Let's see how your boys perform in Perth. If they truly have been wronged, then presumably they'll want to show what type of team they are. My guess is that the result will be the same... a team of great players, but not a great team. India will lose badly in Perth because they put themselves before the game. At least the Austrlians play as a team and that is why they've been on top for 10 years.
RE:Perth
by raj on Jan 08, 2008 07:07 PM Permalink
sure thing. indians are pretty weak with thier bowling department. indians too have acknowledged that aussie is the team to beat. they dint claim they are the campions. remember we'll be going on a concrete pitch we arent used to. australia is an advanced country which has been playing great cricket, has great facilities, is a small socity without any division of race, language , divisions. a developed country. india has been a opposite of that, bad infrastructure, politics etc, we are taking time to come up, same with pakistan. its flashes of brilliance.
point is why go back to that when yu are done with yur arguments ? we never challenged that aussies were a superior team.
RE:Perth
by on Jan 08, 2008 07:16 PM Permalink
My point was that this issue might serve as a motivating factor for India. Individually, your players are a match for any team in the world, but they have rarely been able to put it together on the field. You are condemning the Aussie cricket culture... a winning culture. Is that because Indian fans are tired of losing? Perhaps it's easier to take the moral high ground when you've got nothing else to latch onto???
RE:Perth
by raj on Jan 08, 2008 07:21 PM Permalink
if sledging is the aussie culture, i's say so be it. i'll condemn it. i havent said the winning habit is bad. yu are reading between the lines. you are guilty of brining up the winningness factor when i clearly stated that its not that we dont respect aussies for their winning streak. its the cheap cledging tactics. the pressure on the umpires. its a deadly cocktail for a non-aussie. but for aussie. its just their game. ask any player outside of australia.
RE:Perth
by on Jan 08, 2008 07:38 PM Permalink
And my point is that it's too easy to blame it all on sledging as a way to explain the Indian teams consistent poor performance. "Oh, he made me feel bad so I played bad". And one more thing, for a mild mannered people, you sure do burn a lot of effigies. Is there one effigy seller in India that's cashing in on this issue? I'd sure like to know. They must be making a lot of cash. Maybe they paid Proctor to get him to rule against Bajji.
RE:Perth
by raj on Jan 08, 2008 07:56 PM Permalink
its not "Oh, he made me feel bad so I played bad". its that the people get agitated in a different way when yu are reminded of your parents. if its legal, make it a formal that yu can abuse yur opponents parents. wasnt it mcgrath who felt very emotional when sarwan abused his wife , and he became very violent. why dont yu understand the feeling of another person?
RE:Perth
by on Jan 08, 2008 08:12 PM Permalink
McGrath's wife had cancer Raj. Slightly different circumstances. Again, a knowledge of the game would help here!
First time poster on one of these boards, but this one seems a bit more reasonable and considered than most on this topic.
You have presented your argument as a debating contest rather than an attempt at balanced commentary. I think there are a number of issues that are above debate - ie the umpiring was bad, and (given the circumstances of the recent Indian tour) calling Symonds a "monkey" is unacceptable.
As to whether or not Bajji called Symonds a "monkey", well no-one one on this site can make a call on that. To try to argue, as you do, that the truth can mathematically be deduced by adding one "truthful" Bajji to one "never lies" Tendulkar and saying this beats 4 "cheating" Australians is not an argument. You pretty much admit this when you claim Symonds has "no evidentiary value" and that you know that only Tendulkar is telling the truth because you "trust" him. Not arguments. The Symonds bit doesn't even make sense. I guess if someone robbed you, you wouldn't report it to the police because, as the victim, you have "no evidentiary value".
Finally, your point about the appeal is misleading. Making an appeal with the threat India will boycott unless they win is not within the spirit (or rules) of the game. It is blackmail, regardless of how strongly it is felt that Bajji is innocent.
India has legitimate grievances about how the match was adjudicated. They can only lose sympathy and respect by trying to unfairly muscle the ICC.
RE:be fair
by raj on Jan 08, 2008 07:02 PM Permalink
india has not been muscling the icc. they are trying their rights. indians feel bhajji has been convicted with zero evidence. the aussie team would have gone to courts if they were bannned.
oh, wait a minute, they have never been convicted for anything without evidence...oh nevermind icc is aussie.
