Che Rodgers is right in everything he said. All I can add is the above article is the reason why the rest of the world thinks the Indians are two faced back stabbers who cry when they don't get their own way. Yes they got some bad decisions but that is cricket. The whole reason world cricket has neutral umpires is because Indian umpires were CHEATS!How arrogant can you be. India knows it gets its own way because it has a huge population which is cricket mad and spends the most money. Funny thing is for all their huge population and endless money, India still gets hammered by a team with one of the lowest populations in world cricket. Kumble is the only one to show a little bit of heart, all the rest are overrated pampered hacks. Maybe they are just scared that the next test at Perth will be an Indian batsman's graveyard when Australia play 4 quicks and Tait finally gets unleashed at the soft Indian top order. Real batsmen make runs on any pitch not just flat pitches they have had so far. As for the fielding, are you serious, how bad can India be. The only thing they have got right so far is the Indian bowlers have done a good job in both tests so far. Yes there is a culture clash but Australians play hard within the rules. We don't cheat. We don't have to. The worst you can accuse the Australian of is sledging and not walking. Big deal. As long as no family or racial slurs are used what does it matter. It should also be funny too if possible.But the Indians? Lets see, match
RE:India the perfect
by spectratrade on Jan 08, 2008 09:59 PM Permalink
I think we should atleast now which country or planet you belong, before we can comment further on you
RE:India the perfect
by Mohit Jain on Jan 08, 2008 09:55 PM Permalink
Yes, Australia is the best team in the worls, but the way they won the Sydney test, is not befitting to the best team. Atleast we Indians did not cheat. We played the game in the spirit of the game. If you go back to the 90s, you will know how fair your umpires were to visiting countries. It was because of Australian and Pakistani umpires that neutral umpires were instituted. We Indians are fair and beleive that visitors are to be treated well, not like Australians.
RE:India the perfect
by on Jan 09, 2008 08:28 AM Permalink
Even now get off your arrogant high horse. The Aussies have become the most boorish cricketing nation in the world. I loved them until Ponting took over, now they are just like him - no ethics, no principles, no class
RE:India the perfect
by Anil Kumar on Jan 08, 2008 10:12 PM Permalink
Mr. I-am-so-afraid-to-write-my-name (blank), you are either ignorant or naive. In the last tour, your so called non-racial players abused Harbhajan on the lines 'why he had balls on his head, when they had balls between their thighs' . THIS IS THE MOST DEROGATORY SLUR. IT INSULTS THE WHOLE SIKH COMMUNITY. And, you think it is OK if your players called Jayasurya a black monkey? Kumble is the only gentleman? Hmm, perhaps your blind eyes did not see Ishant Sharma congratulating Symonds, even though the umpires cheated him of Symonds wicket. You 'blokes' are just pathetic.
RE:India the perfect
by Adnan on Jan 08, 2008 10:37 PM Permalink
Mr.on or "Mystery person"..the guy who calls himself a lawyer.....Talk about this case and if you have anything against india come up with some which is called EVIDENCE.
My final response tonight - I actually wrote another eloquent response but it was reported for some reason.
Latif's catch. Much has been made by way of comparison to Ponting in relation to the catch and the penalty. How many of you have seen it on video? Search for it on Youtube under "Latif cheating".
Latif dives in front of slip, the ball enters his gloves, while he is in mid-air and about to hit the ground, the ball falls out (not even dislodged by the ground, just falls out!!), he hits the ground, rolls over, picks it up (knowing the umpire couldn't see it) and claims the catch.
Now Ponting - he dives, collects the ball CLEANLY in mid-air and grasps it. This satisfies the first part of the laws re: catches - he has the ball under control. This is why the still photo of him shows his facial expression claiming the catch literally as he hits the ground.
BUT he didn't quite get there. The laws also require him to control his own body. This doesn't happen until he hits the ground, at which point he grounds the ball as well. This is the fatal flaw, as they say. Completely understandable as to why he thought it was a catch, because he was almost there. All he needed to do was turn his hand as he made impact to leverage the ball off the ground. But he didn't, so no catch.
But contrary to teh spirit of the game? NOT EVEN CLOSE. Watch Latif and you'll know exactly what I mean. Separate the emotion from the facts and then decide.
RE:Catches sometimes win matches
by on Jan 08, 2008 09:47 PM Permalink
Michael,
Ponting 'thought' it was a catch. Fair enough. But finally he knew it was not, and yet he continued appealing. And, believe it or not, he still insists that he had taken it cleanly. What is your take on that?? Lord Raver
RE:Catches sometimes win matches
by Mohit Jain on Jan 08, 2008 09:44 PM Permalink
To add to this, even Micheal Clark grounded the dubious catch he took of Soruav while he rolled after taking the catch to gain control of his movement. That is also cheating.
