Symonds sent home

[Burgey]

Yep. You can't use the excuse that calling someone "monkey" isn't offensive where you're from, then expect some form of respect for your cultural sensitivities when you travel when you know from the previous matches between the two sides how your opponents feel about it. If you're an international sportsman then sorry, I'd hope you're sufficeintly aware of things not to go there.

It can happen easily enough in the abstract, but really if you're travelling around the world you're entitled to do better and know better. As an example, until I started posting here, I had no idea the term "****" was so offensive. I've heard it used before, but tbh I hadn't thought of it as a terrible slur until I was told about it. Certainly glad I never travelled and used the term.

Edit: and I've just found out the term which refers to people from a neighbouring country of India has been filtered. Fair 'nuff too, but it kind of makes my post (even more) hard to understand .

 

[duffer]

Yep. You can't use the excuse that calling someone "monkey" isn't offensive where you're from, then expect some form of respect for your cultural sensitivities when you travel when you know from the previous matches between the two sides how your opponents feel about it. If you're an international sportsman then sorry, I'd hope you're sufficeintly aware of things not to go there.

It can happen easily enough in the abstract, but really if you're travelling around the world you're entitled to do better and know better. As an example, until I started posting here, I had no idea the term "****" was so offensive. I've heard it used before, but tbh I hadn't thought of it as a terrible slur until I was told about it. Certainly glad I never travelled and used the term.

Edit: and I've just found out the term which refers to people from a neighbouring country of India has been filtered. Fair 'nuff too, but it kind of makes my post (even more) hard to understand .

All well and good but I somehow doubt Bhajji has taken any cultural sensitivity classes growing up how he did. And not all people who travel are enlightened people either.

 

[Burgey]

No, but he had the benefit of seeing the reaction to it 4 months before he came to Australia, is what I meant.

 

[pup11]

All well and good but I somehow doubt Bhajji has taken any cultural sensitivity classes growing up how he did. And not all people who travel are enlightened people either.

Richest cricket board in the world can surely shell out a few bucks and educate their players regarding all such sensitive issues, don't you think?

 

[Precambrian]

As a consensus, all countries can agree on banning sledging altogether. None of the subcontinental teams naturally indulge in it. And when they do it, it's so artificial and wannabe like Sreesanth that it's plain irritating. So it should be done away with from international scene in my opinion.

 

[duffer]

No, but he had the benefit of seeing the reaction to it 4 months before he came to Australia, is what I meant.

That's true and would definitely be an indictment on him IF he used it a second time. That's my sticking point with regards to condemning the guy, because I find the other explanation (ie calling Symonds a mofo) very plausible.

 

[Burgey]

As a consensus, all countries can agree on banning sledging altogether. None of the subcontinental teams naturally indulge in it. And when they do it, it's so artificial and wannabe like Sreesanth that it's plain irritating. So it should be done away with from international scene in my opinion.

Haven't seen any tapes of Javed Miandad then?

I think these days they all give as good as they get, but if they banned sledging (provided you got a decent definition of it) so be it. Provided you don't get someone saying good morning to a bloke as he takes guard, then he turns around and reports the bloke for allegedly trying to distract him.

 

[duffer]

Richest cricket board in the world can surely shell out a few bucks and educate their players regarding all such sensitive issues, don't you think?

That's not what they're about(ie it won't make them any money) and I'm not sure they have any major obligation to do so.

 

[Burgey]

That's true and would definitely be an indictment on him IF he used it a second time. That's my sticking point with regards to condemning the guy, because I find the other explanation (ie calling Symonds a mofo) very plausible.

And TBF, lots of us may have muttered that about Symonds in the last couple of years . I suspect from reading his 2005 diary, that Ponting might even have used similar words to him when he turned up drunk that time.

 

[pup11]

As a consensus, all countries can agree on banning sledging altogether. None of the subcontinental teams naturally indulge in it. And when they do it, it's so artificial and wannabe like Sreesanth that it's plain irritating. So it should be done away with from international scene in my opinion.