RE:be fair
by on Jan 08, 2008 07:30 PM Permalink
Actually, Darren Lehmann was suspended for racist remarks and rightly so. I'm sure there was no evidence other than the parties involved and there were no cameras or mics in the dressing rooms. He did wrong and faced the music, not try to deny it.
RE:be fair
by on Jan 08, 2008 07:37 PM Permalink
To be honest, I believe Boof (Lehmann) was picked up on TV mics - it also didn't help that at Adelaide, the two dressing rooms are quite close and he was heard by a lot of people!
But the point stands - he got caught and took his punishment on the chin. It's amazing how many Indians refer to this incident as some sort of defence to say "the Aussies did it first" CHeers Michael
RE:be fair
by raj on Jan 08, 2008 07:58 PM Permalink
point is its about citing an example. not aussies did it first. what aussies brought to the game was ugliness of sledging. also, yu might have missed the hypothetical scene i mentioned above - how bhajjie can be banned in the next game , very conveniently. given the way mike proctor handled it.
RE:RE:be fair
by on Jan 08, 2008 08:09 PM Permalink
I don't think anyone missed the point of your hypothetical. It is just a really poor and unhelpful hypothetical. Perhaps it won't even be the Aussies trying to set up Bajji in the next game. It might be those pesky aliens, or maybe even George Bush. Hypothetically Bajji could bring a gun to the next game and shoot Ponting dead - why aren't we debating ways to prevent this horror scenario? Surely there is plenty to debate without this kind of self-serving nonsense, or have you run out of real arguments?
RE:be fair
by on Jan 08, 2008 07:26 PM Permalink
A South African adjudicated after hearing hours of evidence from those involved. Your statement about "no evidence" has no basis. You weren't there. I wasn't there. We can't really argue about what took place. Your comment that "ICC is aussie" is confusing and confused. Even the article above refers to the power of India in the ICC (with 60-70% of revenue from Indians).
Saying the Australians would do he same thing (which may be unlikely given their lack of financial clout and previous acceptance of Lehman's ban) is counter-productive given most bloggers' arguments that Aussies are cheaters who don't play by the spirit of the game. Why would you want to emulate them if this is the case?
When India threatened to boycott, they changed from "trying ther rights" to forcing the result. It is not a trial if only one result will be accepted.
This is not to say that Bajji may have been hard done by, and that any appeal may have cleared him, but I guess we won't know now because any result will be due to political rather than factual considerations.
RE:be fair
by on Jan 08, 2008 07:14 PM Permalink
For the last time - Procter is a South African, we all agree that on the evidence we have he ballsed it up. But honestly, do you really think the ICC would risk giving India the irrits just to help australia win? For example: the ICC is so Aussie they banned Darrell Hair! ICC is so Aussie they change the rules for subcontinental 'bowlers'.
RE:be fair
by raj on Jan 08, 2008 07:25 PM Permalink
for the last time. he needs to be consistent, and have solid evidence. or else, give him a warning.
imagine a scenario - next match, when the players are going to drinks. symonds is at it again. a "friendly banter". bhajji is at the drinks trolley alone surrounded by aussie team members and no cameras nearby. suddenly symonds starts shouting, and all the aussie team members run to the umpire and claim bhajjie has shouted at him and abused him racially.
now what stops the umpire from banning permanently, since there has been a precedence in just the previous match ?
RE:RE:be fair
by on Jan 08, 2008 07:34 PM Permalink
I am NOT saying that Procter's decision is good - I have said many times it is either flawed or we don't have all the evidence in the public eye. What I am trying to point out above is that to say 'the ICC is Aussie' because of procter's decision is ludicrous. Jeremy.
RE:RE:RE:be fair
by on Jan 08, 2008 07:50 PM Permalink
Explain to me then why the ICC dumped the Aussie umpire Mr Hair. I don't think the facts support your argument. A bit more knowledge of the game might help!
RE:be fair
by on Jan 08, 2008 07:48 PM Permalink
Maybe he should have found Yuvraj guilty of dissent in the first test. "Oh, I was just in shock at the decision so I didn't accept your decision." Yeah, right. Yuvraj was out and he was guilty of dissent. So Proctor ruled in India's favour and then against you with Bajji, but somehow he's part of a grand conspiracy. Raj, you really crack me up...
