***Official*** India in Australia

[Captain Cricket]

Well, just like the Harbhajan racial incident it cannot be confirmed.

 

[vic_orthdox]

yeah, but wasn't it reported that Symonds DIDN'T want to complain or whatever????????

I thought that was more in the ODI series in India. But not entirely sure.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah right! Its India who needs to rectify their behaviour onfield. We saw many instances where Indian players are being fined for. Not surprsing to see Pakistan in the next spot. Its surprising to see Zimbabwe over NZ and WI

The very point is, there have been similar offences committed by Aussies that they get away scot free with and yet players from other sides get banned for the same. That is the very issue here.


That said, I don't think over the past few years at least, other teams have been any better than Australia when it comes to behaviour on the field, sledging and stuff like that....

 

[honestbharani]

I thought that was more in the ODI series in India. But not entirely sure.

This whole issue is just a real mess, with little or no truth coming out of it from either side, AFAIC.


But I don't think it is fair to blame Kumble's attempt at solving the issue as poor. To me, given the lack of incriminating evidence, Ponting should have known that pressing charges, even if his version of what happened be true, was always going to lead to pretty dire consequences and as such, he should have simply given a stern warning to Harbhajan through Kumble about uttering certain words which are unacceptable and just moved on, dropping the charges. It may not be the right thing to do morally, but practically, that would have been the best way to handle the situation... And he should have AT LEAST tried to see Kumble and India's PoV, instead of being so adamant that he and his boys are always right. Compromise is a two-way street...

 

[Craig]

It's a basic concept really. You let your mates call you whatever because theres no offence intended and it's obviously not malicious, but if someone else said the same thing then you'd have every right to get offended. I mean even on CW, two people could write the same posts about me and one I would get offended at and one I wouldn't.

I know what your saying, but to me I can't work out the logic in if somebody is a friend they can say what they like and laugh it off, but somebody who isn't and says the same thing and it is? IMO your either offended by it or your not, that is bit of a half hearted approach in that your friends can't be offensive by a non friend is? I can't work it out. It should be one way or the other for mine.

 

[pasag]

I think you will find that those statistics are fair, a offence is a offence

as for other sides being targeted well as long as it is within the rules of the game there isnt a problem at all , these are fully growen men were talking about here not 5 year olds

Well no, it seems the Hun is trying to attack India's credibility here by saying you have no right to look at our behaviour when yours is much worse, so it does matter quite a lot what types of instances stats represent.

 

[pasag]

I know what your saying, but to me I can't work out the logic in if somebody is a friend they can say what they like and laugh it off, but somebody who isn't and says the same thing and it is? IMO your either offended by it or your not, that is bit of a half hearted approach in that your friends can't be offensive by a non friend is? I can't work it out. It should be one way or the other for mine.

I call my mates ****s all the time and they call me that as well. Even people from around CW who I'm friendly on MSN, "Hey ****" will usually be the conversation starter. I don't get offended because I know it's done in an endearing or at the very least unoffensive way and is all part of the general banter. Someone outside the group has no right to use such words though.

It's not to dissimilar a concept to African Americans and the n-word, where they have no issue calling themselves that, but be a white person in Brooklyn and say it out loud, you better run fast. I'd imagine it's similar with many ethnicities and groups where it is acceptable to a person in the group to use a term but unacceptable for someone outside the group to use it.

 

[Craig]

Well no, it seems the Hun is trying to attack India's credibility here by saying you have no right to look at our behaviour when yours is much worse, so it does matter quite a lot what types of instances stats represent.

Ganguly leads bad-boy race

By Peter Badel
January 13, 2008

THEY have protested their innocence throughout the racism saga, but besieged India is the worst behaved team in world cricket - according to official ICC data.

As the tourists persist with threats to abort their tour, official ICC data shows India have faced more sanctions than any Test-playing rival over the past 10 years.

Former India captain Sourav Ganguly is the game's undisputed problem child, being hauled over the coals by the governing body a record 12 times.

Overall, India players have been charged for 43 infringements since 1997 for offences including intimidating umpires, abusing rival players, ball tampering, time wasting and dissent.

