ponting said, you could see that there was fire in his eyes and the scent of blood in his nostrils. He was totally focused on winning.

We can only imagine the level of concentration that these top sportsmen are able to apply to the task of winning. I recall Keith Miller saying that Bradman wasn't like other players: "When he was at the nonstriker's end, he wasn't thinking about women like the rest of us, he was only thinking cricket."

[zasanya]

jikl, on Jan 8 2008, 09:54 PM, said:

[
This is what I am talking about.

Should a country basically be allowed to blackmail the whole game because of a poor decision?

Sean

Edit: And Zasanya, I don't know whether you have read this one from Peter Roebuck or not, but:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/cricket/pete...ge#contentSwap1

Sean

(decided to include another article:)

http://www.theage.com.au/news/cricket/icc-...9554654297.html

I respectfully point out that what you term as '1 poor umpiring decision' is actually 7 of the pooerest decisions ever seen.To make the matter worse even the third umpire gave a wrong decision!To make the matter worser the umpire asked for decision from the appealing sides captain!!
Also consider that past Indian captains Saurabh Ganguli and Rahul Dravid had shown their dissatisfaction about Mr Bucknor's decisions in 'the captains report' which is given to ICC after after a series is over.Mr Bucknor is an 'elite umpire' ,one among the 10 who are in the elite panel.To remain in the elite panel an umpire needs 94.8 % accuracy.Mr Bucknor had an accuracy % of 96 in the period 2005-2007.Doesn't This level of accuracy show Mr Bucknor to be among the best umpires ?Anser is unequivocal Yes.BUT LOOK AT HIS WRONG DECISIONS .ALMOST ALL AGAINST INDIA.Sachin was twice given out when in 90s.
So why is Nr Bucknor always officiating in matches involving India?Why not let Mr Bucknor officiate in matches involving othe countries?Why does Mr Bucknor make poor decions that almost always hurt India and very rarely other countries?
As for the remark that "ICC will rule in India's favour because it lacks balls' let me assert that when authorities accept a mistake and rectify it they are showing their strength.It takes more strength of mind to admit ones mistakes and rectify them than sticking to ones wrong decisions.
If India controls 70% of the revenue generated' it is because of honest and ardent fans of crickets who simply love the game.We acknowledge that Austrailia is the strongest team today.There are more fans of Gilchrist,Lee ,Hayden and Ponting in India than in Austrailia.The margin of defeat was far more in the last Test.Did anyone crib?Did we stop watching? Did the money -men pull any stunt then?Please ask Ponting and his men to continue their winning ways but ask them to do it in a manner befitting the gentlemen's game. Please let us have Umpires whose mistakes are statistically justfiable.So that cricket lovers like me can go on with the business of enjoying watching the game.

[jikl]

The poor decision I was talking about was the suspension, not Bucknor.

Sean

[aramesh_]

Latest jokes doing the circuit on the internet and I quote:

New additions to Webster's dictionary.

*Ponting: (n) (adj)*

1. A substance or entity or even a person of unquestionable integrity

Usage: The judge was driven towards justice because he knew that the pontiff was a ponting.


2. An act of uncivilised behaviour. [Also, pontingness (n)]

Usage : Sir Bonkers said, "Don u shouldn't try to bully me. I surely can fathom the pontingness in your eyes.


*Bucknor: (n) (adj)*

1. Temporary blindness leading to missing out on the obvious.
2. To be at the wrong place at the wrong time.
3. Situations leading to grave judgemental errors.

Usage: I feel bucknored by my boss; Life often throws a bucknor at you.

*Benson: (n) (adj)*

1. Something that legitimises a severe bucknor.

Usage: First they bucknored me and then they bensoned it! I am toast.

ara

[zasanya]

Shabaash India!!

[mr1303]

Well, following a good few years in the wilderness (really since Winter 2005) England finally look like they're getting their act together, since Kevin Pietersen became captain.

Since the team isn't drastically different from the team that looked fairly poor against New Zealand, what exactly is KP's secret?

[nickf]

mr1303, on Sep 2 2008, 04:31 PM, said:

Well, following a good few years in the wilderness (really since Winter 2005) England finally look like they're getting their act together, since Kevin Pietersen became captain.

Since the team isn't drastically different from the team that looked fairly poor against New Zealand, what exactly is KP's secret?

Getting their act together?

Please. I am not holding my breath.

nickf
sydney

[jikl]

There is quite often a honeymoon period when a change at the top happens. Let's wait and see.

Sean

[Walddk]

mr1303, on Sep 2 2008, 08:31 AM, said:

Well, following a good few years in the wilderness (really since Winter 2005) England finally look like they're getting their act together, since Kevin Pietersen became captain.