RE:be fair
by on Jan 08, 2008 07:21 PM Permalink
Come on Raj. You seem like a smart guy. Mike Proctor is South African... why would he support Australia. My guess is that he made a call based on his view of who was telling the truth. Remember, Bajji has called Roy a Monkey before. Why so hard to believe he would do it again??? It seems that all the money in the game can't buy you class.
RE:be fair
by Anurag Jain on Jan 09, 2008 12:43 AM Permalink
Read this piece of yours a little late, guess you are a lawyer as you mention elsewhere. What flummoxes me is how could you compare the case of Symonds-Bhajji to that of a 'victim of robbery not filing a complaint'. Reporting a robbery to the police is not the same as police deciding ONLY on the basis of your complaint that the other guy is a robber. Try to differentiate between 'reporting' of a supposed crime, and passing a 'judgement' on that. Lawyers should know this much, I suppose?
What type of site is this that deletes posts that challenge your opinion? I will post one more time and see if this stands. To those who disagree that is your right. But it is my right to disagree with you also.
India received some bad decisions, that's cricket, harden up. Would have..could have...should have...DIDN'T. If it was the Australian team on the receiving end, then guess what, they would have dug deeper and fought harder. That is why they are champions. Sure India can run cricket, it has the largest market, the most money, but it does not have the best team in the world. Why, because it is soft. All this talk of being aggressive before the tour was just that, talk. Still doesn't change the fact that India had the chance to battle for the draw in the final overs and crumbled under the pressure. Tough talk has suddenly turned into take my bat and ball and go home crying. Perhaps they should go home to avoid the flogging they are going to get in the next 2 tests, because at the end of the day they lack the courage and the fortitude. Rich, yes. Powerful, yes. Heavily supported, yes. Champions, no. And I believe that is the bottom line that really gets your goat, covered up with all this rhetoric. Stop being such crybabies and take your lumps like men.
RE:delete opinions not in line with your own??????
by raj on Jan 08, 2008 07:00 PM Permalink
lols, yu tick people the wrong way, yu've gotta be a troll.
RE:delete opinions not in line with your own??????
by Ananth Rao on Jan 08, 2008 07:12 PM Permalink
Australia is the cry baby here...running to papa when you can't take the heat. I am a fan of the Aussie way of playing hard and fair, but if they can't take the heat, they should stop being such sissies.
RE:delete opinions not in line with your own??????
by on Jan 08, 2008 07:42 PM Permalink
The only thing we complained about is Racial Abuse - we are a multi-cultural country (including many Indians) and for that matter we can't accept racial abuse or discrimination it would ruin our country. India on the other hand has complained about 1. Umpires (bad decisions went against us too you know) 2. Australia not shaking hands quick enough (check out the 20/20 semi-final and then tell me this isn't hypocritical) 3. The Match Referee (I think you have a point here :P) 4. Aussie sledging 5. Australins appealing for things that the super slow mo showed was out. But no you're right - we are the sissies. See we're Aussies we can handle being called a nasty name :P
RE:delete opinions not in line with your own??????
by on Jan 08, 2008 07:25 PM Permalink
Actually, when it comes to racism I disagree. It has no place in sport, period. Seems as though racism is acceptable in India but I guess the caste system is as culturally ingrained as it is to rednecks in the American South. As an indigenous person I know full well that racism is alive in Australia but for someone to refer to someone as a monkey on the field of a professional sport, come on, you can't see anything wrong with that? Remember he has admitted to that once already and got off with a warning. When Darren Lehmann was caught out being a racist no one said it was alright, or cultural misunderstanding or denied it happened. He had to face the penalty and rightly so. Seems like Indian supporters are living in denial, just like the crowd issue in Idian recently. Sure, we are suppose to sweep racism under the carpet are we?
RE:delete opinions not in line with your own??????
by raj on Jan 08, 2008 07:30 PM Permalink
the indian crowd issue has been raised repeatedly. all the newspaper condemned it. the tv channels gave it full coverage, and claimed it a national shame. if yu missed that part, its yur problem. but yu will be termed as one sided for sure. yu dont see the facts properly yur problem.