Of the touring party, five Indians have copped fines or suspensions - Ganguly, Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, Virender Sehwag and Harbhajan Singh.

The rap sheet is damning evidence the Indians are anything but choirboys as they continue to vehemently deny spinner Harbhajan is guilty of racially abusing Australia all-rounder Andrew Symonds.

Despite the raft of indiscretions, Indian cricket board vice-president Lalit Modi said the sub-continent powerhouse did not have an attitude problem.

"Sometimes you see sides carry on when the stakes are high, but we are not one of them," Modi said from India.

"I am sure there have been incidents with the Indian team in the past, but in the two years I have been on the board, I have not seen such behaviour problems with our team.

"I am not privy to the facts you have. We have not done such research, but our boys are generally well behaved.

"Most of our players are very good. In the past, there was some incidents involving Ganguly, but he has not had an issue for some time.

"If our players are fined or reprimanded, what is it for? Sometimes it can be wasting time or misconduct towards umpires. Not every offence is serious."

Analysis of the ICC's code of conduct breaches over the past decade show:

ONLY Pakistan came close to India's ill-discipline with 39 offences, led by retired batsman Inzamam-ul-Haq, who was hauled up 11 times.

DESPITE claims they have worse conduct issues than India, Australia are ranked fourth with 25 infringements. Glenn McGrath (six), Ricky Ponting (four), Adam Gilchrist (four) and Brett Lee (three) are the serial offenders.

HARBHAJAN has a history of poor conduct. The first of his five offences came in 1998, when he was fined 50 per cent of his match fee for abusing Ponting after having him stumped.

INDIA pace bowler Shanth Sreesanth is emerging as cricket's next bad boy. Ruled out of the Test series with injury, Sreesanth was charged four times in nine months between December 2006 and September 2007.

DRAVID and Tendulkar, regarded as two of the most squeaky-clean figures in world cricket, have been caught ball tampering. Tendulkar was fined 75 per cent of his match fee in 2001, while Dravid was fined 50 per cent for altering the ball's condition in a one-dayer against Zimbabwe in Brisbane in 2004.

However, the main culprit is Ganguly. The former skipper has forked out about $50,000 in fines for offences ranging from abusing players and umpires to bringing the game into disrepute for failing to control his team.

In a 15-month period between 2004 and '05, Ganguly committed a staggering five breaches - his final act was for unfair play for time wasting that saw him banned for four one-day games.

Since his return to the Test side last year, Ganguly has kept a clean slate, but he flagged India's mindset last month when he said his side would not be bullied by the home team.

"That is not a worry for us," said Ganguly following a drama-charged seven-match one-day series in India.

"What happened in India for me is in the past, but for Australia, maybe not. They will try to pressure us and they may say some things but we have many senior players who can handle that.

"Winning in Australia is always difficult, but we are confident.

"This is probably the most experienced Indian team to come to Australia in quite a while. We know what to expect from them."

West Indies great Michael Holding, who travels as a commentator, said India were not the worst-behaved team.

"I have seen a lot of all the teams and I don't find India to be the worst, not at all," he said.

"When I played against India, with their top spinners, they were quite aggressive.

"I wouldn't say they are well behaved, but they are not the worst. These days there are not too many well-behaved teams in world cricket.

"Unfortunately, the game has become win at all costs."

http://foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,23045616-23212,00.html

I think that is what aussie_26 means?

I'm not sure if you can find a list of each offence over the last ten years for example, it would be interesting reading if I or anybody else can find one.

On another note Chris Rogers has been called up as cover for Matt Hayden.

 

[Bracken]

OK, I am yet to hear any Indian say that Symonds met Harbhajan off the field and explained to him why a certain word was offensive to him or whatever. I am assuming this supposed event happened in Mumbai and not in Sydney.


But even assuming that it was true, if Symonds himself wasn't up for pressing charges, why are Ponting and Co. so adamant about pursuing it, given that there is no clear evidence as such and the fact that such an issue was always gonna snowball into something very big. At best, Ponting, to me, has shown a clear lack of a bit of common sense, and honestly, it doesn't exactly surprise me...