That's the biggest myth my friend, there is no team in the world that doesn't sledge now and again, and to say subcontinental sides are angelic is hypocritical, just because they say most of the things in their native tongue they don't get into trouble.

 

[pup11]

That's not what they're about(ie it won't make them any money) and I'm not sure they have any major obligation to do so.

Yeah that pretty much sums up the BCCI perfectly.

 

[Precambrian]

Richest cricket board in the world can surely shell out a few bucks and educate their players regarding all such sensitive issues, don't you think?

You do have a point there. Many companies in India conduct 'etiquette' training for their employees before sending them abroad on even short term assignments. While i won't say BCCI should hire a tutor to teach the players, surely an understanding should be reached with the opposite board as to what are generally considered 'offensive' and unacceptable. A sort of a mutual agreement. I think Cricket Australia, (they are leaders in these matters) have taken initiative in this regard.

 

[Top_Cat]

As a consensus, all countries can agree on banning sledging altogether. None of the subcontinental teams naturally indulge in it. And when they do it, it's so artificial and wannabe like Sreesanth that it's plain irritating. So it should be done away with from international scene in my opinion.

The Aussies' sledging is just as juvenile and laughable. It seems to be because it's interspersed with a few swear words that people take it seriously. Guys like Lara and Tendulkar laugh it off and get on with scoring runs so they stopped being targeted.

 

[Top_Cat]

You do have a point there. Many companies in India conduct 'etiquette' training for their employees before sending them abroad on even short term assignments. While i won't say BCCI should hire a tutor to teach the players, surely an understanding should be reached with the opposite board as to what are generally considered 'offensive' and unacceptable. A sort of a mutual agreement. I think Cricket Australia, (they are leaders in these matters) have taken initiative in this regard.

Yeah exactly the BCCI should be no different to anyone. Any company of any sort which wants to do serious business in other countries engages in cultural awareness training of some sort. Why should the BCCI be any different?

 

[Precambrian]

That's the biggest myth my friend, there is no team in the world that doesn't sledge now and again, and to say subcontinental sides are angelic is hypocritical, just because they say most of the things in their native tongue they don't get into trouble.

I did'nt say they are angels. And neither sledging makes automatically one devil, it can make the game interesting also in some manner.

1. Sledging is built into the cricketing culture of Australia, even U-15 competitions are fought so hard, it's actually a by product of the extreme levels of competitive spirit there. However in India, try sledging in a U-15 game, and next thing, you get rebuked by your own coach, because it's jus not there in Indian sports culture. Please note am not judging one is bad and another is good. It's jus that two cultures are different.

2. That's precisely why cricketers like Bhajji, Sree etc go over the top when they are provoked. Because they are never used to getting sledged, and when they hear such things, they react too much. In Sree's case, it's pretentious, he doesn't want to show the world he is a cry baby, and tries too hard by gimmicks to 'match' the Australians' sledging and aggressiveness. The result? Comical failure. And he did become literally a cry baby at the IPL.

 

[shankar]

Well Symonds may have said he wasn't ultra offended by it but the word when aimed at a black person, in most countries, fails the ordinary person test. I definitely saw that and can't believe Hansen went that way.

A judge out of touch with the modern world; such a shock.

I think it's quite obvious that Hansen was not making a judgement on whether the act of using the word 'monkey' in isolation was offensive or not. He was looking at it in the context of the previous interaction bet. Symonds and Harbhajan in India. They had earlier reached an agreement that Harbhajan wouldn't use the offensive word and Symonds wouldn't abuse him on the field. It was in the context of this and the fact that Symonds breached the agreement first that I think Hansen made his judgement.

 

[BoyBrumby]

The articles have been atrocious, defamatory even and quite amateurishly-written. Real hysterical tabloid stuff with high-school sophistication, the one by Alex Brown a bit of an exception. They're in a rush to jump all over him and, justified by his actions/words or not, I wonder why they haven't been quite as eager to stick the boot in others who have behaved at least as poorly as Symonds in the past. It's an indictment on these clowns that even blokes like Roebuck, Mike Coward or Craddock haven't gone after Symonds; it's too low-brow even for them and, as a former player at a high level (which none of them are) who had a dificult reputation himself, Roebuck would surely have a more significant insight into the situation.