RE:RE:Catches sometimes win matches
by Calvin Corser on Jan 08, 2008 10:07 PM Permalink
That's a catch, read the rules. As long as the ball doesn't touch the ground or you touch the boundry, there's no issue there mate.
RE:Catches sometimes win matches
by Mohit Jain on Jan 08, 2008 10:17 PM Permalink
But the ball was grounded when he rolled over. So its not a catch. Read the rules....he had not completed his action.
The umpiring decisions and the racism slur against Harbajan was bad enough, but what has incensed every cricket lover is that Ponting's boorish behaviour right through the match went unnoticed by the so called authorities.
His response to being given out by Benson in the first innings was worse than that of Yuvraj in the previous test, and yet it was Yuvraj who was called for a hearing by the match refree.
Then at the start of India's innings (in the second over before lunch) there was an appeal for LBW against Dravid and one should have seen Ponting's expression when it was turned down.
Ofcourse, his behaviour after claiming a catch which he had actually grounded is well documented. The final straw was his putting his finger up to declare that Clarke had taken the catch and Ganguly was out. There was no need for Benson to then put his own finger up. He could have sinply asked Ponting to stand in his place and carried forth the proceedings and the match could have ended much earlier. Is Cricket Australia and the ICC in denial? Did they not see all this? Or is this what they mean by 'Australia playing tough and fair game' I am sure, if requested, Star Cricket would put forward the highlights of Ponting's behaviour - it makes for ugly viewing.
RE:Sidney Test
by on Jan 08, 2008 09:45 PM Permalink
After Yuvraj was CLEARED by Proctor on the basis that he was SHOCKED by the decision, not showing dissent (which I believe was incorrect by Proctor), there is no basis upon which Ponting or anyone else could be cited for a hearing. End of story.
As for his catch and Clarke's catch - again read my comment analysing the rules, Latif's "catch", Ponting's "catch" and the differences.
On the umpiring front - Kumble agreed with Ponting that if there was a dispute, the fielder and the captain's word was final. THE PURPOSE OF THIS AGREEMENT WAS TO AVOID ENDLESS REFERRALS TO THE THIRD UMPIRE. Ponting is the one who has been pushing this for 2 years now.
Ponting went to Clarke, Clarke stated that he believed he caught it, and Benson, knowing that this agreement was in place, asked the fielding team's captain for confirmation, which Ponting gave. If you've played cricket at any decent level, you will know that if there is doubt like that on a catch and the umpire asks for the fielding captain's final word, the universal signal from the captain is to put the finger up to indicate "out".
Again, separate the emotion from the facts and then analyse. Or reverse the facts - if Jaffer had dived forward at gully, Kumble would have been the man putting his finger up and Benson would have been the one following.
RE:Sidney Test
by Mohit Jain on Jan 08, 2008 09:49 PM Permalink
I agree with you on this Micheal. However, I think Kumble erred on agreeing to this as he did not know that Ricky and his team would even lie to win, lest cheat. But yes, India should not raise hell on this one. We called it upon ourselves the moment we agreed to it.
RE:Sidney Test
by raj on Jan 08, 2008 09:53 PM Permalink
If you've played cricket at any decent level, you will know that if there is doubt like that on a catch you'd have to admit that its not taken cleanly. if i were in micheal clarke's place i'd say 50-50 instead of out. :p what crap.
Micheal, It felt good that you are debating points logically. I agree with your point about Brad Hogg calling the Indians bas*tards as "bas*tard" may be a term of endearment in Australia and no one told him that it was a highly offensive in India. The point of contention here, however, is if at all Bhajjo called him a "monkey" at all. It is basically the words of Indians against the Australians. And without any conclusive evidence, it shouldn't have been decided the way it was decided. These things apart, I will be interested to know what you have to say about the so called "spirit" of the game that the Australians displayed during the match. What with Ricky Ponting claiming a catch that he clearly grounded (conclusive visual evidence availble) and then vehemenently and aggressivly insisting that he took the catch in a post match conference? Also, what about Gilly appealing wrongly for Dravid's dismissal when he was in the best position to see (and hear) that Dravid did not knick the ball. And finally, with Ricky Ponting arrognatly giving out, when asked by the umpire, to Ganguly on a seemingly dubious catch taken by Clarke. All these instances show that Australians were cheating and wanted to win the match even at the risk of being called cheats. Mohit
RE:Micheal, reply to this please
by on Jan 08, 2008 09:52 PM Permalink
Mohit, it's 3:20AM here so I'm on my way out, so apologies if I don't make sense! 1) Thank you for at least seeing that I'm trying to use some logic in what is otherwise an emotion-driven debate 2) I agree that Proctor is wrong if he found "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Harbhajan said it AGAIN simply based on the words of the Indians and Australians. That is the purpose of the appeal system and further judicial review if required - there is no reason to jump up and down and threaten boycotts/etc 3) Spirit of the Game - my position is that NEITHER team played by the right spirit (as discussed earlier). Overriding this is my view that the Australians did not show any humility or grace in victory, but equally the Indians were hardly graceful in their 20/20 celebrations, nor was Harbhajan graceful in his celebration of the Ponting dismissal (mind you I have no problem with his exuberance). 4) As for Ponting - I agree that he grounded the ball before gaining control of his own body making it not out, but I can also see that he did grasp the ball cleanly in mid-air, and with the speed he got up to appeal (holding the ball all the time), I can excuse his failure to realise that he needed to control the ball until he controlled his body completely. As for his response in a terse post-match conference, everyone was on edge, I don't take too much from it.