But one thing though, I managed to watch the clip of that news conference and while Ponting was being a bit of an idiot suggesting the reporter be removed and so on, he did seem honestly incensed at being branded a "cheat". Get the feeling that while he may be an idiot on most occassions, I don't think he is someone who will consciously claim a catch if he knows he has grassed it. The thing is, it seems to me that he is expecting his team mates to be the same and they aren't. That is why the agreement was always gonna be a stupid idea. But I do think Ponting himself, at an individual level, is a pretty honest cricketer when it comes to claiming catches and to that extent, his outburst was understandable, albeit not justifiable.

My understanding is that, according to the Australian side, the general feeling was that they should have pressed the complaint after the incident in India, but that Symonds refused as he wanted to try to deal with the issue privately with Harbhajan. After the Sydney indicent, Symonds decided that the issue needed to be formalised.

If the charge itself is hollow, as it seems to be in this case, the apology will be hollow too. Can't see why Ponting couldn't see that. If Harbhajan didn't say what he was supposed to have said, then it is clear that it was KUMBLE who was walking the extra miling by being prepared to apologize for what was basically only a misunderstanding and as such, nobody's fault. I still think Ponting has shown shocking lack of common sense on this issue...

This is the point I was clumsily trying to get at.

I agree that the facts of this case are disputed. What is not disputed is what each side BELIEVES to have happened. The Australian side is convinced that Harbhajan said what he was alleged to have said. The Indian side is convinced that the allegation is untrue.

If Ponting had gone to Kumble and said, "If Harbhajan publicly admits to have racially abused Symonds and apologises then we will drop the complaint", it would have been a solution of sorts, but it would have forced the Indian side to completely back down on their position, and basically admit that the version of the facts that they vehemently believe was a fabrication.

Obviously, this wouldn't have been even close to acceptable to the Indians, and would have been rejected out of hand- and rightly so.

Kumble's solution was the equivalent of this scenario. He was, in effect, asking Ponting to cede to an outcome that was diametrically opposed to the facts that Ponting believed to be true, and then when it was declined, insinuated that Ponting was being obstructionist for not accepting the offer as a reasonable compromise.

Kumble asked for it to be withdrawn, and Ponting declined, as each were perfectly entitled to do. For Kumble to criticise Ponting for not ceding to an obviously inequitable compromise was, while probably not entirely intentional, certainly a regrettable case of media grandstanding. I'm not condemning Kumble's character for doing so, but I would hope that in less emotional times he might look back on what he wrote and wonder if he could have said it differently.

 

[honestbharani]

My understanding is that, according to the Australian side, the general feeling was that they should have pressed the complaint after the incident in India, but that Symonds refused as he wanted to try to deal with the issue privately with Harbhajan. After the Sydney indicent, Symonds decided that the issue needed to be formalised.



This is the point I was clumsily trying to get at.

I agree that the facts of this case are disputed. What is not disputed is what each side BELIEVES to have happened. The Australian side is convinced that Harbhajan said what he was alleged to have said. The Indian side is convinced that the allegation is untrue.

If Ponting had gone to Kumble and said, "If Harbhajan publicly admits to have racially abused Symonds and apologises then we will drop the complaint", it would have been a solution of sorts, but it would have forced the Indian side to completely back down on their position, and basically admit that the version of the facts that they vehemently believe was a fabrication.

Obviously, this wouldn't have been even close to acceptable to the Indians, and would have been rejected out of hand- and rightly so.

Kumble's solution was the equivalent of this scenario. He was, in effect, asking Ponting to cede to an outcome that was diametrically opposed to the facts that Ponting believed to be true, and then when it was declined, insinuated that Ponting was being obstructionist for not accepting the offer as a reasonable compromise.

Kumble asked for it to be withdrawn, and Ponting declined, as each were perfectly entitled to do. For Kumble to criticise Ponting for not ceding to an obviously inequitable compromise was, while probably not entirely intentional, certainly a regrettable case of media grandstanding. I'm not condemning Kumble's character for doing so, but I would hope that in less emotional times he might look back on what he wrote and wonder if he could have said it differently.

