RE:Pots and kettles
by Calvin Corser on Jan 09, 2008 04:08 PM Permalink
Hey mate, I admire your determination in trying to point out the blatantly obvious. But they don't want to see it, and by they I don't mean Indians, I mean all the conspiracy theorists out there, the people who think being Australian (and the world champions) you must be bad and get all the decisions, or can have anyone you like given out or suspended at your simple request.
Australia win because they are the best TEAM. They won 16 tests (going on 18) in a row, won 3 world cups in a row, have hardly lost a test series anywhere for the best part of 10 years, because simply they are the best TEAM.
They play hard, but within the rules, and when they break the rules they get punished just the same as everyone else.
But no-one here wants to see that, and sure as hell don't want us to tell them.
Let them sit back and believe the world is against them, let them think the world owes them something, let them try and drag the best down to their level, because maybe that helps them sleep at night. Instead of doing what champions should do, and get off their backsides and showing the world what they're made of. The choice is theirs. And most of them have unfortunately already made it. Indian cricketers included.
RE:RE:Pots and kettles
by raj on Jan 09, 2008 04:35 PM Permalink
Good on you, mate! on all those victories, you are the most successful team! welcome back corser!
there's something the aussie team will never win, admiration. admiration for the statistics, and the powerplay sure. hayden is one hell of a batsmen when he's going. cool! gilchrist is spectacular (oh well, ive got a soft corner for gilly, he's a dude, and great behaviour too, same with lee). but all that snarling in the middle of the pitch the rest of them. sorry , nope no brownie point. i guess yu dont need 'em anyway!
RE:RE:RE:Pots and kettles
by Calvin Corser on Jan 09, 2008 04:48 PM Permalink
My point is, we are more than a player as we've proved by the loss of the of greats of all time. The Australian team will prevail, because we strive for it, we don't complain that we lost because of this or that, we go out and prove we're the best.
Australia lost the ashes in 2005, and how did they respond? That is the act of a champion, and I've never seen that from any Indian team ever. To win when everything is against you, and people tell you you can't, isn't that the most satisfying? Just as much as it is to have people try and knock you down, pull you down to their level, that you can rise about it and win anyway???
Simple fact is India could have, but again didn't. I will say again that Australia's behaviour wasn't good, but instead of holding their head high, they responded in kind and lowered themselves to the level of the Australians tactics. But the one Australian thing they didn't do, was find a way to save the game, they buckled under the pressure.
The world would love to see india fight back and show us all what they're made of, but they've showed us before how they respond to adversity, the same way most of you are. And until that changes you will never be the best or the might righteous. All the talent in the world can't overcome that.
RE:RE:RE:RE:Pots and kettles
by Why Care on Jan 09, 2008 04:56 PM Permalink
You seem to be miserably incapable of noticing the difference here. Or maybe do see it, but like the other aussie pi^gs are not willing to accept it.
Austrlia LOST the Ashes to England, they were not MADE TO LOSE by employment of unfair means and outrageous umpriring decisions. That's the difference we're talking abt here.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Pots and kettles
by Dipal Ejardar on Jan 09, 2008 07:31 PM Permalink
written Like a true aussie Calvin! There are so many arguments and counter arguments that you can go on to make. But the one chance that India had was marred by the umpires. While one does not dispute the fact that the aussies are formidable, they were for once on the mat and that could have defined this series. The way this entire cricket series could have gone. We have always been the first to get back at our cricketing heroes when they don't perform. But this time it was certainly worse than ever and it hurts even more because the arrogance just comes through... even in your writing!
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Pots and kettles
by Calvin Corser on Jan 09, 2008 05:50 PM Permalink
If most teams were 134-6 and 32-2 they would lose I agree, Australia did not, and have come back from such positions many times. That is why we dominate world cricket.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Pots and kettles
by Why Care on Jan 09, 2008 05:26 PM Permalink
It's not abt decisions that could've gone either way. It's abt decisions beyond a shadow of a doubt that went in australia's favor. Why don;t you search the annals of cricket and show me a match where so many decisions have gone against one team.
And as I have said again and again, and anyone who has seen the match knows it very well, at 134-6 and 32-2, victory seemed imminent for India, and it was exactly at those junctures that suddenly umpires became oh-so-human (after all to err is human is what they say).
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Pots and kettles
by Why Care on Jan 09, 2008 05:38 PM Permalink
The way you self-proclaim to be champions is a reflection on the aussie teams psyche, as well. and so desperate they were to hang on to this champion tag, that once would not wanna let it slip away at any cost. and when it did, they resorted to cheating.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Pots and kettles
by Why Care on Jan 09, 2008 05:32 PM Permalink
Yes, champions rise above defeats and prevail- but aussies prevailed by using dishonest means. they could not rise above their 20/20 defeat, and the behavior they display is hardly one expected of champions. aussie team lacks the character to be called champions.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Pots and kettles
by Dipal Ejardar on Jan 09, 2008 07:57 PM Permalink
Also lets take Ricky Ponting's catch as an example. Whilst TV replays showed that he had clearly grounded the ball, he was adamant and downright arrogant in saying that he was clean on that. Also he repeatedly was saying that since he had, in the earlier inning, disclaimed a catch he had every right in this case to claim one and therefore prove his integrity. I say, are you counting how many you got right and therefore how many you can claim? If he has such integrity then why didn't he just walk after nicking the ball to the keeper off Saurav? Was he scared taht he might not equal the record created by his predecessor?
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Pots and kettles
by Calvin Corser on Jan 09, 2008 05:15 PM Permalink
Thanks for the abuse, it really helps your argument.
Show me a test match where there isn't at least one decision that could go either way? The umpiring was poor, as every simple Australian on this site has agreed to, but you don't want to see that.