RE:RE:Micheal, reply to this please
by on Jan 08, 2008 09:57 PM Permalink
5) Gilchrist - I have addressed this in another post entitled Gilchrist! I've played in 3 day grand finals before and they have been hard enough come the final day when you are chasing a victory. Let alone a game where the umpires have lost control and you figure you may as well appeal for everything, with emotions rising and tempers flaring. Don't forget Gilchrist walked after being given NOT OUT in a world cup semi-final. He has said that he won't appeal if he knows its not out, but will appeal if not sure. There was a noise as the ball brushed Dravid's pad and in the blink of an eyelid, without 20 replays, Gilchrist didn't know what it hit, so he appealed. Point the finger at Bucknor, not Gilchrist, again separating emotion from fact. 6) The Clarke catch and Ponting - I have also explained this. Again an agreement was reached to avoid going to the third umpire on contentious low catches (by Kumble and Ponting). In matches without a third umpire, the captain is called on by umpires to confirm if the catch was taken. In every match I have played in, the fielding captain has always put his finger up as a universal sign that the batsman is out as far as the fielding side is concerned. This happend, it was not uncalled for, and the same would have happened if it was Laxman at 2nd slip and Kumble had the final say.
RE:Micheal, reply to this please
by Mohit Jain on Jan 08, 2008 10:09 PM Permalink
Micheal, lets argue more on this when you wake up tomorrow (tpday already for you). I dont want to rob you of your sleep entirely. Though I dont agree with some of your comments, I do however give in that India also (amidst all the controversy) did not show enough grit to bat on for 2 sessions to save the match. We did not play well, but that does not exonerate you guys from not playing the game in spirit. BTW, we are not discussing the Indian celebration for the 20/20 world cup here. A world cup victory is much more than a single series match victory, and, India did not CHEAT in that match either.
RE:Micheal, reply to this please
by on Jan 08, 2008 09:43 PM Permalink
Yeah, and the fact that Bajji knew monkey was off limits, had previously been spoken to about it, the whole issue of "monkey" chants got worldwide coverage and the teams were specifially told to report racial comments is totally irrelevant!
RE:Micheal, reply to this please
by Mohit Jain on Jan 08, 2008 09:46 PM Permalink
But the question is, did he say it at all this time. No conclusive evidence to that. It should not have been decided on someone's word especially if there is someone else refuting it. Is this how the court of law also decides its outcome in Australia, Micheal? You would know, you are a lawyer.
Ban Ponting & Clark on the basis of 2003 incident of aus/pak series
Ban Symonds for wrong allegation on Harbhajan
Ban both umpires Bucknor and Benson for their willian behaviour
Ban match refree proctor for not taking any fruitfull step from 1st of the series for umpires blunders and not took any step on ponting and clark regarding their catches
RE:RE:@ Che Rogers Here is an alternative view
by raj on Jan 08, 2008 09:38 PM Permalink
im sorry, i was amused by the comment, not that i was agreeing with him. i fully know and appreciate the indian point of view. you my friend are totally un-initiated speaking with finesse to these gentlemen who know the art of arguments vry well, have good command of the language, and also probably have a few lawyers amongst them. im not a lawyer, but im pretty practical about presenting my point of view, being abusive is not a solution. i dont mind sharing a good joke with whoever it is.
RE:@ Che Rogers Here is an alternative view
by on Jan 08, 2008 09:59 PM Permalink
Raj, we may not agree with you on every point, but you definitely have our respect. It's the Australian way - sometimes you have to agree to disagree. But I think you'd agree that we are on the same page for some issues!
But even I need to sleep, so goodnight all Cheers Michael
RE:RE:@ Che Rogers Here is an alternative view
by on Jan 08, 2008 10:01 PM Permalink
Heaven forbid the Australians would celebrate equalling a world record of 16 consecutive test victories, a period of dominance, high skill and high achievement. Especially after a game filled with such high drama, stress, fatigue, and swinging emotions.
I'm thinking back to the T20 celebrations in India by way of comparison. Especially when the BCCI originally wanted to boycott T20 cricket saying it was bad for the game. How quickly that tune changed (not that this is good or bad, just interesting to note in hindsight).