I am not saying that Ponting should have backed down but at least he could have offered to talk to Kumble. I don't think Kumble is particularly mad at Ponting for NOT accepting the situation but I think (and I like to stress that it is just my point of view on this) that Kumble is only feeling bad that Ponting refused to talk this issue out, outright... Surely, he could have made an effort to understand the Indians' PoV, didn't necessarily have to agree that it is right. In effect, he could have just told Kumble what he thought was said and could have told him that right or wrong, such words won't be tolerated by our team and as such, Bhajji has to stay clear of them and so on. A strong warning of sorts. Quite honestly, I don't see how Ponting could have been hopeful of winning the case when there is no real hard evidence.... That is where my "lack of common sense in Ponting" point comes from.. Otherwise, I do agree that IF he and his team mates felt Harbhajan did use a racist word, he has to back them to the hilt. IN this case though, I do think he is squeezing it a little too far and the consequences could turn out to be the exact opposite of what he and his team would have wanted.

 

[archie mac]

I am not saying that Ponting should have backed down but at least he could have offered to talk to Kumble. I don't think Kumble is particularly mad at Ponting for NOT accepting the situation but I think (and I like to stress that it is just my point of view on this) that Kumble is only feeling bad that Ponting refused to talk this issue out, outright... Surely, he could have made an effort to understand the Indians' PoV, didn't necessarily have to agree that it is right. In effect, he could have just told Kumble what he thought was said and could have told him that right or wrong, such words won't be tolerated by our team and as such, Bhajji has to stay clear of them and so on. A strong warning of sorts. Quite honestly, I don't see how Ponting could have been hopeful of winning the case when there is no real hard evidence.... That is where my "lack of common sense in Ponting" point comes from.. Otherwise, I do agree that IF he and his team mates felt Harbhajan did use a racist word, he has to back them to the hilt. IN this case though, I do think he is squeezing it a little too far and the consequences could turn out to be the exact opposite of what he and his team would have wanted.

I think Ponting got this 100% wrong, not the way Aussies play the game, they could have handled it a lot better. Piss Poor imho

 

[pasag]

Just saw Clarke's press conference on the news, there's nothing on youtube but there's this from cricinfo (only quotes included):

"I wanted to speak to Anil before I spoke to the media on both cases - the catch and my dismissal," Clarke said. "I still, to this day, feel 100% positive that I caught the catch fairly. I told him that and said with my dismissal that it was more out of shock and disappointment more than anything else.

"Anil was very supportive and said 'mate I understand'. We've played a fair bit of cricket against each other and he knows I'm not the kind of person to try and harm the game; that's the last thing I'd want is to put the game in jeopardy."

"Huss [Michael Hussey] and Haydos [Matthew Hayden] batted fantastic in the second innings, so I sat and waited for a couple of hours dying to get out and have a bat," Clarke said.

"I was really excited to get out there and do well, with family and friends all at the game, after failing in the first innings. When I went to cut the ball and it come off my glove and went to slip it was more just the shock and disappointment of failing and getting my first first-baller in Test cricket.

"In hindsight and if I had my time again, I wish I had just walked straight off the field. I hope it doesn't happen too many times, I hope I don't get too many ducks in Test cricket, but if it happens again, I'm certain I will react differently."

 

[BoyBrumby]

If the charge itself is hollow, as it seems to be in this case, the apology will be hollow too. Can't see why Ponting couldn't see that. If Harbhajan didn't say what he was supposed to have said, then it is clear that it was KUMBLE who was walking the extra miling by being prepared to apologize for what was basically only a misunderstanding and as such, nobody's fault. I still think Ponting has shown shocking lack of common sense on this issue...

I think that's a bit of a leap, myself. I'd say there are reasonable grounds for doubt, but that isn’t quite the same as saying the charge is “hollow” or (as the BCCI did) “baseless”. I still think the balance of probability would seem to suggest he did say it. The alternatives range from the improbable (that he said something else and was misheard or that someone else (which must be Sachin) said it) to the fantastical (that Ponting is so worried about his average Australia have concocted an elaborate plot to remove his tormentor from the rest of the series).