Well, before one gets carried away, one should bear in mind that KP took over before a test with no more than cosmetic relevance. It was hardly surprising that the Saffers weren't particularly motivated.

As for the one-dayers, however, I think England did a sterling job. SA were outclassed in three of the four. Nice balance of the England team, batting all the way down to 9 without losing the option of introducing a 6th and 7th bowler.

Generally speaking, let's see how good KP is when England will be touring India. A completely different kettle of fish.

Roland

[paulg]

As Nassar has noted on a few occasions this summer, the test for the one-day team will be on slower pitches.

The team has often played well in England, especially against pace attacks like South Africa, and sometimes in Australia with its harder pitches.

But when we get to the dusty pitches in India and Pakistan they can hardly hit the ball off the square ... unlike the locals.

Paul

[naresh301]

cardsharp, on Sep 4 2008, 12:27 AM, said:

As Nassar has noted on a few occasions this summer, the test for the one-day team will be on slower pitches.

The team has often played well in England, especially against pace attacks like South Africa, and sometimes in Australia with its harder pitches.

But when we get to the dusty pitches in India and Pakistan they can hardly hit the ball off the square ... unlike the locals.

Paul

Hmm.. one-day matches in India or Pakistan are NOT played on slow pitches! Let's assume you're talking about the test team.

"Dusty pitches of the subcontinent" is a myth these days. There are slow and low pitches in Sri Lanka, but pitches in India and Pakistan just don't seem to deteriorate any more (barring the odd exception). There seems to be a hangover in the English mind from the Azharuddin brown-wash days: to put things in perspective, England lost only one match out of 3 on the Indian tour of 2001, and drew the series in 2006.

In contrast, they were pretty much outplayed by India in swinging conditions in England last year.

All the best to KP. He is a charismatic cricketer, and it will be good to see him do well.

[Walddk]

Australia hammered in the 2nd Test against India, and now without a chance of winning the 3rd. They are not close to being competitive now either. The Aussies are not used to that. How do you take it down under? Perhaps it's sound to finally realise that you are not invincible.

It's a fact that you can't say goodbye to the likes of McGrath, Warne and Gilchrist without suffering the consequences, but did anyone expect it to be this bad?

I think England stand a fair chance of regaining The Ashes next summer (in Europe).

Roland

[keylime]

The 200 and the 206 not out, was pretty sweet to watch (just got hold of the tape from my friend).

[nickf]

Australia didnt prepare themselves properly for this series. If you watched day two, the only bowler they had in their squad who was turning the ball was part-timer Katich.

It's the sub-continent factor too. The pitches are prepared to suit Indian teams (not a gripe by the way).

But the contention that the English will regain the Ashes this summer - ha. Let's wait and see.

nickf
sydney

[mr1303]

Any views on this Stanford Twenty20 international? It seems that England (despite the large prize) really wish they didn't have to play and could just play a normal game of cricket.

[Walddk]

mr1303, on Oct 30 2008, 11:39 PM, said:

Any views on this Stanford Twenty20 international? It seems that England (despite the large prize) really wish they didn't have to play and could just play a normal game of cricket.

I think the amount is too large, and I don't pay any attention to what KP and others are saying about "bad pitch and lights". They would all be delighted to cash in whether they played on a belter in Delhi or in complete darkness on a beach in Antigua.

A bunch of hypocrites if you ask me.

Roland

[jikl]

What has really been exposed is that we have noone that can turn the ball. Our first choice spinner Bryce McGain plays for Cameron White for Victoria and White doesn't bowl himeslf, he gives the ball to McGain So picking White makes little sense unless trying to bolster the batting. Krejza got belted in the warmup game, something like 0/199 off 32 overs or something, but he should have been picked for this game if they were genuinely trying to win this test. Then you have some other young spinners that are nowhere near ready for test cricket, Casson, Bailey, Cullen and a few others. Personally I think Katich should put some serious work into his bowling and not open the batting, problem is we have a problem with the opening batsmen too. Langer was more of a loss than many realise until now. The other person we are forgetting about is Andrew Symonds, (out for disciplinary reasons), if he was playing, there is no way White would be.

Then we have the fast bowlers, not one of them have played a test in India before, they don't know how to bowl there.

With the batsmen, same problem, not many have played there either.

Realistically, the subcontinent is our least favourite place to play. None of our grounds are like that, even the traditional turning wicket, the SCG, doesn't break up like it used to anymore.

So we will wait and see. We don't play there very often, I don't think we have played Pakistan over there for about 7-8 years, maybe longer.

Sean