***Official*** India in Australia

[jeevan]

Bit of a bizarre saying "Bhajji didn't say anything but I told Ponting I'd apologise if it would shut him up, and he wasn't down with that". I agree with his point that to say sorry shouldn't have to equate to admitting being in the wrong, but in this circumstance surely he can't be surprised that Ponting thought the offered apology hollow or insincere if it was offered with the attached accusation that Symonds was lying about the abuse he claimed to have received. Another report stated that he was disappointed because he asked Ponting not to report it but that Ponting told him that he had already reported it.

I've always liked Kumble, but I don't think he's actually covering himself in glory in this episode so far. Hopefully he and Ricky can actually productively discuss the issues and resolve some of the tension before the 3rd Test.

Given how much this has blown up, why isnt this attempt by Kumble construed as a last effort to settle things among themselves? Clearly Harbhajan's stated position is that he hasnt indulged in racial abuse. And Symonds' and Ponting's is the opposite.

Clearly there was an attempt at reconciling that difference, perhaps in the larger interests of the game and people involved. It is what leaders do.

Ponting is not one who can see beyond his nose. Forget this issue, he's championing take-the-fielder-word, and yet appeals twice in one day for extremely dodgy catches where the replays cast just too much doubt (at the least) that the catches were grassed. (Michael Clarke's off of Ganguly which was given, Ponting's own off of Dhoni which was not).

If Kumble and Ponting have a role to play in pacifying things, I'd be worried much more about Ponting being suitable for that task. (I personally dont think Ponting has any role to play in lifting ethical standards of the game, very much the average player on that count).

 

[Bracken]

Given how much this has blown up, why isnt this attempt by Kumble construed as a last effort to settle things among themselves? Clearly Harbhajan's stated position is that he hasnt indulged in racial abuse. And Symonds' and Ponting's is the opposite.

Clearly there was an attempt at reconciling that difference, perhaps in the larger interests of the game and people involved. It is what leaders do.

But how is that solution even close to representing a middle ground? Kumble was essentially saying to Ponting that he would offer some sort of meaningless general apology for something that Harbhajan flatly denied doing, and that would be the end of it.

Whether Harbhajan made the comment or not is subject to conjecture. The Australians' position is that Harbhajan racially taunted Symonds in India. The claim that after the match, Symonds approached Harbhajan, explained to him why the term is so offensive, and then was given an assurance by Harbhajan that he wouldn't say the same thing again.

Given that this is the position of the Australians- and that two other Australians claimed that they heard the remark made in Sydney- why would Kumble's solution be even remotely acceptable to Ponting and his players? Kumble was asking Ponting to accept a pretty meaningless apology, that included an express denial of guilt and no sanction against Harbhajan. That isn't asking for a compromise- that's asking for a backdown.

Let's break it down to it's core. Kumble's apology would have essentially been, "We're sorry that Symonds is lying about being racially abused". I can't imagine the person that would consider that a satisfactory outcome if they were the aggrieved party. Kumble wasn't asking for a compromise- he was asking Ponting to back down.

Symonds made the claim, was backed up by two other players, and Harbhajan and his partner at the time denied it. With such a gulf in the claimed facts between the two parties, it is entirely appropriate for the issue to be decided by the mechanism that both teams agreed on before the series, that being the ICC Match Referee hearing.

By declining the suggestion that the matter be basically swept under the carpet, Ponting was backing the right of Symonds to take action when he believed he was racially abused, and backing the integrity of two of his other players when they said that they heard the incident.

No question- Ponting is never going to be up for canonisation, and he could probably improve a few aspects of his personality. But the fact that he is being lambasted for backing his players, while Kumble and the BCCI are being hailed as heroes for backing theirs, is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[jeevan]

But how is that solution even close to representing a middle ground? Kumble was essentially saying to Ponting that he would offer some sort of meaningless general apology for something that Harbhajan flatly denied doing, and that would be the end of it.

Whether Harbhajan made the comment or not is subject to conjecture. The Australians' position is that Harbhajan racially taunted Symonds in India. The claim that after the match, Symonds approached Harbhajan, explained to him why the term is so offensive, and then was given an assurance by Harbhajan that he wouldn't say the same thing again.

Given that this is the position of the Australians- and that two other Australians claimed that they heard the remark made in Sydney- why would Kumble's solution be even remotely acceptable to Ponting and his players? Kumble was asking Ponting to accept a pretty meaningless apology, that included an express denial of guilt and no sanction against Harbhajan. That isn't asking for a compromise- that's asking for a backdown.

Let's break it down to it's core. Kumble's apology would have essentially been, "We're sorry that Symonds is lying about being racially abused". I can't imagine the person that would consider that a satisfactory outcome if they were the aggrieved party. Kumble wasn't asking for a compromise- he was asking Ponting to back down.

