Most comprehensive defeats of Australia in their own backyard

[Burgey]

Is this delusion peculiar to just you or is this the standard version believed by Australian cricket fans? It was Mike Procter who in his farcical hearing, deemed that Tendulkar was too far away to have possibly heard any of the exchange. Justice Hansen in his hearing determined from the video recordings that Tendulkar was, in fact close enough to hear the exchange and recorded his testimony.

This is no delusion whatsoever. Gilchrist wrote about it in his autobiography. Why didn’t Tendulkar speak with the umpires on the field if he heard what was said? This is a bloke who was (before his hypocrisy in this incident and regardless of his prior ball tampering escapades) widely respected and regarded by everyone. He could have simply stepped in and told the umpires and the Aussies what Singh said, and it would have gone a long way to defusing the entire situation.

The reason he didn’t is because his later version of what happened was a concoction. It’s obvious.

Don’t start me on the Hansen hearing. An absolute disgrace presided over by a bloke far more self-important than anyone involved in the whole fiasco.

 

[Starfighter]

This is no delusion whatsoever. Gilchrist wrote about it in his autobiography. Why didn’t Tendulkar speak with the umpires on the field if he heard what was said? This is a bloke who was (before his hypocrisy in this incident anyway) widely respected and regarded by everyone. He could have simply stepped in and told the umpires and the Aussies what Singh said, and it would have gone a long way to defusing the entire situation.

The reason he didn’t is because his later version of what happened was a concoction. It’s obvious.

I didn't think you could determine the audibility of a comment between two parties from the perspective of a third from a video recording anyway.

 

[shankar]

This is no delusion whatsoever. Gilchrist wrote about it in his autobiography. Why didn’t Tendulkar speak with the umpires on the field if he heard what was said? This is a bloke who was (before his hypocrisy in this incident and regardless of his prior ball tampering escapades) widely respected and regarded by everyone. He could have simply stepped in and told the umpires and the Aussies what Singh said, and it would have gone a long way to defusing the entire situation.

The reason he didn’t is because his later version of what happened was a concoction. It’s obvious.

Don’t start me on the Hansen hearing. An absolute disgrace presided over by a bloke far more self-important than anyone involved in the whole fiasco.

I have no idea whether Harbhajan said what he was alleged to have said or not. This is about the claim that Tendulkar initially said that he didn't hear the exchange at all. What is the evidence for this claim? Every report of the Procter hearing has him claiming that Tendulkar couldn't have heard the exchange.

 

[Burgey]

The evidence for it is what he said on the field when the umpires called the players together, contrasting with what he said at the hearing(s). He’s just a lying, poisoned dwarf.

 

[OverratedSanity]

No one should believe a word Procter says about the episode. How he was allowed to remain a referee after literally admitting he used different standards against subcontinent teams was disgraceful. Absolute joke of a man.

 

[Burgey]

No one should believe a word Procter says about the episode. How he was allowed to remain a referee after literally admitting he used different standards against subcontinent teams was disgraceful. Absolute joke of a man.

What’s that got to do with Tendulkar lying his head off?

 

[shankar]

The evidence for it is what he said on the field when the umpires called the players together, contrasting with what he said at the hearing(s). He’s just a lying, poisoned dwarf.

What is he supposed to have said on the field? He didn't get a chance to say anything at the Procter hearing. Where's the contradiction?

 

[Burgey]

What is he supposed to have said on the field? He didn't get a chance to say anything at the Procter hearing. Where's the contradiction?

The contradiction is he said on the field he didn’t hear what HBS said. Didn’t tell the umpires, didn’t mention it to anyone.

Lo and behold, post factum at the first hearing he suddenly heard it. Spare me this ****. Someone comes before me and tries that **** on they’re toast. Like saying you didn’t tell the cop what happened at the accident scene when one of your friends was driving cos you were saving it for court.

 

[shankar]

The contradiction is he said on the field he didn’t hear what HBS said. Didn’t tell the umpires, didn’t mention it to anyone.

Lo and behold, post factum at the first hearing he suddenly heard it. Spare me this ****. Someone comes before me and tries that **** on they’re toast. Like saying you didn’t tell the cop what happened at the accident scene when one of your friends was driving cos you were saving it for court.

So there was an investigation by the umpires on-field about whether Harbhajan made a racial comment? And they asked Sachin for his version and he said he didn't hear? Where'd you get this from?

 

[Burgey]

Look at the footage when the umpires are covering their mouths and HBS and the poisoned dwarf aren’t talking with them

 

[shankar]

Look at the footage when the umpires are covering their mouths and HBS and the poisoned dwarf aren’t talking with them

So the whole basis for this claim is merely what you divined from the match footage (ala Procter) and not any actual contradictory statement. Thanks for clearing it up.

