Was the recent test against India the best test you've watched??
- Thread starter Nutzcraw
- Start date
-
We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.
Matabele
Journey Man
Was the recent test against India the best test you've watched??
But if you want an answer, yes and no. In the end it comes down to the context of the discussion etc.
I have no scruples about pointing out that certain ecquaintances of mine are of a certain race and are therefore undisposed to certain tasks. For instance, white men shouldn't bother training for the 100m Olympic final. Is there anything wrong with pointing that out?
But if you want an answer, yes and no. In the end it comes down to the context of the discussion etc.
I have no scruples about pointing out that certain ecquaintances of mine are of a certain race and are therefore undisposed to certain tasks. For instance, white men shouldn't bother training for the 100m Olympic final. Is there anything wrong with pointing that out?
Was the recent test against India the best test you've watched??
yes there is something wrong with you pointing out that they are lazy if its simply because of their race, there are plenty of lazy whites out there.
And as for the 100m, they can train but they aint gunna win it
thats not racism thats genetics.
yes there is something wrong with you pointing out that they are lazy if its simply because of their race, there are plenty of lazy whites out there.
And as for the 100m, they can train but they aint gunna win it
thats not racism thats genetics.
G
Guest
Guest
Was the recent test against India the best test you've watched??
If Symonds had been called a silly monkey then is that a racist taunt? I don't think so. The way Singh said it I don't agree that it was said in a racist way.
The australains are the kings of sledging yet spit the dummy when someone says something back to them. Doing what Ponting did was like a school kid running to the teacher to tell on someone.
Singh has made Ponting look like a 6th grade cricket player and there is no doubt that this is his payback to get Singh out of the rest of the test series so that ponting can make some runs.
I no longer have any respect for Symonds as when you snick a ball as obvious as he did you walk no matter what grade you are playing.
As for Bucknor he must be made to retire immediately because his umpiring was embarrasing and costs India a win.
If Symonds had been called a silly monkey then is that a racist taunt? I don't think so. The way Singh said it I don't agree that it was said in a racist way.
The australains are the kings of sledging yet spit the dummy when someone says something back to them. Doing what Ponting did was like a school kid running to the teacher to tell on someone.
Singh has made Ponting look like a 6th grade cricket player and there is no doubt that this is his payback to get Singh out of the rest of the test series so that ponting can make some runs.
I no longer have any respect for Symonds as when you snick a ball as obvious as he did you walk no matter what grade you are playing.
As for Bucknor he must be made to retire immediately because his umpiring was embarrasing and costs India a win.
G
Guest
Guest
Was the recent test against India the best test you've watched??
Another hollow victory for Australian cricket
Can there have been a more hollow win in Australian sport? From day one to day five, the second Test match at the SCG was rotten to the core, tainted by appalling umpiring, bad sportsmanship, sledging and, finally, a suspension for racism.
The chain of events that led to Australia’s ‘’triumph’’ over India, starting with the howlers afforded Australian captain Ricky Ponting and Andrew Symonds on the first day, was so embarrassing, it was cringe-making.
Indeed, the Australian victory was so fortunate that it, and the team’s much-trumpeted 16-match winning streak, should forever carry a giant asterisk alongside it in the record books: (*achieved with the help of incompetent umpires and the Australian players’ own double-standards.)
Our reputation for sportsmanship and fair play has taken a battering in the process. Around the world, we are seen as overbearing bullies who happily dish it out on the field but squeal when other teams, such as India, find the gumption to give it back.
If you think that’s an exaggeration, take a look at international cricket websites, such as Cricket365.com and cricinfo.com, and gauge the reaction of the world cricket community to the Australian win. There will be one or two Indian supporters among that lot, to be sure, but just dip your toe in the water there and get a feeling for how the Australian team is viewed out there in the real world, beyond the Channel 9 commentary box, beyond the Cricket Australia offices and beyond the Fanatics’ watermelon helmets.
Even, I suspect, a significant measure of the Australian sporting public will be sitting back today and thinking: fair crack of the whip, did those Indians cop the rough end of the pineapple yesterday or what?
