***Official*** India in Australia

[biased indian]

He should have been stood down regardless. I feel bad for a guy who obviously didn't mean to do any harm, but this is international cricket at the highest level and his performance was unacceptable.

ICC sending out mixed messages doesn't help matters much either (Bucknor will stand at Perth: ICC - January 7)

ICC showing some sense now

Bucknor Removed

senior Judge to be appointed for the appeal process

The ICC's chief match referee Ranjan Madugalle will fly to Perth to act as a mediator between Anil Kumble and Ricky Ponting
Link

 

[JBH001]

See, this is the part I take issue with. Corroborative evidence is used to convict people in cases up to and including murder. You think everyone there is telling the truth? Good Lord, no. This is only a problem if you don't assess what people are telling you.

I've said it before and maintain it because I used to do it for a job but collusion between people where they're all trying to tell a consistent lie is very difficult to achieve. A few questions out of the ordinary, in my experience, and the stories break down. To co-ordinate 5 people to tell the same lie in every detail is so unlikely as to be virtually impossible. Whether Proctor has the skills training to see this is, as pointed out by JBH100, open to question but still, it's not usually difficult to catch multiple people out in a lie.

Thats only one aspect of the whole saga that I have issues with. The other is the process as a whole - it seems to me to be completely inapplicable to the gravity of the situation and the severity of the charge. I have mentioned all this before on another thread, so I see no need (and am disinclined) to go into it all again. Once again, the process must be seen as fair (even if harbhajan is guilty) and transparent so that objections to it have little grounds. This is clearly not the case in this instance and I can therefore understand the fury and anger of the Indian team. And I would be saying exactly the same thing were the situations reversed. Its simply a matter of procedural integrity and validity. That is all.

 

[Matt79]

just recieved a mail was nice read

(1) Ricky Ponting – (THE TRULY GENUINE CRICKETER OF THE CRICKET ERA AND WHOSE INTEGRITY SHOULD NOT BE DOUBTED) should be considered as the FOURTH UMPIRE. As per the new rules, FOURTH UMPIRE decision is final and will over ride any decisions taken by any other umpires. ON-FIELD umpires can seek the assistance of RICKY PONTING even if he is not on the field. This rule is to be made, so that every team should understand the importance of the FOURTH UMPIRE.

(2) While AUSTRALIAN TEAM is bowling, If the ball flies anywhere close to the AUSTRALIAN FIELDER(WITHIN 5 metre distance), the batsman is to be considered OUT irrelevant of whether the catch was taken cleanly or grassed. Any decision for further clarification should be seeked from the FOURTH UMPIRE. This is made to ensure that the cricket is played with SPORTIVE SPIRIT by all the teams.

(3) While BATTING, AUSTRALIAN players will wait for the ON-FIELD UMPIRE decisions only (even if the catch goes to the FIFTH SLIP as the ball might not have touched the bat). Each AUSTRALIAN batsman has to be out FOUR TIMES (minimum) before he can return to the pavilion. In case of THE CRICKETER WITH INTEGRITY, this can be higher.

(4) UMPIRES should consider a huge bonus if an AUSTRALIAN player scores a century. Any wrong decisions can be ignored as they will be paid huge bonus and will receive the backing of the AUSTRALIAN team and board .

(5) All AUSTRALIAN players are eligible to keep commenting about all players on the field and the OPPONENT TEAM should never comment as they will be spoiling the spirit of the AUSTRALIAN team. Any comments made in any other language are to be considered as RACIALISM only.

(6) MATCH REFREE decisions will be taken purely on the AUSTRALIAN TEAM advices only. Player views from the other teams decisions will not be considered for hearing. MATCH REFREES are to be given huge bonus if this rule is implemented.

(7) NO VISITING TEAM should plan to win in AUSTRALIA. This is to ensure that the sportive spirit of CRICKET is maintained.

(8) THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE: If any bowler gets RICKY PONTING - "THE UNDISPUTED CRICKETER WITH INTEGTIRY IN THE GAME OF CRICKET" more than twice in a series, he will be banned for the REST OF THE SERIES. This is to ensure that the best batsman/Captain will be played to break records and create history in the game of CRICKET.

Somebody has already posted that in this thread and was pretty much derided as a troll. As I said the first time, I think its dire and immature. It would take no brains at all to do an equivalent anti-India one, "We reserve the right to call for the sacking of anyone we don't like", "The ICC must only do what India want as we've bought the game", "Our players are faultless, so any problems must be caused by the opposition team or biased officials". And such a list would be equally stupid.

