Australia vs India

[mike62]

Hasn't Harbajan got previous for this with Symonds? I seem to recall in a series in India he called him a monkey which the crowd took up and produced banners and chants.

 

[bigredshark]

Hasn't Harbajan got previous for this with Symonds? I seem to recall in a series in India he called him a monkey which the crowd took up and produced banners and chants.

Certainly the crowd in india were guilty of this, whether harbhajan was involved I don't know, my recollection was it was only the crowd. The indian board for some reason chose to deny it happened and looked fairly stupid doing so. Australia didn't formally complain on that occasion but I imagine it affected their and the match referees decision somewhat.

 

[MarcLister]

Well the Indian media is absolutely furious and are throwing some serious accusations around at the moment. The BCCI also are writing a letter to the ICC about the quality of umpiring and want Steve Bucknor to not be an umpire in the next match. The reaction is a bit over the top but they showed one interesting clip of Ponting appeal for a catch off a spinner, he clearly catches it, then his hand and the ball clearly touch the ground but he lifts it up to appeal straight away. Then he wants to talk about playing the game in the right spirit? Also the umpire asked Ponting about whether Clarke had caught it and didn't refer to the third umpire and he said Clarke had caught it so was given out. The decision to give Dravid out was even worse as the bat was nowhere near the ball and clearly hit his pads.

We've seen the Indian media go ballistic before. Like the Shilpa Shetty/Big Brother issue and the England v Pakistan and THAT "forfeited" match debacle. Perhaps the Indians and Pakistanis don't feel that they get equal treatment to the "white" teams that are England and Australia?

As for Ponting, any Test cricketer (or OD/Twenty20) would appeal for a catch if they thought they had caught it. They aren't going to think, "Hold on, that was a bit close to the ground. I'd better think about this".

I have to say that Ponting is a brilliant player and quite an incredible captain. He's done extremely well to skipper HIS Test team to 16 consecutive Test wins, something his immediate predecssor (Steve Waugh) did and he's in with a chance of making in 17. (Rain dance in progress here btw. ) BUT I feel that Ponting can be quite arrogant as a player yet when he gets it back at him he's suddenly a victim? Like with the 2005 Ashes when Vaughan manipulated the rules but didn't break them concerning sub fidlers and England got Ponting out, who then went on to demonstrate his verbal dexterity. Pardon me but isn't pushing the rules as far they can go part of the Aussie revolution in cricket? The modern Australia cricket teams have revolutionised the game so I suppose we can both thank them and hate them for that but I do find it two-faced that they can give out a certain level and type of abuse but can't take it.

Harbhajan has also been banned for three matches after making racist comments to Symonds, surely I'm not the only who sees the irony of an Indian guy being racist to a black man! Not gonna defend Harbhajan but the Aussies are quick to hurl abuse about themselves but quick to portray themselves as victims when someone has a pop at them! Remember in South Africa and England they moaned about the abuse they got yet they have really laid into those teams in the past.

I was thinking this earlier! How funny that we've got a asian player supposedly racially abusing a black player. Quite ironic really I think.

Not that I support racism of course or believe that racism is only about skin colour as JohnnyG correctly mentions.

I think the BCCI are overreacting here, OK a player has been found guilty of something without any proper proof, but to suspend an entire series is just juvenile and ruins the game of cricket.

I think something that has been said about Australia in the past few years is that such is their hunger to win, they intimidate the umpires to give dismissals to such a degree that some want proper rules brought in so that no-one can unfairly influence an umpire to give a decision they want but wouldn't be the correct one. Think back to a team with Ponting, Gilchrist, Warne and McGrath etc! Quite a fearsome group of men who want a wicket at all costs and will push and push the umpire to give it.

A lot of cricket experts have had plenty to say about the Harbhajan thing and many are saying the same. The Aussies are quick to dish it out but now they are having to listen to some of it suddenly they are offended. I remember some of their bowlers moaning about the English crowds in the last Ashes here in England but I remember an interview with Phil Tufnell and he said he had to listen to a fair bit as well in his time so had no sympathy. Same goes for the South African players but when Smith was right in their faces the Aussies were making it out like he was going over the top.