RE:delete opinions not in line with your own??????
by on Jan 08, 2008 07:43 PM Permalink
Yet this incident is not condemned or a national shame but "injustice". Truth is if he was on my team I would have stood him down after the 1st time. But I guess I don't see the facts.
RE:RE:delete opinions not in line with your own??????
by Cameron Richardson on Jan 09, 2008 01:55 PM Permalink
Ananth Rao: What heat are you talking about? Certainly you cannot be suggesting Indian cricketing heat? Are you? You must have a fantastically brilliant sense of humour. Truly, that was one of the things I enjoyed most about your country: fantastic humour.
Good luck to you sir & your team. Lets hope they play some real cricket now & that cricket is back in the headlines for all the right reasons.
RE:delete opinions not in line with your own??????
by TJ on Jan 08, 2008 06:59 PM Permalink
Hei there are a lot of clowns within rediff who does this. My counter views were also reported and deleted.
This generally denotes the vicinity of unilateral views
How come rediff is deleting my posts. All I am saying is that Panicker is not being objective. What is point of this article (and discussion) if you do not tolerte even a slight disagreement with Panicker.
RE:How Come???
by raj on Jan 08, 2008 06:57 PM Permalink
serves you right if yu have been spamming or trolling. if not, you have been abusing ? libellous ? or was it automatic deletion for use of one of those civil words in australia but not so in the rest of the world ?
RE:How Come???
by bill on Jan 08, 2008 07:00 PM Permalink
Come on Mr. right, I am not in your game of spamming. I just cannot stand this arrogant Panicker dude, who I am sure is sitting at his desk and monitoring all the feedback by the minute. He just doesnt' want any dissenting opinion.
RE:How Come???
by on Jan 08, 2008 07:04 PM Permalink
I agree Bill. Any views that aren't "Indian" enough get wiped. Shame. Does tend to undermine their argument.
RE:How Come???
by raj on Jan 08, 2008 07:13 PM Permalink
when yu arent ready to listen to the other side, i'd say fair enough. yu still claim aussie players are saint. its been played in the right spirit of the game, when it was anything but that. the entire world does not agree to it. ask lou vincent, wasim akram, windies, ranatunga, etc etc.
RE:How Come???
by raj on Jan 08, 2008 07:04 PM Permalink
lmfao. panicker isnt even involved in moderation. imagine a journo running a website. yuve gotta be kidding about your knowledge of runnng a website. pathetic reasoning to slur a journo!
RE:How Come???
by Calvin Corser on Jan 08, 2008 07:07 PM Permalink
It's happening to most people who think he is presenting a biased view. Don't dismay, there are people out there who can see facts for facts, and distorted inflammatory opinion as just that.
RE:RE:How Come???
by raj on Jan 08, 2008 07:11 PM Permalink
:) oh well, anyone here can simply report abuse if its libellous. most of your points are repititive and something which is disputed. you say ponting's a saint with his grassed catches, people dont agree. it become libellous! its the repition thats probably caused a fatigue to the moderator!
RE:RE:RE:How Come???
by on Jan 08, 2008 08:01 PM Permalink
Raj, you've confirmed it. You're a bigot and hypocrite. You don't even listen to other opinions. Instead you paraphase to suit your arguments. Make a valid contribution that is well thought out, or simply don't post at all. You're only undermining the valid points that others are making with your nationalistic views.
Prem, I dont understand why you even need to respond to an idiot like Craddock!!!! He doesnt even understand the point we are trying to make. He should be first asked to report on a local match before writing all this nonsense
What a shame for all lovers of cricket! Be it Indian or Aussie players, all have forgoten the definition of a gentleman, i.e. "civilized, sensitive, or well-mannered man, a man of refinement". Sport should make man of boys, specially a great game like cricket, not any more it seems. As an Indian I am proud that our team seems to have at least a few of the endangered species called "Gentleman Cricketer", namely Dravid, Sachin, Kumble and Laxman. Our opponents are poorer on that acount.
I'm still amazed at views that: (a) the umpiring was pro-Australia (b) there is an anti-Indian/anti-subcontinental conspiracy (c) it only seems to happen in favour of Australia (d) India always suffers; and (e) it's time to take a stand.
Is there a sudden preponderance of Indian supporters forgetting to take their morning medication?