 

[luckyeddie]

Well Australia don't play within the traditional spirits and ideals of the so called gentleman's game, but:

1) Do other sides play within the spirit of the game?
2) Has the spirit of the game always been a myth, especially when you go back to the forefather of cricket, Grace, who didn't really epitomise it at all?
3) Is there room for the spirit of the game in the age of professionalism of cricket and its multi-million dollar economy?

Regardless the most important point is to not preach one thing and do another. If we're going to be a ruthless side that wins at all cost, I don't think there should be any hiding the matter, same applies to other sides.

My argument is that sledging and abuse cannot be regulated and it cannot be quantified, because any statement that brings offence to one group of people might well be shrugged off as a joke by another.

The nonsense about whether 'monkey' is worse than 'bastard' depends upon intent and culture. Stop judging it from just your own perspective and perception of what is acceptable or not in your culture, and try to put yourself in the other guy's shoes.

Time to ban ALL sledging.

 

[Raghav]

you know why you here more about australias bad behaviour than you do about other sides? its because australia keep on winning so there is nothing else that people can bag them about, every other side basicly has a few good months than followed by a few bad months so people always have the chance to get stuck into other sides about a poor performance

I do not think we hear more about Aus than Ind. Indians are consistently being fined and I do more of them than any side. I do not know why Aus show on field aggression and get away but Indians cannot get away without being fined when they show onfield aggression

 

[pasag]

My argument is that sledging and abuse cannot be regulated and it cannot be quantified, because any statement that brings offence to one group of people might well be shrugged off as a joke by another.

The nonsense about whether 'monkey' is worse than 'bastard' depends upon intent and culture. Stop judging it from just your own perspective and perception of what is acceptable or not in your culture, and try to put yourself in the other guy's shoes.

Time to ban ALL sledging.

Banning all sledging is just a knee-jerk reaction and is a pipe dream at best and will never work. I'd much rather players being properly educated in different aspects of various cultures and their sensitivities and a crackdown on abuse with specific rules for what's acceptable and what is not.

There's no way in the world you could tell me that something as innocent as this should be banned.

 

[masterblaster]

As a Victorian Indian Supporter currently on Holiday in Perth, I'll be at the WACA cheering the Indian's on. Just got back from the Victoria vs WA Twenty20 game at the WACA and was delighted at Victoria winning it's third Twenty20 tournament. Here's hoping the Indian's put in a decent performance.

 

[BoyBrumby]

My argument is that sledging and abuse cannot be regulated and it cannot be quantified, because any statement that brings offence to one group of people might well be shrugged off as a joke by another.

The nonsense about whether 'monkey' is worse than 'bastard' depends upon intent and culture. Stop judging it from just your own perspective and perception of what is acceptable or not in your culture, and try to put yourself in the other guy's shoes.

Time to ban ALL sledging.

Not to defend one sportsman calling another a "bastard" as such, but one imagines Australian teams have used it as a term of abuse for many years & decades (in fact Raghav's sig actually has Bill Woodfull's famous question to the Aussie changing room when Jardine complained about being described as such back in 32/33) without undue censure, so India's complaint smacks of tit-for-tat.

If Indian players were really so offended by it I suspect the BCCI would have complained a while back, emboldened as they are by money & the ICC's resultant suppine position.

 

[pasag]

Richardson said it, to be pedantic

 

[luckyeddie]

Not to defend one sportsman calling another a "bastard" as such, but one imagines Australian teams have used it as a term of abuse for many years & decades (in fact Raghav's sig actually has Bill Woodfull's famous question to the Aussie changing room when Jardine complained about being described as such back in 32/33) without undue censure, so India's complaint smacks of tit-for-tat.

If Indian players were really so offended by it I suspect the BCCI would have complained a while back, emboldened as they are by money & the ICC's resultant suppine position.

I think it's quite obvious why the BCCI chose to object to Brad Hogg's colourful choice of phrase - as you said, it was a rather pathetic attempt to deflect criticism away from Harbhajan and to produce a 'tit-for-tat' situation.

Get used to it. It's the future of cricket.