Sunil blasts the Australians

[Richard]

How is that same as abusing a player from another team ? Dunedin was blatant act of cheating by the umpire and with no accountability. Holding's was clearly an act of frustration, whereas Aussie abuse is deliberate. But knowing you, I am not surprised that you draw a parellel between the two.

Quite aside from the fact that it cannot conclusively be said to be blatant cheating (such accusations are commonplace and infinately more often than not they're just bitterness on the part of those on the receiving-end), even if they overheard the Umpires admitting such a thing there's still no excuse for the acts of Holding, Croft and the rest on that tour. None at all. They could have registered their understandible displeasure in other ways.

Both these (the New Zealand incident, the "intimidatory" bowling which happened more than once, Sabina Park and Old Trafford 1976 are just the most extreme examples) and the poor behaviour of the Australians of times are acts of disgraceful behaviour - they are things which do more harm than good to the game of cricket, and which cricket would be better off without.

Gavaskar is wrong to paint the West Indian teams of the 70s and 80s in such a saintly light. Their crimes are not exactly the same as those of the Australians, but they're still a blight on the game.

 

[Sanz]

Quite aside from the fact that it cannot conclusively be said to be blatant cheating (such accusations are commonplace and infinately more often than not they're just bitterness on the part of those on the receiving-end), even if they overheard the Umpires admitting such a thing there's still no excuse for the acts of Holding, Croft and the rest on that tour. None at all. They could have registered their understandible displeasure in other ways.

It's not an accusation i am making, it has been in the tour diary. They sure should have done better than kicking the stumps. It still cant be compared to a deliberate verbal abuse by almost an entire generation of aussie cricket team .

Both these (the New Zealand incident, the "intimidatory" bowling which happened more than once, Sabina Park and Old Trafford 1976 are just the most extreme examples) and the poor behaviour of the Australians of times are acts of disgraceful behaviour - they are things which do more harm than good to the game of cricket, and which cricket would be better off without.

I dont think of the intimidatory bowling as a disgrace, every team which has had fast bowlers who could do that has done that.

Gavaskar is wrong to paint the West Indian teams of the 70s and 80s in such a saintly light. Their crimes are not exactly the same as those of the Australians, but they're still a blight on the game.

Didn't Gavaskar say :- " WI were feared by the ferocity of their attack and the aggression of their batsmen " I dont see him paining the WI in any saintly light as far as bowling/batting is concerned. WI didn't believe in mental disintegration, aussie team did.

 

[Richard]

It's not an accusation i am making, it has been in the tour diary. They sure should have done better than kicking the stumps. It still cant be compared to a deliberate verbal abuse by almost an entire generation of aussie cricket team .

"It's been in the tour diary"? WTF? No-one has ever proven conclusively that the Umpiring was deliberately biased - there are those to this day who claim it was mere incompetence. That it was bias can only ever be conjecture.

I dont think of the intimidatory bowling as a disgrace, every team which has had fast bowlers who could do that has done that.

Except that few if any have ever done it to the level of Sabina Park and Old Trafford 1976.

Didn't Gavaskar say :- " WI were feared by the ferocity of their attack and the aggression of their batsmen " I dont see him paining the WI in any saintly light as far as bowling/batting is concerned. WI didn't believe in mental disintegration, aussie team did.

No, they believed in physical disintegration, which is far worse...

This is purely on the presumption that mental disintegration is wrong. It's wrong only if taken too far. Australia (and others) have of times taken it too far and they should be castigated for that. Equally, West Indies sometimes went to far and to suggest they didn't while the Australians did is laughable.

 

[haroon510]

i personally don't see the difference between sunil's critisizing Aussies and Allen Border's critisizing shoaib akhter and asif. it is a hot issue here. maybe sunil wrote this becuase of Jealousy but allen border's comments on shoaib akhter and asif is no different than sunil. i personally don't like sunil for some of his comments in recent times. he was a great batsman but horrible commentator and also his comments about WI is outrageous. however, considering the behaviers of Aussie players in recent years, one has to say that some of them lack sportmanship. i mean cmon players like lara, sechan, dravid, pollock and so on who are by far better than hayden and symonds and some other Aussie players right now, none of these great players have commented on drug and doping case of shoaib and asif becuase they simply have maners and sportmanship. they are profisional Athletes but we see hayden and symonds insulting asif and shoaib. maybe there is jealousy or... whatever. but i think it is lack of sportmanship and being profisional.