Symonds made the claim, was backed up by two other players, and Harbhajan and his partner at the time denied it. With such a gulf in the claimed facts between the two parties, it is entirely appropriate for the issue to be decided by the mechanism that both teams agreed on before the series, that being the ICC Match Referee hearing.

By declining the suggestion that the matter be basically swept under the carpet, Ponting was backing the right of Symonds to take action when he believed he was racially abused, and backing the integrity of two of his other players when they said that they heard the incident.

No question- Ponting is never going to be up for canonisation, and he could probably improve a few aspects of his personality. But the fact that he is being lambasted for backing his players, while Kumble and the BCCI are being hailed as heroes for backing theirs, is absolutely ridiculous.

If Symonds and Ponting believe that there is nothing short of banning Harbhajan that will fix whatever alleged abuse has happened, then there is NOTHING Kumble can do in this situation. Certainly he cant make Harbhajan apologize for something he says he has not done, and for which the stump mikes nor the umpires have any backup that he did.

Are you seriously suggesting that Kumble not back his players just because Symonds' ancestors were persecuted by someone else for sure , and so any allegation of the same bias in anyone is automatically equivalent to guilt? Or are you suggesting that Kumble should make no attempt to cool down tempers.

What I am saying is that this is exactly the sort of thing Kumble could've done, and did.

 

[silentstriker]

If Symonds and Ponting believe that there is nothing short of banning Harbhajan that will fix whatever alleged abuse has happened, then there is NOTHING Kumble can do in this situation. Certainly he cant make Harbhajan apologize for something he says he has not done, and for which the stump mikes nor the umpires have any backup that he did.

Are you seriously suggesting that Kumble not back his players just because Symonds' ancestors were persecuted by someone else for sure , and so any allegation of the same bias in anyone is automatically equivalent to guilt? Or are you suggesting that Kumble should make no attempt to cool down tempers.

What I am saying is that this is exactly the sort of thing Kumble could've done, and did.

But if Ponting believes his player was racially abused, he has every right to report it just the way he did.

 

[Malleeboy]

Personally the big mistake was by Proctor. I think he could have done a better job. Ponting had to report but Proctor's sentence got the balance wrong. Something along the lines of....Australians claim it was said, Indians say it wasn't, on the balance of probabilites it is likely to have occurred but it is just not proveable. So Harbajhan will have a suspended sentence, because absolute proof is absent. If he is caught using this slur then he will be punished for both that offence and this one. There will be a 2 year ban(or something of about that length) imposed on him.

Surely the point of reporting something is primarily to stop it happening again and this would have acheived that.

However has Harbajhan had any punishment for the original offence. Surely we can't allow batsman to pat or prod oppositions teams with their bats. He may have meant nothing by it but it just shouldn't have be done. Could the Australians have appealed under interfering with a feildsman. Or should this be made the 11th mode of dismissal, "Batting opposition" whilst not in the process of making a shot or taking a run.

 

[ColdSnow]

India should just call off the tour after what happened in the second match. Utter disgrace by the 14 man strong australian team.

 

[jeevan]

But if Ponting believes his player was racially abused, he has every right to report it just the way he did.

So, why does Kumble come across as being poor for mediating and trying to resolve an incident that is quite inconclusive in the light of evidence presented to the public thus far.

 

[silentstriker]

So, why does Kumble come across as being poor for mediating and trying to resolve an incident that is quite inconclusive in the light of evidence presented to the public thus far.

Where did I say he came across as poor? The only poor thing he did was accuse the Aussies publically. I'm just saying Ponting is supporting his player, just like I would. If my team mate came to me and told me he had been racially abused, I'd report it immediatly. As the captain, I do have a responsibility to the team, and I would not brush it under the carpet.

 

[Malleeboy]

Hypocrisy may be thick in the air.....


The local Aussie papers are saying that the phrase used wasn't monkey but a swear phrase in Harbajhan's own language which means mother f......! I'll now wait for someone to run the line that calling someone a b.... is worse then mother f....! Cause I can't conceive that in any culture that could be the case.

 

[jeevan]

Hypocrisy may be thick in the air.....


The local Aussie papers are saying that the phrase used wasn't monkey but a swear phrase in Harbajhan's own language which means mother f......! I'll now wait for someone to run the line that calling someone a b.... is worse then mother f....! Cause I can't conceive that in any culture that could be the case.

How so? Indians have asked for proof of alleged racist abuse. Not absolved Harbhajan of all possible faults. If this, ie the explanation that you've seen, is true - he is just as guilty of swearing as Brad Hogg and have the same punishment.

The issue here is accusing Harbhajan of racism, something which goes beyond the cricket field.