In the past Indians have had to listen to plenty in the past and the Aussies have a famous saying "What goes on in the middle, stays in the middle" but in this situation Ricky Ponting has gone and got Harbhajan stitched up whereas in the past a lot of players have had to listen to the Aussie sledging and nothing has happened. If they moaned the Aussies shot them down as being weak or not being able to take a bit of abuse. Now it has happened to them suddenly they are victims and need to get a player banned.

I'll try to find you a clip Johnny but I always thought the same of Ponting but there is one part, it was off a spinner and I think it was off the guys pads and Ponting himself dives to catch it. The ball is in his hand but clearly touched the floor yet he pops up straight up to appeal. Pressure will make you do funny things and I think Ponting knew the record might be slipping away so did what he had to do. In the case of Ganguly it was a farce the umpire didn't even consult the third umpire to check whether it carried especially considering the situation we had with the game and just went on what Ponting said.

As with the forfeited Test, Pakistan wanted the ICC to not play Darrell Hair in the next series they were going to play. What right does a team have to tell the governing body of a sport not to use a particular umpire/referee/adjudicator? That's tantamount to choosing your own umpires and therefore unfairly influencing the match in your favour. Just wrong.

 

[JAzz]

I'm quite glad in an odd way that Harbhajan has been punished for insulting Symonds as racial abuse should never be influenced by skin colour alone
As much as I hate Ponting as a person I've always thought he was honest with his arrogance, in India's 1st innings he declined a catch he took at slip immediately saying it didn't carry, the replays I saw were inconclusive and I can think of plenty of other players who would've appealed for it and it's not the first time I've seen him do that so when he does appeal I tend to think he genuinely thinks he's made a clean catch.

Forward it to around 1:10 and you see Ponting even defend himself in the press conference when it is as blatant as you get that he grounded the ball! I don't have a problem with him appealing those but I do have a problem with him having an agreement not to appeal those and then defending himself in a press conference when he has been caught red handed.

theres bad umpiring decisions all the time in cricket, it a part of the game and you get on with it.

throwing all your toys out of the pram when things dont go your way is another thing entirely.

When players start influencing and inducing the bad umpiring then there is a problem mate When captains of teams have a gentleman's agreement between each other and one goes back on his word then I think that isn't very nice either

Well I think it goes either way, you could say india weren't helped by the umpires and certainly they weren't. But they lost 5 wickets (genuine undisputable dismissals I'd add) to part time bowlers in the second innings, Dravid and Ganguly were done in fair enough but to loose those 5 wickets so easily to clark and symonds on a decent batting pitch was careless.

I wasn't specifically talking about racism, more the number of players who take aggression too far - mainly bowlers it has to be said. Sreesanth is the obvious example, but RP Singh and Zaheer Khan are guilty of it as well (Khan not so much to be fair). I seem to recall, though don't quote me, that Harbhajan has been confrontational in the past (refusing to walk after being clean bowled springs to mind)

I would hardly call it a decent batting pitch, fifth day pitches are never easy to bat on and this pitch was becoming more and more better for the spinners as the SCG usually does from what I can remember. The wickets they loss were cheap but their settled partnership and two players inform were unfairly given out but I do agree where you are coming from.

As for aggression RP Singh and Zaheer I can't remember them going over the top. In recent times Harbhajan and Sreesanth have been guilty of it time and time again.

We've seen the Indian media go ballistic before. Like the Shilpa Shetty/Big Brother issue and the England v Pakistan and THAT "forfeited" match debacle. Perhaps the Indians and Pakistanis don't feel that they get equal treatment to the "white" teams that are England and Australia?

As for Ponting, any Test cricketer (or OD/Twenty20) would appeal for a catch if they thought they had caught it. They aren't going to think, "Hold on, that was a bit close to the ground. I'd better think about this".