 

[Smudge]

No they are not. Dunedin was a blatant act of denying a bowler wickets after wickets only because the umpire was heavily biased in favor of the home team. Many of us probably would have done the same.

I'm glad I've never played cricket against you.

 

[Sanz]

"It's been in the tour diary"? WTF? No-one has ever proven conclusively that the Umpiring was deliberately biased - there are those to this day who claim it was mere incompetence. That it was bias can only ever be conjecture.

What I meant was that - I didn't make up that 'Accusation'. this 'Accusation' has been there in the tour archives. And one doesn't much proof when that umpring is deliberately biased. There was a reason why Neutral umpires are being appointed, that is proof enough that umpires were heavily biased in favor of home teams.

Except that few if any have ever done it to the level of Sabina Park and Old Trafford 1976.

Doesn't matter.

No, they believed in physical disintegration, which is far worse...

This is purely on the presumption that mental disintegration is wrong. It's wrong only if taken too far. Australia (and others) have of times taken it too far and they should be castigated for that. Equally, West Indies sometimes went to far and to suggest they didn't while the Australians did is laughable.

Physical disintegration is part of the game..else they would be playing with rubber balls and bowling under-arm.

 

[Sanz]

I'm glad I've never played cricket against you.

I didn't say I would have done it. I have never had any argument with any umpire in my life, which is kind of surprising even for me and knowing my personality.

 

[archie mac]

I
If I'm not mistaken, it was Brett Lee who started the trend of needlessly throwing the ball at the batsman's stumps to make sure he's in his crease - Shane Warne also did it occasionally, which to my mind is just not on.
.

Tbf this has been happening as long as I can remember, in fact Bradman warned the South African captain to tell his players to stop this in the 1930s. Bradman said 'just remember I can throw a lot harder then your lot'

 

[archie mac]

Please correct me If I am wrong, Here is what Sunny Says :-

1. WI were Popular Winners unlike the Aussies - (IMO TRUE)

I think this is also a time thing, and in 30 years the Aussie team will be remembered much more fondly

2. WI were feared by the ferocity of their attack and the aggression of their batsmen (IMO TRUE)

they did their fare share of chat, see McDermott comment, and Greenidge also asked Lawson out the back of the SCG

3. At the end of the Day they were not only admired but also liked ( IMO TRUE)

I think most of the players like the Aussies, they seem to socialise off the field quite often.

4.WI went about their jobs in a no fuss manner and hardly had anything to say to the opponents unlike the aussies who are almost always abusive and hardly humorous. (TRUE)

Always is an overstatement, and four fast bowlers trying to hit you is hardly humorous, read about Holding bowling to Brian Close for a taste of no fuss manner.

And I didn't have to read Sunny's analysis to know any of that. I watched a lot INDIA-WI cricket in 80s to know that there really is no comparison in this regard. WI of 80s are much more popular an d admired globally than this Aussie team can ever be.

And tbh I don't think the Aussies could care less, we call it the tall poppy syndrome

 

[archie mac]

there is nothing racist or abusive here, it is an observation of mostly fact and regarding the beamer, it is an observation which is very likely true...
.

Just thought I would put the whole quote in, to get some context

 

[archie mac]

Just too add, I think Sunny one of the greatest opening batsman in history, and I do agree the Aussies sometimes go over the top with regards umpires

Four posts in a row, feel like I am talking to myself

 

[R_D]

It depends. The situations such as that Sabina Park game, Old Trafford later that year, and Dunedin 1979\80 are about as low as you can sink on the field as far as I'm concerned.

Australia have been poor, too, but just because Gavaskar never had any problem with Holding, Richards et al (Tendulkar never had any problem with Warne, either - wonder what the similarity there is...) doesn't mean no-one did.

Do you think some of the biased umpiring that was shown in ENg might have somthing to do with WI's behaviour and also i wouldn't say Eng was the firnedliest of places for black folks back than.
Eng generally was a pretty racist society.

 

[social]

The 3 worst behaved teams in international cricket are:

1. South Africa

2. Pakistan

3. India - if for no other reason than Sreesanth is such a complete ****

The two series in South Africa this year between these 3 countries produced some of the worst behaviour seen in years.


As for Gavaskar's comments re the West Indies - crap

They were well known for racial slurs and Michael Holding has admitted as much

 

[Salamuddin]

The 3 worst behaved teams in international cricket are:

1. South Africa

2. Pakistan

3. India - if for no other reason than Sreesanth is such a complete ****

The two series in South Africa this year between these 3 countries produced some of the worst behaviour seen in years.