For Anil Kumble and his men, the injustices kept piling higher. Consider a few of them:
- Ricky Ponting stood his ground after gloving a catch down the legside in the first innings. Thirty or so runs later, he had the temerity to glare at the umpire and mutter under his breath when he was on the wrong end of an equally incompetent decision. Sorry, Ricky, old mate, but you can’t have it both ways. Cop it sweet and p-ss off back to the pavilion.
- Andrew Symonds was gifted 131 runs after being given a reprieve by Steve Bucknor’s well-documented shocker in the first innings. Bucknor added to his Aussie run tally in the second innings when a Kumble skidder thudded into Mike Hussey’s pad, just above the ankle while the left-hander was trapped on the crease, and replays clearly showed the ball would have hit leg stump, and probably middle and leg. Mr Cricket went on to add another 120 or more to his tally. Ponting’s first innings bonus included, that’s close to 300 runs gifted the Australians.
- Wonderboy, and future Australian captain, Michael Clarke cuts his first ball in the second innings straight to slip off Anil Kumble and stood his ground, the peroxide-blond punk challenging the umpire to raise his finger - which, thankfully, he did. This enraged Kumble, the Indian skipper, who in complaining after the match about the Australians’ poor sportsmanship, said: "That said it all.’’ Then, at a crucial moment on the last day, Clarke claims a catch at third slip off India’s Sourav Ganguly. Ganguly, mindful of the Australians’ very rubbery morals at times like this, rightly stays in his crease. Umpire Mark Benson does not appear to consult his square-leg colleague, the embattled Bucknor, but accepts the word of Clarke and Ponting, who helpfully indicates with a raised finger his verdict. Benson gives Ganguly out, although TV replays are inconclusive. How the hell are Clarke and Ponting to be trusted in such circumstances? Another nail in the Indian coffin.
- Then, when things get really tense in the middle session, the Australians went up as one in appealing for a caught-behind decision against Rahul Dravid, India’s most obdurate batsman, even though his bat was tucked behind his front leg and the ball clearly flicked his pad. Even goody two-shoes Adam Gilchrist gets caught up in the moment and leads the appeal from behind the stumps. Bucknor raises his finger and the Indians are once more dealt a blow, this one mortal.
So the sense of injustice in the visitors’ dressing room was acute, and understandably so.
Most Australian players believe luck evens itself out over a career, but that philosophy is not shared by all visiting teams. Every summer, the complaint is the same. The touring team leaves these shores feeling dudded - from the English last season to South Africa the year before to Pakistan three summers ago when their coach, the late Bob Woolmer, reckoned Australia received almost six times more line-ball decisions than Pakistan during the 2004-05 series.
Yes, the Australians have got their 16 straight wins, and congratulations to them for that. But who can really take any joy from what transpired at the SCG over the past five days?
Another hollow victory for Australian cricket
Can there have been a more hollow win in Australian sport? From day one to day five, the second Test match at the SCG was rotten to the core, tainted by appalling umpiring, bad sportsmanship, sledging and, finally, a suspension for racism.
The chain of events that led to Australia’s ‘’triumph’’ over India, starting with the howlers afforded Australian captain Ricky Ponting and Andrew Symonds on the first day, was so embarrassing, it was cringe-making.
Indeed, the Australian victory was so fortunate that it, and the team’s much-trumpeted 16-match winning streak, should forever carry a giant asterisk alongside it in the record books: (*achieved with the help of incompetent umpires and the Australian players’ own double-standards.)
Our reputation for sportsmanship and fair play has taken a battering in the process. Around the world, we are seen as overbearing bullies who happily dish it out on the field but squeal when other teams, such as India, find the gumption to give it back.
If you think that’s an exaggeration, take a look at international cricket websites, such as Cricket365.com and cricinfo.com, and gauge the reaction of the world cricket community to the Australian win. There will be one or two Indian supporters among that lot, to be sure, but just dip your toe in the water there and get a feeling for how the Australian team is viewed out there in the real world, beyond the Channel 9 commentary box, beyond the Cricket Australia offices and beyond the Fanatics’ watermelon helmets.