 

[Malleeboy]

jeevan,


Booking Hogg under the same code as Habarjhan for using "b****s", but saying our player was innocent he only called him a "mother f......". I'd call that hypocrisy.

Are you going to tell me Indian's feel "b***s" is as bad as "mother f....."

 

[Son Of Coco]

92 is 92 no matter who's bowling at you

I made two 100's in third grade in 1999...if Hayden's injured I'd like to put up my hand

 

[jeevan]

jeevan,


Booking Hogg under the same code as Habarjhan for using "b****s", but saying our player was innocent he only called him a "mother f......". I'd call that hypocrisy.

Are you going to tell me Indian's feel "b***s" is as bad as "mother f....."

The booking and classification to a code is not done by the players, but by the match referee I think. If you think this particular referee is weird, I'd be inclined to agree with you.

As for my opinions personally on abuses - it is primarily that classifying abuses is a very fruitless excercise as it is quite subjective. (In this and other threads, cited examples of Inzamam not liking being called Aloo and a hypothetical one of insulting players based on socioeconomics) and that all of them need to be discouraged or banned.

Secondarily, I personally would rather be the recipient of race directed abuse than person directed abuse. Also something that I've expressed. Your mileage may vary, in which case see point 1.

ps FWIW "teri maan ki" , what Harbhajan may have supposedly said, is not mother f----. Teri = your, maan = mother,
ki - of, so it literally means "your mother's...."

 

[Perm]

Well Sehwag has booked his place in the Test side, would put a lazy $5 on it for sure. A 67 ball century is nothing to be sniffed at, and given how quickly he works himself into form and his history against Australia, then it wouldn't surprise me if he blitzed Lee and Johnson on Day 1 at the WACA.

As I said earlier, goes to show how Sehwag operates. I can only presume that he managed to get a couple of good strikes early, and as a result ends up making 100 off 67 balls.

 

[Perm]

Oh, and FWIW, Katich>>>>>>>>>>Rogers. Not even a contest between the two, just look at Katich's Pura Cup record. Speaks for itself.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Heh, Hodge should be the next middle order player in line.

I haven't followed his last few matches, but he wasn't that impressive at the start of the season.

 

[Perm]

I haven't followed his last few matches, but he wasn't that impressive at the start of the season.

Not only that, but he's not in the same league as Katich when it comes to batting.

 

[jeevan]

Well Sehwag has booked his place in the Test side, would put a lazy $5 on it for sure. A 67 ball century is nothing to be sniffed at, and given how quickly he works himself into form and his history against Australia, then it wouldn't surprise me if he blitzed Lee and Johnson on Day 1 at the WACA.

As I said earlier, goes to show how Sehwag operates. I can only presume that he managed to get a couple of good strikes early, and as a result ends up making 100 off 67 balls.

Would be very easy money. There are two batsmen under a cloud - Yuvraj, who is most certainly sitting on the bench. And Jaffer, who redeemed himself a little bit in this tour game.

 

[Matt79]

Given how much this has blown up, why isnt this attempt by Kumble construed as a last effort to settle things among themselves? Clearly Harbhajan's stated position is that he hasnt indulged in racial abuse. And Symonds' and Ponting's is the opposite.

Clearly there was an attempt at reconciling that difference, perhaps in the larger interests of the game and people involved. It is what leaders do.

Ponting is not one who can see beyond his nose. Forget this issue, he's championing take-the-fielder-word, and yet appeals twice in one day for extremely dodgy catches where the replays cast just too much doubt (at the least) that the catches were grassed. (Michael Clarke's off of Ganguly which was given, Ponting's own off of Dhoni which was not).

If Kumble and Ponting have a role to play in pacifying things, I'd be worried much more about Ponting being suitable for that task. (I personally dont think Ponting has any role to play in lifting ethical standards of the game, very much the average player on that count).

My response is pretty much what Bracken replied - I have no problem with Kumble trying to moderate the dispute, but I just think its bizarre on his part that he thought going to Ponting and suggesting that the incident be swept under the carpet in exchange for an apology that was clearly explained to be hollow, as in it was made while saying "I don't believe we have anything to apologise for", would achieve anything. The equivalent would be Ponting going to Kumble and suggesting that while Symonds thought it was the correct thing not to walk when he was out, and that he still thought this was true, that he was prepared to say "sorry" if the Indians were prepared to forget about their concerns re the umpiring and Australian's attitude. It was just a very naive or unrealistic effort at moderation.

Furthermore, I also think its unhelpful for Kumble to publicise this part of the episode, and claiming Ponting was being unreasonable in the process, when the focus of both captains should be on healing the rift and moving forward.

 

[Johnners]

I made two 100's in third grade in 1999...if Hayden's injured I'd like to put up my hand

I'd throw my full support behind you, I like to see a bit of blood