I have to say that Ponting is a brilliant player and quite an incredible captain. He's done extremely well to skipper HIS Test team to 16 consecutive Test wins, something his immediate predecssor (Steve Waugh) did and he's in with a chance of making in 17. (Rain dance in progress here btw. ) BUT I feel that Ponting can be quite arrogant as a player yet when he gets it back at him he's suddenly a victim? Like with the 2005 Ashes when Vaughan manipulated the rules but didn't break them concerning sub fidlers and England got Ponting out, who then went on to demonstrate his verbal dexterity. Pardon me but isn't pushing the rules as far they can go part of the Aussie revolution in cricket? The modern Australia cricket teams have revolutionised the game so I suppose we can both thank them and hate them for that but I do find it two-faced that they can give out a certain level and type of abuse but can't take it.

The Indian media are a bunch of idiots anyway and will go mental over any little thing they can get hold of. I think the problem more here is the Aussies were desperate to win and on the final day they weren't being very honest and then they try to defend themselves over that. The Indian media will always look for an excuse. If they aren't slaughtering the players they will be defending them to the hilt, there is no middle ground!

I was thinking this earlier! How funny that we've got a asian player supposedly racially abusing a black player. Quite ironic really I think.

Not that I support racism of course or believe that racism is only about skin colour as JohnnyG correctly mentions.

I think the BCCI are overreacting here, OK a player has been found guilty of something without any proper proof, but to suspend an entire series is just juvenile and ruins the game of cricket.

I think something that has been said about Australia in the past few years is that such is their hunger to win, they intimidate the umpires to give dismissals to such a degree that some want proper rules brought in so that no-one can unfairly influence an umpire to give a decision they want but wouldn't be the correct one. Think back to a team with Ponting, Gilchrist, Warne and McGrath etc! Quite a fearsome group of men who want a wicket at all costs and will push and push the umpire to give it.

I think the protest from them is more due to the outcome of the match, if they had drawn I think they would have taken the ban on the chin but with all te dodgy decisions they were put under pressure to react.

As with the forfeited Test, Pakistan wanted the ICC to not play Darrell Hair in the next series they were going to play. What right does a team have to tell the governing body of a sport not to use a particular umpire/referee/adjudicator? That's tantamount to choosing your own umpires and therefore unfairly influencing the match in your favour. Just wrong.

I agree but Bucknor does have a history of giving dodgy decisions against India and they have been moaning about him for years now. I think we also need a bigger panel of elite umpires for Test matches, at the moment there are too few around.

 

[MarcLister]

I agree but Bucknor does have a history of giving dodgy decisions against India and they have been moaning about him for years now. I think we also need a bigger panel of elite umpires for Test matches, at the moment there are too few around.

Yes some ex-cricketers are saying that they think there aren't enough umpires for Test matches so the current umpires are getting tired and so making mistakes.

 

[platty]

Well they're gonna have to. With Hair not allowed any tests against Pakistan/India/Sri Lanka idf he's allowed back and now I can't see Buknor having anymore against India. At this rate there won't be many umpires that can stand in India/Pakistan games as whenever they have a bad game the BCCI and PCB throw their toys out of the pram and ICC give in to them.

 

[MarcLister]

If Hair came back, very unlikely though, the ICC should put him in whatever games they want. If they can't, they shouldn't bring him back. A Test umpire should be able to officiate in any match and if he can't, for whatever reason, he isn't suitable to be a Test umpire.

 

[rubberduck]

If Hair came back, very unlikely though, the ICC should put him in whatever games they want. If they can't, they shouldn't bring him back. A Test umpire should be able to officiate in any match and if he can't, for whatever reason, he isn't suitable to be a Test umpire.

Couldn't agree more tbh!

 

[platty]

If Hair came back, very unlikely though, the ICC should put him in whatever games they want. If they can't, they shouldn't bring him back. A Test umpire should be able to officiate in any match and if he can't, for whatever reason, he isn't suitable to be a Test umpire.

I fully agree but there's next to no chance of him standing in a test in for example Lahore. I also can see it being the same with Buknor against India, how can he now stand in tests in India or against India abroad.

