So are Australians really Chokers ??

Richard · Mar 14, 2006

BoyBrumby said:
I don't think Vaughan was in the wrong. He merely asked for some consistency. Test cricket isn't quite a police state yet. Fat Gray seemed only too obliging to give evidence against a fellow pro when, frankly, it should have been none of his concern. It shows a lack of respect for his opposite number & it was the incident after which I decided I had no time for the tubby lardster.

Contrast Smith's action with that of Ian Gough, the Welsh Rugby Union lock forward. Scott Murray, a Scottish player, was sent off (some would argue harshly, some not) for kicking Gough in the face. Gough actually submitted a letter to the authorities asking for clemency on Murray's behalf. That, to me, is the action of a good bloke. Play hard, but respect the oppo.

Maybe Vaughan wasn't wrong to expect some consistency. Simple fact is, you're not allowed to criticise Umpires, that's unequivocal. Whether that qualifies as "being in a police state" I don't know, but I can see why it has to be zero-tolerance - if it wasn't there could be accusations of double-standards everywhere.
Simple fact is - not all oppositions respect each other. Plenty of people, I can assure you, have zero respect for Smith and much of his team. I hardly see that he's in the wrong for returning the compliment.

& I'm sorry you were sworn at in a club/pub, there are morons everywhere, but it's hardly an analogous situation, is it? Hayden was trying to test the mettle of Smith; to see what he was made of. I think he found out, personally.

God, don't be sorry - I didn't give a flying fook!

Anyway, as I say - it wasn't the swearing bit, it was the utter randomness and uncalledfor nature of the attack that surprised me. I wasn't worried by it - it was just unexpected. Totally unexpected. Like I say - wasn't in a club\pub, I was walking along a street (main street, too).
Hayden was trying to undermine Smith, not test him - and in my estimation he had no right to go on the attack in that way. I said, didn't I - not directly comparable, but just a broadly similar instance.

BoyBrumby · Mar 14, 2006

Richard said:
Maybe Vaughan wasn't wrong to expect some consistency. Simple fact is, you're not allowed to criticise Umpires, that's unequivocal. Whether that qualifies as "being in a police state" I don't know, but I can see why it has to be zero-tolerance - if it wasn't there could be accusations of double-standards everywhere.
Simple fact is - not all oppositions respect each other. Plenty of people, I can assure you, have zero respect for Smith and much of his team. I hardly see that he's in the wrong for returning the compliment.

God, don't be sorry - I didn't give a flying fook! Anyway, as I say - it wasn't the swearing bit, it was the utter randomness and uncalledfor nature of the attack that surprised me. I wasn't worried by it - it was just unexpected. Totally unexpected. Like I say - wasn't in a club\pub, I was walking along a street (main street, too).
Hayden was trying to undermine Smith, not test him - and in my estimation he had no right to go on the attack in that way. I said, didn't I - not directly comparable, but just a broadly similar instance.

I could defend Vaughan, but that isn't really the point I'm making. Smith's behaviour was, to me, unbecoming for an international cricket captain. Sometimes I think fidelity to the spirit of the game is more important than the letter of the law.

&, again, I'm not defending Hayden per se. It's Smith's response I don't like.

Richard · Mar 14, 2006

BoyBrumby said:
I could defend Vaughan, but that isn't really the point I'm making. Smith's behaviour was, to me, unbecoming for an international cricket captain. Sometimes I think fidelity to the spirit of the game is more important than the letter of the law.

"The Spirit Of The Game" is a notoriously noxious issue, especially for captains...
Inzy: "Oh, handled-the-ball, hit-the-ball-twice and obstructed-the-field are against the spirit of the game". Wouldn't have anything to do with you just being given out obstructing-the-field, would it? 8-)

RTP: "Oh, substitute-fielders are against the spirit of the game". Wouldn't have anything to do with you just being run-out by a substitute-fielder, would it? 8-)

Smith's behaviour was, to me, symptomatic of someone who wanted his team to win, realiesed he had no respect to lose for or from his opposition number, and did what he could to get one over on him. No more, no less.

&, again, I'm not defending Hayden per se. It's Smith's response I don't like.

If you condemn Hayden (and I do) I don't criticise Smith for reacting as he did. I find it understandible. I think it's a bit too don't-grass-on-the-bullies in attitude to say "what's said on the field stays on the field".
I think that's, frankly, an old-fashioned attitude (not calling you an old man or anything...

) and IMO the game of cricket or any sport is better off without it. Not to say that Gough's actions weren't admirable - if he felt there had been no crime (or at least a lesser crime than the accused) he was right to say that he felt so. I've seen similar things and applauded them.
But I don't consider any incidents bear resemblence to said incidents. That requires respect on both sides. In the Smith-Vaughan relationship, there is none on either.

Richard · Mar 14, 2006

BTW - the Laws are what reflect the Spirit Of The Game.

Without laws, there are no ideals for this Spirit to adhere to.

James · Mar 14, 2006

Richard said:
Graeme is a well-built "fella". Not overweight at all.
When, by the way, did Smith "squeal to the media"? After his first Test, when Matthew Hayden accosted him "c'mon, then, yer f*c*in stupid k*nt, y'really think yer f*c*in good enough to beat us?" which, I have to say, would rather surprise most Test debutants. Has there really been any occasions since when he's acted the "oh, gosh, poor little me" role? No, he's been perfectly happy to dish it out aplenty, and in the recent Australia tour, make a conscious effort to deliberately divert all the aggro towards himself.
As for "telling tales" to Match Referees - what sensible pro would not try to get another into trouble if it would help his own cause? You may have all the virtuosity in The World, but I assure you - most people don't, and I personally find little shame in trying to cause trouble for someone else in order to help your own cause - Nasser has been doing enough of it with his constant "they've got to try and get the Ganguly issue going" comments.