 

[jpatt16]

Ripper of a game leaves sour note

The conclusion of the Sydney test has left me in a confused quandary. One part of me says the Australian's were too good over the five days, and with a bit of luck pulled off a miraculous test win. Another part of me says certain aspects of the game were not played conducive to the spirit of cricket. But the biggest part of me has left a resounding feeling of what I’d like to call realised exasperation. I am left with one conclusion- the game of international cricket is far from healthy.

I am certain now that cricket’s demise is directly related with Australia’s uncontested dominance both physically and mentally. Had India won the match, journalists the world over would quote a Mark Taylor special, in that they were “a bit unlucky with a few decisions, but still managed to play positive cricket against the World Champs.” Bravo. Game on; let’s look forward with anticipation to Perth. However that was not the case, and India has reacted with great animosity. In all honesty, I think 1% of the post match scrutiny and controversy is related to this game, and 99% is related to the merciless values of Australian cricket. I pledge for readers to consider, would this have turned out the same thirty years ago, when Australia struggled through the arduous task of winning a test series? No. Because there was different tension between the teams. Back then it was all on the ground. These days cricket is played in the grandstand, with cameras swooping like an Andrew Symonds run out. That is the stimulant for controversy. As for the umpiring, the doubtful decisions only increased disharmony threefold. It is impossible to say that years ago batsmen would have walked when they edged the ball, simply because technology could not validate our opinions. I firmly believe that umpires should make the call, as their sole judgement should maintain consistency whether good or bad. Technology can only create argument and in some cases doubt, so often the legends of the game divided over technicalities.

From here I see a few scenarios. One; Ricky Ponting and his men relax their grip on such engraved values as winning no matter what the cost. I am afraid to say though that this will only postpone the time before such controversy rears again, whilst in the mean time keeping management happy. Two; The Aussies continue as they do, dominating the game all the way to the fast approaching (sad) demise of test cricket, being so caught up in glory they lose sight of morality. This I’m afraid will be the end of cricket, having already lost its gentlemanly like qualities. Three, and this is the clincher; the other countries in the world recuperate. They come to Australia to challenge, and not be passengers. They fight when the dark is upon them, at 5:25 on the last day they put their head down and be proud to play the greatest game against the greatest team, and be successful. And that my friends will be the only way back for cricket- for the Australian way to die…

 

[aussie_26]

can someone please tell me what the australians have done thats not within the spirite of the game? I keep on hearing people go on about this win at all cost mentality but what have the aussies actualy done? its the umpires job to give the batsman out.I dont know what test matche you guys were watching but i saw Indian players stand there ground when they were clearly out

 

[jpatt16]

I completely agree with you. The problem I am addressing is much bigger. What I'm trying to say is that Aussies didn't really do anything wrong, it's just that they have been dominant for so long, other teams are fed up. Any circumstance on the field that directly relates to the Australian team gaining an advantage is now deemed as 'cheating' or 'not in the spirit of the game'. I think the Australian's play the game hard and fair. It is just that the other countries are sadenned by their own lack of competitiveness, ultimately leading to the demise of international cricket, as spectators are getting bored with the monotony of the aussies winning. In conclusion, the aussies didnt do anything wrong, and yes it is the sole responsibility of the umpire to give someone out. Consider this, thirty years ago lets say australia hadn't won a game in 4 months. They come to the SCG, play a game as we saw and defeat their opponent, for a 3-1 series LOSS. Would the same reaction be made then as it is now?

 

[Mister Wright]

This is an excellent article and well worth a read.

Ponting must accept perceptions

 

[jpatt16]

Good Find

 

[Evermind]

I completely agree with you. The problem I am addressing is much bigger. What I'm trying to say is that Aussies didn't really do anything wrong, it's just that they have been dominant for so long, other teams are fed up. Any circumstance on the field that directly relates to the Australian team gaining an advantage is now deemed as 'cheating' or 'not in the spirit of the game'. I think the Australian's play the game hard and fair. It is just that the other countries are sadenned by their lack of competitiveness, ultimately leading to the demise of international cricket, as spectators are getting bored with the monotony of the aussies winning. In conclusion, the aussies didnt do anything wrong, and yes it is the sole responsibility of the umpire to give someone out. Consider this, thirty years ago lets say australia hadn't won a game in 4 months. They come to the SCG, play a game as we saw and defeat their opponent, for a 3-1 series LOSS. Would the same reaction be made then as it is now?

I disagree.