I can't believe the ICC have backed down so quick and god knows how it makes him and any other umpires feel about their jobs. They have a very tough job and Buknors had a long career of 100 odd tests and in that time built the reputation as a very good umpire. Now one mistake or bad game and withing 48 hours his bosses drop him and put him in a situation where he can now not realistically umpire in some games. Every other umpire has got to be a bit scared now when ever they have to give a decision against India as they could find themselves complained against, effigies burnt & dropped within 48 hours.

 

[MarcLister]

Spot on platty. Bucknor can't conceivably officiate in any cricket match involving India, Hair any match involving Pakistan.

And the ICC is backing down. Why?! They are screwing themselves and the reputation of the sport long term by appeasing the short term interests/demands of India and Pakistan.

Granted India have had it hard with the racism call but to be immature and call off a series is just wrecking the sport. I fear it will also injure the Indian's reputation making other teams more aware of what will happen if the Indians feel hard done by.

The umpires are getting tired and making mistakes. Knowing that if they make one tiny mistake and the ICC will effectively agree with the complaining team that the umpire can't take charge of matches involving them, won't the umpires be even more error prone?

And I hope this doesn't sound racist, it isn't intended to be, but why is it that India and Pakistan seem to have problems with umpires and demand that an umpire doesn't face them again yet other cricket teams don't? Or am I being blinkered here? In the recent past have SA, NZ, Australia, England, Bangladesh, SL or WI "fallen" out with an umpire and demand he never take charge of their matches in the future?

Edit - Been waiting for this, the Aggers thinking on the situation. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tms/2008/01/players_are_the_problem_not_um.shtml

And another link that might interest. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7025726.stm

 

[Rotty]

India have said that if Harb is not cleared then the tour is off

 

[MarcLister]

Isn't that called ransom?

Apparently BCCI have resumed the tour. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/7174992.stm

 

[Greenlizard0]

Hahaha, I love Indian fans, that's it fellas, burn another effigy !

 

[rubberduck]

Hahaha, I love Indian fans, that's it fellas, burn another effigy !

I think when the media in this country show Indian people burning effigies (sic) we get a slightly distorted view of the country.... I'm pretty sure 99.999999% of Indian people have never burnt an effigie. Or a flag for that matter!

 

[Rotty]

I'm pretty sure 99.999999% of Indian people have never burnt an effigies. Or a flag for that matter!

That is blatantly not true, your figures suggest that only 1 in 100 million burn effigies or flags

India's population is about 1.1 Billion

so for your figures to be correct then less than 11 people would have needed to ever burnt an effigy or a flag, I personally have seen more than 11 people doing this on TV

 

[MarcLister]

That is blatantly not true, your figures suggest that only 1 in 100 million burn effigies or flags

India's population is about 1.1 Billion

so for your figures to be correct then less than 11 people would have needed to ever burnt an effigy or a flag, I personally have seen more than 11 people doing this on TV

I've seen 15 people burn an effigy before.

 

[rubberduck]

That is blatantly not true, your figures suggest that only 1 in 100 million burn effigies or flags

India's population is about 1.1 Billion

so for your figures to be correct then less than 11 people would have needed to ever burnt an effigy or a flag, I personally have seen more than 11 people doing this on TV

I stick by the number 11... The others you claim to have seen are probably just British journalists disguised as Indians!

 

[Rotty]

I stick by the number 11... The others you claim to have seen are probably just British journalists disguised as Indians!

ah , makes sense now

 

[skaylesh]

It's the same guy burning effigies over and over again.

Quite surprised that the Aussie public do not think highly of Ponting and the Aussie team's behaviour.

 

[MarcLister]

Quite surprised that the Aussie public do not think highly of Ponting and the Aussie team's behaviour.

Yes this is quite interesting. The only people backing Ponting and his team are his team and the ACB. The general Australian public seem to be a bit fed up with the arrogance about the Australian cricket team as they've notched up these 16 consecutive wins.