 

[Burgey]

No it’s not what I derived mate, it’s from what was said by the other players on the park at the time. This isn’t rocket science. Just accept they changed their tune and got away with it.

 

[Starfighter]

Is there any scope left for discussing the original topic of this thread? I've always found the 1911/12 Ashes series interesting. I've often looked at the scores and run rates and though that it looked like a very 'modern' series, not having so much in the way of rain effected matches and obviously quite good pitches. Unfortunately Wisden decided to pike out and only do very brief descriptions of the tour and matches. Foster's bowling has always been a bit of a mystery to me as to his exact method (swing and/or spin) and the pace he bowled (faster or slower than Barnes) and of course there's Hobbs' great (and brisk by the standards of the time) batting. And certainly three of the four losses were by pretty big margins.

 

[jimmy101]

Foster's bowling has always been a bit of a mystery to me as to his exact method (swing and/or spin) and the pace he bowled (faster or slower than Barnes) and of course there's Hobbs' great (and brisk by the standards of the time) batting.

Considering Foster was opening the bowling with Barnsey it wouldn't surprise me if he learnt a few tricks of the trade from Barnes himself and developed a style which borrowed from Barnes'. Then again, Barnes was a grumpy bastard & mightn't wanted to have given away the secrets to his craft.

Hobbs on the other hand could be looked at Kholi & Pujara all rolled into one.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Foster was a pure seam up bowler wasn't he? Most accounts describe him kind of like a medium paced Colin Croft who hit the seam regularly.

 

[Starfighter]

Considering Foster was opening the bowling with Barnsey it wouldn't surprise me if he learnt a few tricks of the trade from Barnes himself and developed a style which borrowed from Barnes'. Then again, Barnes was a grumpy bastard & mightn't wanted to have given away the secrets to his craft.

Descriptions of Foster's bowling always seem to be light on one detail, which is the pace he bowled. I know Jardine consulted him on field settings before the 32-33 series (and Voce opened around like him) but the only real description I've found was 'medium-paced through the air but doubling speed off the pitch' and I wonder if he was slower than Barnes, I've got a picture supposedly of him bowling with the slips standing if anything closer than for Barnes, but the keeper at the traditional half-back distance as was quite common up to WWII.

He was certainly a swing bowler but I've seen it talked about that he could straighten it very far back down the line off the pitch as well, an amount which means he must have been able to cut or spin it more Barnes like too. You also have his meteoric rise and the premature end of his career, he alone might have made English cricket much stronger after the war, when they had basically no good pace bowling.

I wonder if A Massive Zebra has any more detailed descriptions?

 

[ankitj]

List of chips on Burgey's shoulder:

1. Dhoni once claimed a bumped catch
2. Tendulkar did not support Australian version of Sydney 2008 incident

Keep adding. At the end he can add the list to his sig.

 

[OverratedSanity]

List of chips on Burgey's shoulder:

1. Dhoni once claimed a bumped catch
2. Tendulkar did not support Australian version of Sydney 2008 incident

Keep adding. At the end he can add the list to his sig.

3. Kumble apparently sent off Mohammad Yousuf (evidence? And why does it even matter? ) in an odi once which means he has no right to complain about any perceived poor sportsmanship... for some reason.

4. The Indian tail collapsed against Michael Clarke which somehow makes any and all criticism of the terrible umpiring before that wrong.

 

[Slifer]

Neutral here. Congrats India well done on becoming the first sc team to win in oz. But don't kid yourself, India only won because Warner and Steve Smith were missing (imo). To the question at hand, wi in 84 really should've demolished Australia 4-1 but either way, that wi was an atg and was expected to crush Australia so I dont count them. Rsa in the last series gave Australia absolutely no chance and they were without their two best players and it was completely unexpected. So my vote goes that series.

 

[Burgey]

List of irrefutable facts as pointed out by Burgey:

1. Dhoni once claimed a bumped catch which hit him on the wrist on the way back up in front of an entire slips cordon who later that year whinged about the spirit of cricket.
2. Tendulkar provides two versions of the Sydney 2008 incident within 24 hours, thereby proving he’s a liar and figure to be derided rather than revered.

3. Kumble verbally abused and sent off Mohammad Yousuf in a test eight weeks before whinging about the spirit of cricket and perceived poor sportsmanship, proving once and for all the Indian sanctimonious victim complex starts at the top

4. The Indian tail collapsed against Michael Clarke which makes blaming the loss of the Sydney 08 test on poor umpiring wrong.

5. Indian cricket and its supporters have a collective victim complex born of lack of self-awareness and the inability to face up to their own shortcomings.

6. As happy as today should be for them, it was inevitable that India’s supporters would stink up the forum with the sort of posts we’ve seen here today, demonstrating the lack of sense of humour inherent in them, and their preoccupation with diverting blame from decades of previous failure onto any externality they can find, rather than just accepting they’ve been rubbish for most of the past 80 years.