Yet, not a peep from him. Why? It's gutter journalism and he would be smart enough to know Conn, Dorries, Pierik, etc. will burn a lot of bridges with both the team and their members.

Well-known Aussie-basher Gideon Haigh enters the debate (from The Guardian):

Surly Symonds the one that got away

Officially Andrew Symonds is to do a month's penance for going fishing instead of attending a team meeting ahead of Australia's three perfunctory one-day internationals against Bangladesh. Truth is that Symonds, a super cricketer, is also a surly boor, who has finally even alienated forbearing colleagues.

Thus have been revealed the true colours of antagonists at the centre of the on-field incident eight months ago that threatened to split the cricket world, the men with whom administrators stood shoulder-to-shoulder in the conviction that they could not possibly be at fault: first Harbhajan Singh, a juvenile smart-arse, was suspended during the IPL for slapping similarly excitable countryman Shantakumaran Sreesanth; now Symonds, an arrogant bonehead, has been invited to reflect on his insouciance. One wonders whether events might have played out differently had the ICC referee Mike Procter done his job in January and simply suspended both players for their contrived and unnecessary altercation, instead of allowing so much racial hay to be made. Instead, it has been disrespect to team-mates that has finally undone both men. That, at least, remains a taboo - maybe, in cricket, the last remaining.

Now if Haigh, the best current cricketing writer for my money & at worst a bloke who knows his onions, is laying on the invective (even-handedly too) there might possibly be something in it?

 

[pup11]

Well-known Aussie-basher Gideon Haigh enters the debate (from The Guardian):

Surly Symonds the one that got away

Officially Andrew Symonds is to do a month's penance for going fishing instead of attending a team meeting ahead of Australia's three perfunctory one-day internationals against Bangladesh. Truth is that Symonds, a super cricketer, is also a surly boor, who has finally even alienated forbearing colleagues.

Thus have been revealed the true colours of antagonists at the centre of the on-field incident eight months ago that threatened to split the cricket world, the men with whom administrators stood shoulder-to-shoulder in the conviction that they could not possibly be at fault: first Harbhajan Singh, a juvenile smart-arse, was suspended during the IPL for slapping similarly excitable countryman Shantakumaran Sreesanth; now Symonds, an arrogant bonehead, has been invited to reflect on his insouciance. One wonders whether events might have played out differently had the ICC referee Mike Procter done his job in January and simply suspended both players for their contrived and unnecessary altercation, instead of allowing so much racial hay to be made. Instead, it has been disrespect to team-mates that has finally undone both men. That, at least, remains a taboo - maybe, in cricket, the last remaining.

Now if Haigh, the best current cricketing writer for my money & at worst a bloke who knows his onions, is laying on the invective (even-handedly too) there might possibly be something in it?

Isn't Symonds bashing the flavour of the season right now, so why should Haigh be left behind, right now writing only nasty things about Symonds' is going to help all these journos make their articles spicy and attract maximum reader interest, nobody would be least bit interested in reading (or for that matter writing) anything good about Symonds atm.

 

[Precambrian]

Isn't Symonds bashing the flavour of the season right now, so why should Haigh be left behind, right now writing only nasty things about Symonds' is going to help all these journos make their articles spicy and attract maximum reader interest, nobody would be least bit interested in reading (or for that matter writing) anything good about Symonds atm.

Why? Let's take us CWs here a sample. We ourselves have discussed with so much interest without much judgement as to Symonds' mentality. I think it will be worth pondering sometimes the reason behind the story before jumping the gun.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Isn't Symonds bashing the flavour of the season right now, so why should Haigh be left behind, right now writing only nasty things about Symonds' is going to help all these journos make their articles spicy and attract maximum reader interest, nobody would be least bit interested in reading (or for that matter writing) anything good about Symonds atm.

Well it's a possibility of course, but I personally think Haigh has more about him than to bend quite so much to the wind.

Haigh's point seems to be that, ultimately, if a player disrespects his teammates (as seems to be the case in Symonds latest scrape) it will catch up with him.