I can find you many parallels in tennis, for example. I've been watching tennis all my life. And back in the day I used to really love watching Sampras, and the way he conducted himself. He was a winner - overwhelmingly so - and he pretty much swept the grand slams year after year. And yet no one begrudged him his success. Now, you can find a similar case with Federer. I love watching him play, and the lack of competitveness in tennis certainly isn't putting me off.

You know who I never liked? John McEnroe. He was a foul-mouthed, disagreeable boor, and the more he lost the most I cheered! Even though he was often the underdog, I never rooted for him - his behaviour was too juvenile.

I find the same problem with the Australian team. I don't care that they're successful. I enjoy watching Symonds field, I enjoy watching Lee bowl. Hell, I even like Gilchrist and Lee from the team - but generally, their conduct of the team overall as been so arrogant, boorish and dismissive that I'm getting pretty tired of seeing them get away with it. I would have no problem with their success if they were actually likeable.

It's not something only non-Aussies have talked about: even members of the Australian public and the press have had many things to say about it. If you don't want to admit it, that's one thing, but there's most definitely a problem there, and the sooner they address it and stop acting like they often go far out of "hard and fair", the sooner they'll have people cheering their successes.

 

[social]

I disagree.

I can find you many parallels in tennis, for example. I've been watching tennis all my life. And back in the day I used to really love watching Sampras, and the way he conducted himself. He was a winner - overwhelmingly so - and he pretty much swept the grand slams year after year. And yet no one begrudged him his success. Now, you can find a similar case with Federer. I love watching him play, and the lack of competitveness in tennis certainly isn't putting me off.

You know who I never liked? John McEnroe. He was a foul-mouthed, disagreeable boor, and the more he lost the most I cheered! Even though he was often the underdog, I never rooted for him - his behaviour was too juvenile.

I find the same problem with the Australian team. I don't care that they're successful. I enjoy watching Symonds field, I enjoy watching Lee bowl. Hell, I even like Gilchrist and Lee from the team - but generally, their conduct of the team overall as been so arrogant, boorish and dismissive that I'm getting pretty tired of seeing them get away with it. I would have no problem with their success if they were actually likeable.

It's not something only non-Aussies have talked about: even members of the Australian public and the press have had many things to say about it. If you don't want to admit it, that's one thing, but there's most definitely a problem there, and the sooner they address it and stop acting like they often go far out of "hard and fair", the sooner they'll have people cheering their successes.

Wont happen - people begrudge them their success

Quite simply, there would not be this controversy if India had won or if Australia had agreed to sweep Harby's comments under the mat like they did in India

 

[jpatt16]

I see what your saying. There is one major difference here though between tennis and cricket, one is a team sport the other is not. Federer and Sampras are both incredibly skillful players and wonderful people off the court. Their drive to win is second to none, however, they are not tarnished by people around them. Adam Gilchrist in his own right is a fantastic player, but in these instances he is not tagged as an individual, he is tagged as part of the team. The Australian's "arrogant, boorish and dismissive" behaviour stems from a long line of cultural acceptances being in a team situation. I can guarantee there wouldn't be an ounce of controversy had A. Gilchrist been the eleven players in the australian cricket team. This mentality of winning at all costs in a demeaning fashion simply reflects on the fact the team not only wants to win, they want to smash the opposition into a non contest, a value that is only brought upon by a 'mob' (team) mentality. I think that is the origin of their whinging and arrogant nature.

lol Makes for interesting cricket and even more interesting controversy, the public seems divided on this one. I'm sort of stranded. I'll see what happens throughout hte series, if it goes ahead before I make a judgement.

 

[Craig]

I had to laugh at some Indian fans who had a donkey with the sign under it "I'm Steev Bucknor", they bag out a guy who I bet couldn't do a better job or get his name right. What this shows is that eight umpires is not enough, and of course I think the umpires get fatigued by all the travelling, it does have a toll eventually, physically as well as mentally.

I hope they (ICC) call the BCCI's bluff and don't overturn Harbhajan's ban, because if they do, it'll show it really runs world cricket.

 

[Stu274]

I keep hearing the words "so arrogant, boorish and dismissive" but I dont really understand why people think that? Is it because the Aussie team goes out expecting to win each game? I am really interested to understand this especially if people do believe this as all I see is a team doing their best to win, in recent years Ive seen no real issues with the way they go about it. If you dont expect to win a game you go to play in my view you have half lost it already.