1. Let us go back to Bucknor saving India with umpiring errors at Lords last summer (not to excuse his falling standards, just to dispel the anti-Indian conspiracy)
2. Let us go back to the good old days of the 70s and 80s where you couldn't get equality in the subcontinent for love or for money (pardon the pun). Only the innocent should throw stones!
3. Consider the following decisions in Sydney (a) Ponting out off inside edge LBW (b) Lee out hit outside the line LBW (c) Laxman plumb LBW to Lee early in 100 innings (d) Tendulkar plumb LBW to Lee early in 150 innings
Now these decisions still pale into a degree of insignificance given the bad decisions copped by the Indians, but since when is this new? All this is definitive proof of is bad umpiring, rather than any suggested bias.
And I'm afraid it is in the Indian psyche to point fingers anywhere but internally when things go wrong - it's not our inability to bat 72 overs on a perfectly good pitch, nor our inability to clean up the tail from 6-130 in the first innings, it is the umpires.
Cliche as it may be, build a bridge (and get over it)!
RE:Umpiring - biased or bad?
by Adnan on Jan 08, 2008 06:57 PM Permalink
Mr. Australian Lawyer.. go and fight the case for Bucknor and Benson. They deserve good lawyers like you.
I am of the humble belief that you have taken the wrong end of the stick on this one. Though Craddock may have not chosen his words well, I believe his point (with which I agree) is as follows:
(a) the BCCI doesn't agree with the guilty finding (as is their right) (b) presumably Proctor has something concrete to go on in making such a finding "beyond a reasonable doubt" (c) if the BCCI/Indians have something definitive to contradict this, come out publicly with it; (d) it is the BCCI's right to appeal; BUT (e) IT IS NOT within the SPIRIT OF THE GAME to tell your team to sit in Sydney whilst awaiting the outcome of the appeal. This is an unequivocally veiled threat to the ICC's power.
If Craddock has a problem with the BCCI even appealing, then on this point I vehemently disagree.
The right thing to do was for the BCCI to say "we think the umpiring has been abysmal and are not happy, but in the interests of the world game, we will continue with the series, but are undoubtedly appealing Proctor's decision which we belive has no merit and no foundation".
The analogy I would draw is the young boy in the Kerala backwaters who is the only person with a bat and ball in his village - gets given out unfairly and says to the others "if you don't let me back in, I'm taking my bat and ball away". Yes, this is far more serious, but no-one in their right mind can say the hearing was without basic merit given the admission Harbhajan said it before.
RE:What is the BCCI thinking?
by Subbu on Jan 08, 2008 07:20 PM Permalink
Mr.On (is that your name?) I think we are all the same under the skin, aren't we? Human nature is human nature. Except, I am now convinced, for the Aussies, who will take it on the chin like real men unlike the rest of the world. Yes, all your shouting regarding BCCI's reaction is well taken, but tell me what CA would do if the following situation arises: Bret Lee has been taking a heap of wickets, and in the course of one (or more) of his wicket-taking sprees, he insults not only a well-known batsman's abilities, but his father, wife and grandfather as well. Captain of batsman's team reports abuse to Match Referee. Match Referee (in amoment of sheer insanity) decides enough is enough and bans Lee for the rest of the series. What do you think will happen? I am convinced that CA would simply say "Oh bad luck, mate, let's get on with the game, we really deserved this." Why? Because Australians will take it on the chin and move on. It is ingrained in their blood. Your letter is evidence enough of the largeness of heart that Australians exhibit. This is what sets them apart. They play hard, but fair. They abuse well and with considerable verbal dexterity on the field, but it is all in good fun. "Come have a beer with us, you son of a warthog", they say, with hearty humour. You have convinced me. Give me a stubbie, mate.
RE:What is the BCCI thinking?
by on Jan 08, 2008 07:30 PM Permalink
Jeremy the doctor not Michael the lawyer.
Two things: first, please can we not generalise the actions of cricket teams to entire populations, that sort of thing is how wars get started.
Secodnly, we are agreeing with the right to appeal and defend the player. We just think that it is unhelpful to threaten to go home before the appeal has even been heard! If this match taught us anything it is that people with good intentions make mistakes (even, exceptionally rarely, doctors) even, potnetially, Mike Procter! So lets get it sorted out without high-mindedness and threats.
