Ponting admitted quite plainly he had nothing but Symonds' account of what was said to go on at the hearing, however, as captain it was still his duty (as dictated by the ICC and refereee at the beginnning of the game) that any potentially racist comment be reported.
I agree with you, there is no way to prove that Singh said anything so he should be let off. However, it is Procter that made the decision to ban him, not Australians/Ponting! Be angry at him, not us. I have no doubt that Symonds believes Singh made racist comments, it is possible that what he believes is not true as people mishear things all the time when accents/other noises are involved, ergo Singh should be let off. But to accuse Symonds or anyone of deliberately concocting a racism charge is libellious - you have even less proof than Procter does of that!
Anyway - Australia does not need to make up stories to beat India - it is a shame for you that a country with 1b people and one national sport can't beat a nation of 21m who have numerous world champions in other sports. But that is not our fault. Kumble was no doubt frustrated and disappointed at failing and we all know what happens to Indian captains who fail - why you have 3 previos captains in the team! If I were him I would be looking for something to distract the media too, after all, it could be MY effigy on the pyre.
I note too, that Australia's ways were okay when you appointed Chappell (a man infamous for bad sportsmanship) as coach.
RE:Ponting banned - for telling the truth?
by Adnan on Jan 08, 2008 06:27 PM Permalink
You bad need to read what Peter Reubouk has said about your Ponting...."He is leading a bunch of Wild dogs"
RE:Ponting banned - for telling the truth?
by on Jan 08, 2008 06:38 PM Permalink
I have of course read that and disagree with him - his condemnation of Hayden at the very least is perplexing - he wasn't doing a lot of sledging from the rooms. Look at any team which is utterly dominant in a sport for a period of years Liverpool then Man U in football, for example, people always accuse them of being too tough or too hard or getting the favour of umpires (which, admittedly, Australia certainly got lucky with in Sydney). However, Australia does not sledge any more than other players (like RSA's Nel/Smith or India's Sreesanth or Eng's Pietersen), we just win more and so attract the ire of other nations.
The only player who walks in world cricket is an Australian - and he did so in a World Cup semi-final. Ponting in this very game declined to appeal for a 'catch' he could easily have removed Ganguly with if he'd tried. The fact is Kumble agreed to an honour code with fielding then it potentially cost his team. I note that just as their is no evidence to convict Singh their is no evidence to convict Michael Clarke, replays are equivocal at worst. Wlaking and catches are different and should not be muddled together. As a batsman you only have the option to give yourself out, you can't give yourself in, so it is better to let things balance out and rely on the umpire. Catches you are able to declare both decisions as a player so no balance is necessary. Though, it ought to be remembered that Benson gave Ganguly out, not Ponting.
RE:RE:Ponting banned - for telling the truth?
by raj on Jan 08, 2008 06:48 PM Permalink
not so. west indies were much better than the aussie team in terms of behaviour. only the aussie team is celebrated ones for theier "gamesmanship" "friendlt banter"
RE:Ponting banned - for telling the truth?
by on Jan 08, 2008 07:22 PM Permalink
Always, winning is not the only thing in the gmae world, there is a word called honest & respect too. If it was all about winning than BCCI never able to raise such fund (700% than Cricket Asutrelia. In international game sector players are diplomat, Host country must understand this. when touring members charged without any true evidence than first embessy starts working towards damage control. But Here I not see any damage control by Cricket australia??
one person, whose is a leader of the side make a agreement prior to series to play honest & with the spirit of the game & in the middle of the series he says no one can ask his integrity.
You know once Chandrapaul told in interview if some of 50-50 or 60-40 decision will be given opposite side than beating Astralia in Astralia is not a big thing Now it looks pretty clear. Over the year It is made clear that touring to australia means playing againest 12 where 12th man is umpire. I don't know Why only in Australia touring players are come under scaner for wrong side.
When their own heros are condemning their behaviour australian players behaving like nothing has happend. Which is in India Called Shame.
I think Australian Media also is in awe of their player, In india Media lamblasted against its player when their onfield behaviours come ounder scrunity, but Australian media is silent about their players on field behaviours.
RE:Ponting banned - for telling the truth?
by Rishi Poddar on Jan 08, 2008 06:38 PM Permalink
Ponting has lost his integrity much before this test match and Sydney proved why. He grassed a catch of Dhoni and claimed that he caught it cleanly. He asked for Sourav's dismissal when he saw Clarke not taking the catch cleanly. There is no sportsmanship left in your team which wants to win at all costs. Just take a look at the opinion poll conduct by Fox News and many other newspapers in the last two days - majority of your countrymen Australians denounced their national cricketers for their behaviour and cheating.
RE:RE:Ponting banned - for telling the truth?
by on Jan 08, 2008 06:41 PM Permalink
You have no proof at all that Ponting knew he probably touched the ball to the grass off Dhoni. I have seen the replay of Ganguly's dismissal m,any times and am still convinced that at the very least the replay is unclear, so why immediately think the worst of a player?
As for the polls, this is not an election, only people who really care will vote,i.e, people who feel they behaved badly, no credence is to be given to them though many polls (and people I spoke to today) agree with me.
RE:Ponting banned - for telling the truth?
by raj on Jan 08, 2008 06:46 PM Permalink
ponting's eyes were directed at the ball when he was on the ground. thats more than enough evidence. watch the replays on the indian tv when the freeze it at the right time. when in doubt, the batsmen get the benefit of doubt.
RE:Ponting banned - for telling the truth?
by on Jan 08, 2008 06:51 PM Permalink
I have not seen any Indian TV, so I can't comment. But was Dhoni given out - no, he got the benefit.
RE:Ponting banned - for telling the truth?
by on Jan 08, 2008 06:53 PM Permalink
At last, some one with a balanced view. I'm no Ponting fan, but I don't think he would claim a catch he knew was grassed. He proved that in the first innings, a fact many of you seem to have conveniently forgotten.
RE:RE:RE:Ponting banned - for telling the truth?
by TJ on Jan 08, 2008 07:03 PM Permalink
Yeah his expressions were so genuine when he didn't accept a catch in first innings though he had many reasons to do so as India was building a tough lead.