As for Gavaskar's comments re the West Indies - crap

They were well known for racial slurs and Michael Holding has admitted as much

So India are terribly behaved because Sreesanth is an in-your-face character.

Right. That makes a lot of sense

 

[R_D]

The 3 worst behaved teams in international cricket are:

1. South Africa

2. Pakistan

3. India - if for no other reason than Sreesanth is such a complete ****

The two series in South Africa this year between these 3 countries produced some of the worst behaviour seen in years.


As for Gavaskar's comments re the West Indies - crap

They were well known for racial slurs and Michael Holding has admitted as much

IF those comments had come from anyone else but you we might've taken them
seriously.
The way you go on sometimes makes me think Scaly_pasculine isn't that much of a tool.

 

[Craig]

I voted no. In general, the Aussie side are a fairly decent bunch, I suppose. They are, however, guilty of overstepping the line on occasion.

If I'm not mistaken, it was Brett Lee who started the trend of needlessly throwing the ball at the batsman's stumps to make sure he's in his crease - Shane Warne also did it occasionally, which to my mind is just not on.

For a fast bowler to do that could reasonably be interpreted as an attempt to intimidate the batsman, similar to a barrage of short deliveries - for a spinner, however, it simply becomes an attempt to hit someone with a cricket ball.

I don't know why the batsman just doesn't hit it instead of running away. If he is going to be stupid enough to throw it back then the batsman has every right to hit to the outfield.

 

[Craig]

How many teams keep yelling at umpires till they give the right decision? How many teams publicly remonstrate an umpire in the middle of the field for not giving the decision in their favour? How many captains have said demeaning things to an umpire on the cricket field? How many teams appeal for a hit wicket when one of their own players throws a bail off the batsman's stumps? How many teams indulge in personal sledging on the cricket field at every given opportunity?



Look, I have had the opportunity to meet a lot of these Australian players in person and some of them are really really nice guys, some of the best blokes one can meet. Very down to earth for famous sportspersons. But somehow a lot of them just seem to think thatin the field, they can do whatever they want to do and get away with it.


And as far as Windies not being saintly when compared to this Australian side, I reckon the way the rest of the world talked about them then (and even now for that matter) shows it all. I am not sure if you will find too many kind words towards this Australian bunch. And its not like that West Indies side lacked aggression in the field. There is a difference between playing aggressively and just being spoilt brats on the field. And Australia have been on the other side far too many times. On the one hand you have nice blokes like Gilly, Martyn (perhaps Langer) etc. (Brett Lee against most sides is rather nice, but isn't the same against England or New Zealand for some reason). So many past players wont rave about the 80s Windies side this much if they weren't pretty nice guys. I guess the fact that they didn't shoot out too many personal insults on the field helped them get this reputation.

Didn't Malcolm Marshall threaten to kill David Boon if he didn't get out?

 

[Craig]

No they are not. Dunedin was a blatant act of denying a bowler wickets after wickets only because the umpire was heavily biased in favor of the home team. Many of us probably would have done the same. And I still dont know what was so wrong @ Sabina Park ?

They weren't the only one's who gave home-town decisons. If you read Sir Garry Sobers autobiography (I'm sure you have) you will remember the bit about on his first tour of Pakistan and how he kept getting wrong calls against him because they didn't want to get a ton. One player even bragged about it. Not to forget the 2001 Test at Kolkata, there were some dodgy calls against the Australian players.

I know you probably don't intend to, but that is how it comes across.

 

[Salamuddin]

FWIW, i've never understood this attitude of Team X is so much better behaved than Team Y.

Every team indulges in sledging, gamesmanship....whatever you may call it. The Windies of the 80's did it, the Aussies do it now, teh Indians and Pakistanis do it etc.
I'm of the view that you've got to accept that....it's part and parcel of the game and if you dish it out, you've got to be prepared to accept it in return.

As long as it doesn't step out of the bounds of decency (and descends into racial, ***ual abuse etc - and I do think the umpires/referees have a role here), I have no problem.

 

[adharcric]

The 3 worst behaved teams in international cricket are:

1. South Africa

2. Pakistan

3. India - if for no other reason than Sreesanth is such a complete ****

The two series in South Africa this year between these 3 countries produced some of the worst behaviour seen in years.


As for Gavaskar's comments re the West Indies - crap

They were well known for racial slurs and Michael Holding has admitted as much

Worst post I've seen in a while.