RE:RE:What is the BCCI thinking?
by Cameron Richardson on Jan 09, 2008 02:25 PM Permalink
Subbu: Goodonya mate. At last some humour in all this. Why too much energy & emotion is being spent on this topic. It's all being taken way too far, & way too seriously by so many. How many blog sites I've read today (Australian & Indian), with both sides equally incensed & enraged. For awhile there, so was I. The more you read, the more realise how silly it's becoming. We are talking about two of the biggest homelands & bastions of the game, where cricket is a deep passion for both nations. The game suffers for this seemingly endless & at the end of the day, mindless volley of tirades. Indian's are pissed off. Australian's are pissed off. Where are going with it all? It's a game played by humans, adjudicated by humans. Shit happens, & it did for India in Sydney. However, the bad goes with the good too (i.e. like the draw at Lords last year, when Sreesanth should've been out LBW at the end of the day in the fading light & Bucknor said "not out"). Remember we all love cricket, that's what we are squabbling about. Meanwhile our game suffers & no one gets any closer to the end of this piece string. I, for one, am completely over all this who's right & who's wrong business. Blame, blame, blame. Let there be more humour like Subbu's from both sides & lets hope for excellent sporting cricket in Perth.
RE:What is the BCCI thinking?
by ashish sharma on Jan 08, 2008 07:07 PM Permalink
Hi my nameless friend (or are u too scared to write your name?)
You say that Mr Proctor must have found something concrete to convict Harbhajan of that offence. But I have a small query.
When Ricky and Gilly "backed" their mate, but said that they didnt hear anything, then what was the value of their testimony in a fact finding enquiry?
And if one person, who has one of the longest of carrers in the world, and that too without any controvercies, says that he didnt hear anything of that sort, then why was his word taken over someone who is always covered in some controvercy or the other.
Here I would like to clear one thing, that I have no objections to Ricky or Symonds or Clark not walking or appealing for a catch which "others" thought they dropped. My objection is that if player of one team is called for showing dissent, then in the same series, when a player of the opposite team appeals for a catch, which was nowhere near the bat AND which he also grassed, reacts as if something obvious has not happened, and he still goes scot free.
So before you say anything else about Indian cricket team, check the facts about the officiating in tha games involving Australia.
My name is Mrs Wenndy Ibrahim, the only daugther of my late parents. i sent you my first mail but it came back undelieved, i prayer that it gets to you this time.
I am contacting you because i need your help to retrive the sum of $2.6 million dollars, that my late father deposited with a bank here, he intended to transfer this fund over-sees for investment before his death. and i am the beneficiary of this money, so i still dicieded to transfer the money abroad for investment and continue with my studies there. so i need a truthful and God fearing preson that will assist me in retriveing the fund and then transfer it to his bank account, and also help me with investment plans as i go into school. so i am asking if you can be of help to me and assist me with this project.
I am offering you 20% of the total fund if you can assist me in this project.
RE:What is the BCCI thinking?
by on Jan 08, 2008 07:20 PM Permalink
Apologies, new to this site so my name doesn't appear to show. My name is MIchael, yes, I'm an Australian born indian of mallu heritage who is a lawyer.
I agree with Adnan - the umpiring was completely unprofessional, utterly incompetent and wrecked the game. BUT that's my point - unlike hundreds of posters on this page suggesting the match should be cancelled/awarded to India/etc, it wasn't a conspiracy against India, just sheer incompetence.
Ashish - I must admit I'm erring on the optimistic side of caution as I'm HOPING that Proctor found something concrete to justify his comment that he was satisfied "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is why I fully support the BCCI appealing.
Also please verify your own facts - Symonds was supported by Hayden and Clarke who said they heard it. Gilchrist and Ponting I believe said they were only told about it (therefore their evidence would have been largely irrelevant).
Again read my comments - I urge the BCCI/Sachin to come out PUBLICLY and EXPLICITLY and say nothing was said. The alleged text message from Sachin was non-existent, and I honestly can say every Australian would believe Sachin if he told us the world was ending tomorrow!
Yuvraj was cited by umpires and CLEARED by Proctor. Check your own facts about officiating before commenting.
Also the author of "the real spirit of the game", "umpiring - biased or bad" "what is the BCCI thinking?" and "what is the (educated) world coming to?"