 

[jpatt16]

The conclusion of the Sydney test has left me in a confused quandary. One part of me says the Australian's were too good over the five days, and with a bit of luck pulled off a miraculous test win. Another part of me says certain aspects of the game were not played conducive to the spirit of cricket. But the biggest part of me has left a resounding feeling of what I’d like to call realised exasperation. I am left with one conclusion- the game of international cricket is far from healthy.

I am certain now that cricket’s demise is directly related with Australia’s uncontested dominance both physically and mentally. Had India won the match, journalists the world over would quote a Mark Taylor special, in that they were “a bit unlucky with a few decisions, but still managed to play positive cricket against the World Champs.” Bravo. Game on; let’s look forward with anticipation to Perth. However that was not the case, and India has reacted with great animosity. In all honesty, I think 1% of the post match scrutiny and controversy is related to this game, and 99% is related to the merciless values of Australian cricket. I pledge for readers to consider, would this have turned out the same thirty years ago, when Australia struggled through the arduous task of winning a test series? No. Because there was different tension between the teams. Back then it was all on the ground. These days cricket is played in the grandstand, with cameras swooping like an Andrew Symonds run out. That is the stimulant for controversy. As for the umpiring, the doubtful decisions only increased disharmony threefold. It is impossible to say that years ago batsmen would have walked when they edged the ball, simply because technology could not validate our opinions. I firmly believe that umpires should make the call, as their sole judgement should maintain consistency whether good or bad. Technology can only create argument and in some cases doubt, so often the legends of the game divided over technicalities.

From here I see a few scenarios. One; Ricky Ponting and his men relax their grip on such engraved values as winning no matter what the cost. I am afraid to say though that this will only postpone the time before such controversy rears again, whilst in the mean time keeping management happy. Two; The Aussies continue as they do, dominating the game all the way to the fast approaching (sad) demise of test cricket, being so caught up in glory they lose sight of morality. This I’m afraid will be the end of cricket, having already lost its gentlemanly like qualities. Three, and this is the clincher; the other countries in the world recuperate. They come to Australia to challenge, and not be passengers. They fight when the dark is upon them, at 5:25 on the last day they put their head down and be proud to play the greatest game against the greatest team, and be successful. And that my friends will be the only way back for cricket- for the Australian way to die…

 

[social]

Another cop-out from the ICC

http://content-gulf.cricinfo.com/ausvind/content/current/story/329743.html

Is it any wonders that teams behave so disgracefully when they are guaranteed to get their own way if they make enough noise

 

[Matt79]

Another cop-out from the ICC

http://content-gulf.cricinfo.com/ausvind/content/current/story/329743.html

Is it any wonders that teams behave so disgracefully when they are guaranteed to get their own way if they make enough noise

Disagree, Bucknor had to go. As the last day of the SCG test showed, he has no credibility left with the players and him standing in the Perth test would guarantee further problems. Tough for Bucknor, but the game is bigger than the man, especially as he didn't meet the required standards of performance. We all have to live with the consequences of our performance, and he was terrible in the Sydney test.

The real test for the ICC will be how they handle the Harbhajhan appeal.

 

[biased indian]

Another cop-out from the ICC

http://content-gulf.cricinfo.com/ausvind/content/current/story/329743.html

Is it any wonders that teams behave so disgracefully when they are guaranteed to get their own way if they make enough noise

and one team always get away with out ever needing to make any voice

 

[social]

Disagree, Bucknor had to go. As the last day of the SCG test showed, he has no credibility left with the players and him standing in the Perth test would guarantee further problems. Tough for Bucknor, but the game is bigger than the man, especially as he didn't meet the required standards of performance. We all have to live with the consequences of our performance, and he was terrible in the Sydney test.

The real test for the ICC will be how they handle the Harbhajhan appeal.

I agree that Bucknor had to go BUT the ICC had already issued a statement claiming that it would not be swayed by the BCCI's submission and, as such, Bucknor would umpire

Unfortunately, it now looks as though they're nothing more than the BCCI's lap-dog - which, of course, they are

 

[Matt79]

and one team always get away with out ever needing to make any voice

ah, I was wondering why Warne got banned for a year for his drugs, Lehmann got banned for his racist comment, and Ponting has been fined twice in the past couple of years for dissent. Now of course I understand, its because we get away with everything...

 

[Matt79]

I agree that Bucknor had to go BUT the ICC had already issued a statement claiming that it would not be swayed by the BCCI's submission and, as such, Bucknor would umpire

Unfortunately, it now looks as though they're nothing more than the BCCI's lap-dog - which, of course, they are

I think your exaggerating tbh. It was obviously a necessary step, and its better than derailing any chance to resolve this sensibly just to prove a point about how tough they are.