What i and everyone else is saying. If you're good enough, you will still prevail anyway. The fact that you have to blame the umpire for the fact you didn't draw a game I find disappointing. I would want to hope you would be trying WIN, not draw the game. And at no stage did India ever look like doing that. yes Symonds got a call in his favour in the 1st innings, and made you pay. Are you one-eyed enough to believe that india don't get the same calls at other times???
The umpires are human, and yes make mistakes, some are better than others, and sometimes your team gets the bad calls... It's called sport, and it's always been that way. the thing is the champions rise above it, and prevail anyway. They make they are in position to win, even when things go against them, because they will.
Do you think Australia has won all those games in the past 10 years by getting all the 50-50 and bad calls go their way? Of course not, but they win anyway. Umpiring, pitch conditions, retirements, the way the wind blows, it doesn't mater, the champion will prevail. And India will probably lose 4-0 no mater who umpires the games.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Pots and kettles
by Dipal Ejardar on Jan 09, 2008 07:39 PM Permalink
Do you by the way think that the domination by the australians is necessarily good?... It just goes to show the thinking process!!! see there is absolutely nothing wrong in winning at all costs. But at some point one will cross the line and that will define to what limit you can go to win... I think that limit is now drawn. It is for everyone to see...
RE:RE:RE:RE:Pots and kettles
by raj on Jan 09, 2008 04:54 PM Permalink
well, when the chips were down, remember the kolkota test, how we bounced back ? to win when everything is against you in fact we came back from a follow on!
well, in the face of so many bad decisions, and everything else, we did last till the final over. what happens when on the last day yu are given out even if you are not ? ganguly and dravid could have easily saved the day. they dint complain, they had played on! well, the last over, i dont blame the part time batsmen - sometimes they do - like in the first inngs, sometime they dont - on a 5th day track, kudos to clarke for getting it in favour of australians.
we'd love to see a fightback, from our team. even though we are pretty short of quality bowlers, most of them injured. we still will play. its not the play we are shirking from. its the stupidity or the audacity of people like bucknor to continue with the game without even apologising after the match, he got it so so wrong, and yet, he stays still as if nothing happened. imagine, so many nerves would have been soothed if he tried to pacify the indians that ok i had a bad in the office, or rather a bad week in the office. but no, indians deserve no stinking apologies, or he felt below his dignity to bow down for his mistakes.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Pots and kettles
by Calvin Corser on Jan 09, 2008 05:20 PM Permalink
Yes I do recall that test, it was very impressive batting, and ended our last run of 16 test wins in a row.
Low on bowlers you say, we lost Warne and McGrath to retirement, but do you hear us using it as an excuse???
RE:RE:Pots and kettles
by Why Care on Jan 09, 2008 04:31 PM Permalink
Classic case of comparing apples with oranges. Citing a single isolated incident to justify systematic cheating done by an entire team to win a game. Never in the history of test cricket has so many things gone wrong during a single test match.
And keep looking for such incidents, in the end you'll see that it will take the combined inequities of at least a 100 tests to equal those of the one played in sydney.
RE:RE:RE:Pots and kettles
by raj on Jan 09, 2008 04:38 PM Permalink
true. but if only they accept it. the whole worlds' joining the chorus , including dickie bird to remove bucknor, there might be a few against it - but its more like they are trying to say india's trying to dominate world cricket. but, the point is no other test team had to endure so much nonsense in one test match.
but, sadly, if only the aussie team would give it a semblance of a respect to say that "yeah, yu've been at the recieving end of some pretty unfair decisions". but , they chose to stoke the fire. i see plenty of trolls around the board, toying around with people's rage, just cos they are good with english, while sadly not many here are on the indian side. i wish our wordsmiths would come around for some verbal jugglery and stick it to them too :P
RE:RE:RE:Pots and kettles
by Calvin Corser on Jan 09, 2008 04:39 PM Permalink
There is an old saying in Australia "that the squeaky wheel gets the most grease", and basically means the people who complain the most get their way in the end, well I sure as hell hope not here.
Because you are not hard by, there is no world conspiracy theory, no-one is out to get you, it's called paranoia. And as soon as you figure that out, and work out it was a few bad umpiring decisions (and yes poor but legal behaviour by the Australian team) and nothing more, the better off you'll be. And the better your cricket team will play.
RE:RE:RE:RE:Pots and kettles
by raj on Jan 09, 2008 04:46 PM Permalink
true buddy. that same quote can be applied to aussie team too. the ones who psyche the umpires the most and get their decisions in their way. most commentrators have opined that, the australians are luckier with appealing than most others. and someone with a lot of grease, mr. bucknor's ready dole it out to the aussie or any other opponent, just cos he's been biased in the past, and also maybe his hands are a bit fuddly as he's caught on with age!
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Pots and kettles
by raj on Jan 09, 2008 04:59 PM Permalink
i agree with you. well, i shudder to think of it. several years back he was one the 3 favourite umpires i liked - dickie bird, good ol' chubby shepherd, and bucknor. things changed after that tendulkar decision. i dont blame bucknor. he's pretty old. i dont blame the aussie team for the poor decisions, i blame the icc for mishandling the situation and inflaming the indians even more by not agreeing mid-match that there were a few bad decisions that dint go the indian way.
we are not devils here as many aussie blokes are making out to be. musch of the indians are as usual the shy reticent types, who arent around opining.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Pots and kettles
by Calvin Corser on Jan 09, 2008 04:50 PM Permalink
Bucknor is past it, and not the great unpire he once was, and I think it's his time to step aside. But he not under our or anyones control. He is just an aging man, who's ability is on the wane. Nothing more.
