Clear and concise writeup. A few questions though: Umpires that officiate in tests are DECIDED BEFORE the series begins and any changes are to be MADE before the series begins. India knew that Bucknor was one of them much before the tour started. Why then did they not oppose and have him changed when most of the team members knew and had experienced his incompetence? Why? Even match referees are decided before the tour and must be agreeable to both parties. Why did India agree to Proctor, a product of apartheid era? Any answers Panicker? Ponting and his boys are players who play the game very hard indeed. They cheat too! So do all other teams. Is it your contention that all other teams are made of saints? So whether the Aussies are arrogant, dishonest, abrasive, or abusive, one thing remains undisputed is that they are BLOODY GOOD AS CRICKETERS! Therefore, the thing to do is to beat the Aussies on the field whether home or away. Dont the Aussies win regardless of the venue or situation or team or umpires? Can India emulate this? Only a couple of months ago, we were struggling to dismiss the weakest Pak team ever to have toured India! Let us improve our playing standards; if we had then all these would not have mattered. Let me ask you: Would this incident have gained this mileage had India won the test?
RE:Good writeup!
by klotus on Jan 08, 2008 02:43 PM Permalink
WHAT YOU WANT TO CONVEY BY YOURS MESSAGE I DON'T UNDERSTAND MR. SRINIVAS. IF A TEAM IS PLAYING WITH 15 PLAYERS AND THE OTHER IS PLAYING WITH 25 PLAYERS, IS IT POSSIBLE TO WIN AT THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED IN SYDENY ACTUALLY. OUR TEAM PLAYED A LOT BETTER THAN THE AUSTRILANS IN SYDENY BUT ONLY BECAUSE OF SOME POOR DECISIONS THEY LOST IT. I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND ME. I ALSO WAS A FAN OF AUSTRILAN TEAM BEFORE THE SYDENY MATCH BUT NOW I THINK EVEN THEY PLAY GOOD BUT THEY ARE VERY SOUR LOOSERS.
RE:RE:Good writeup!
by Srinivas Kasinathan on Jan 08, 2008 04:53 PM Permalink
What I want to convey is this: Let us keep things in the right perspective and behave accordingly. Agreed the umpires gave decisions against India and favored Aussies. Had Symonds been given out caught behind in the first innings, India might even have won this match. Agreed. But are Aussies always playing with umpires favoring them? Have they been winning only in Australia? Have they not won against India in India? Against Pakistan in Pakistan, against England in England, against SA in SA, against NZ in NZ? How many times has India done the above feat in the last 25 years? Did Aussies cheat in World Cup matches too? The problem here is that other teams hardly get a chance to win against Aussies. India had one in Sydney and this was spoiled by the umpires and hence the outrage. This is why I asked if India had actually won in spite of poor umpiring, would so much outrage been expressed on the decisions? Had India won, would we still have demanded Bucknor's ousting? Had India won, would so much support been forthcoming for Bhajji? So our reaction totally depends on the situation and not on issues. This is what I wanted to convey. It is high time we learned to base our reactions/responses on issues.
RE:Good writeup!
by on Jan 08, 2008 06:00 PM Permalink
Mr Kasinathan, as an Australian born Indian, bravo - an impartial Indian response at long last. It's yet another typical case of tall poppy syndrome, or as I like to call it "any excuse is a good excuse for why India lost"