Even with quotes, please don't avoid the filter Richard.

Richard · Mar 15, 2006

Sorry, are we not supposed to write letter-*-letter-*-letter?
I was trying to make it clear the exact words used to DB - I often find that if I simply have five or six *s it's not always possible to work-out what's been substituted.
(I know that's probably the whole point

)
Anyway - won't happen again.

luckyeddie · Mar 15, 2006

It's not necessary to repeat th quotes verbatim - even with a vague disguise.

I'd suggest that "....Hayden gave Smith a mouthful that would make Glenn McGrath proud - and he didn't even use all the 'f's in the box" would get the message across - family site and all that.

Richard · Mar 16, 2006

Quite, but I'd say that doesn't remotely convey the majesty of Hayden's tirade.

Zinzan · Mar 16, 2006

FaaipDeOiad said:
Given two consecutive world cup wins and a stellar record in finals, Australia are obviously not chokers.

They did of course defend very poorly yesterday.

Umm the last w.c was 3 years ago Faaip, I'm assuming he means the current side

FaaipDeOiad · Mar 17, 2006

zinzan12 said:
Umm the last w.c was 3 years ago Faaip, I'm assuming he means the current side

Australia's side from the WC final..

Gilchrist
Hayden
Ponting
Martyn
Lehmann
Bevan
Symonds
Hogg
Bichel
Lee
McGrath

Pretty much the same side. Even has the same captain.

marc71178 · Mar 17, 2006

5 changes IMO is not pretty much the same side.

This England side will have had 5 changes from the Ashes, and it's nothing like the same side.

Jono · Mar 17, 2006

FaaipDeOiad said:
Australia's side from the WC final..

Gilchrist
Hayden
Ponting
Martyn
Lehmann
Bevan
Symonds
Hogg
Bichel
Lee
McGrath

Pretty much the same side. Even has the same captain.

Eh?

On top of that, Hogg and McGrath didn't even play in the final against SA. Same side? Far from it really.

BoyBrumby · Mar 17, 2006

Jono said:
Eh?

On top of that, Hogg and McGrath didn't even play in the final against SA. Same side? Far from it really.

You might have blanked it out of your memory because of the trauma, but I'm pretty certain Oz whipped India in the final...

Jono · Mar 17, 2006

Huh?

I'm saying that the team that whipped India in the final is very different from the team that played against SA.

No Hayden, Lehmann, Bevan, Hogg, Bichel, McGrath.

What you on about Brumby

FaaipDeOiad · Mar 17, 2006

marc71178 said:
5 changes IMO is not pretty much the same side.

This England side will have had 5 changes from the Ashes, and it's nothing like the same side.

Eh, that's a judgement call as far as I'm concerned. Australia have the same captain, and largely the same core players (McGrath, Lee, Gilchrist, Ponting etc). The only player that is of great significance to the makeup of the side that Australia has lost since the 2003 WC is Bevan.

Four changes mostly to fringe players doesn't represent a significant change in the makeup of the side IMO. The changes are mostly cosmetic. Obviously if the players had been more significant names (Bevan, Lehmann, Gilchrist and McGrath, say), it would have a much bigger impact on the side.

FaaipDeOiad · Mar 17, 2006

Jono said:
Eh?

On top of that, Hogg and McGrath didn't even play in the final against SA. Same side? Far from it really.

Weren't we talking about whether or not Australia are chokers? Surely that's more about the normal side and not the side from one particular game?

McGrath and Hogg are quite obviously still part of the makeup of the Australian ODI team, they just happened to miss that one game.

Richard · Mar 17, 2006

FaaipDeOiad said:
Australia's side from the WC final..

Gilchrist
Hayden
Ponting
Martyn
Lehmann
Bevan
Symonds
Hogg
Bichel
Lee
McGrath

Pretty much the same side. Even has the same captain.

Lehmann and Bevan make a huge difference.
Not to mention the side has recently lacked the bowler who stands astride that side like a Colussus.

Richard · Mar 17, 2006

FaaipDeOiad said:
Eh, that's a judgement call as far as I'm concerned. Australia have the same captain, and largely the same core players (McGrath, Lee, Gilchrist, Ponting etc). The only player that is of great significance to the makeup of the side that Australia has lost since the 2003 WC is Bevan.

Lehmann was not a significant player?
What planet are you on?

pasag · Aug 6, 2007

No, imo.

BoyBrumby · Aug 6, 2007

pasag said:
No, imo.

That choke isn't funny anymore, IMHO.

Sorry. :ph34r:

So are Australians really Chokers ??

Cricket Web Staff Member

Englishman

Cricket Web Staff Member

Cricket Web Staff Member

Cricket Web Owner

Cricket Web Staff Member

Cricket Web Staff Member

Cricket Web Staff Member

Request Your Custom Title Now!

Hall of Fame Member

Eyes not spreadsheets

Virat Kohli (c)

Englishman

Virat Kohli (c)

Hall of Fame Member

Hall of Fame Member

Cricket Web Staff Member

Cricket Web Staff Member

RTDAS

Englishman