Even, I suspect, a significant measure of the Australian sporting public will be sitting back today and thinking: fair crack of the whip, did those Indians cop the rough end of the pineapple yesterday or what?
For Anil Kumble and his men, the injustices kept piling higher. Consider a few of them:
- Ricky Ponting stood his ground after gloving a catch down the legside in the first innings. Thirty or so runs later, he had the temerity to glare at the umpire and mutter under his breath when he was on the wrong end of an equally incompetent decision. Sorry, Ricky, old mate, but you can’t have it both ways. Cop it sweet and p-ss off back to the pavilion.
- Andrew Symonds was gifted 131 runs after being given a reprieve by Steve Bucknor’s well-documented shocker in the first innings. Bucknor added to his Aussie run tally in the second innings when a Kumble skidder thudded into Mike Hussey’s pad, just above the ankle while the left-hander was trapped on the crease, and replays clearly showed the ball would have hit leg stump, and probably middle and leg. Mr Cricket went on to add another 120 or more to his tally. Ponting’s first innings bonus included, that’s close to 300 runs gifted the Australians.
- Wonderboy, and future Australian captain, Michael Clarke cuts his first ball in the second innings straight to slip off Anil Kumble and stood his ground, the peroxide-blond punk challenging the umpire to raise his finger - which, thankfully, he did. This enraged Kumble, the Indian skipper, who in complaining after the match about the Australians’ poor sportsmanship, said: "That said it all.’’ Then, at a crucial moment on the last day, Clarke claims a catch at third slip off India’s Sourav Ganguly. Ganguly, mindful of the Australians’ very rubbery morals at times like this, rightly stays in his crease. Umpire Mark Benson does not appear to consult his square-leg colleague, the embattled Bucknor, but accepts the word of Clarke and Ponting, who helpfully indicates with a raised finger his verdict. Benson gives Ganguly out, although TV replays are inconclusive. How the hell are Clarke and Ponting to be trusted in such circumstances? Another nail in the Indian coffin.
- Then, when things get really tense in the middle session, the Australians went up as one in appealing for a caught-behind decision against Rahul Dravid, India’s most obdurate batsman, even though his bat was tucked behind his front leg and the ball clearly flicked his pad. Even goody two-shoes Adam Gilchrist gets caught up in the moment and leads the appeal from behind the stumps. Bucknor raises his finger and the Indians are once more dealt a blow, this one mortal.
So the sense of injustice in the visitors’ dressing room was acute, and understandably so.
Most Australian players believe luck evens itself out over a career, but that philosophy is not shared by all visiting teams. Every summer, the complaint is the same. The touring team leaves these shores feeling dudded - from the English last season to South Africa the year before to Pakistan three summers ago when their coach, the late Bob Woolmer, reckoned Australia received almost six times more line-ball decisions than Pakistan during the 2004-05 series.
Yes, the Australians have got their 16 straight wins, and congratulations to them for that. But who can really take any joy from what transpired at the SCG over the past five days?
nodd
Bencher
Was the recent test against India the best test you've watched??
Not walking is not cheating
Martin Williamson
January 6, 2008
http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/inli...8597.jpg?alt=1
While the poor umpiring during the Sydney Test has attracted many of the headlines, much vitriol has also been directed at several players for not walking when they have nicked the ball. At best they have been accused of unsporting behaviour, at worst of downright cheating.
And yet what is it about cricket that it is the only major sport in the world where some people demand that players do the umpires' jobs for them? There is nothing in the Laws that requires a batsman to walk, although there is a widespread feeling that batsmen always used to do so in the good old days, and by not doing so now the current generation show themselves as being inferior.
The reality is that walking has always been a contentious issue. The concept grew up in social cricket in Victorian times when the whole ethos of gentlemen being sportsmen was formulated. And yet, even at that level, there were some batsmen who walked and some who did not.
WG Grace, the epitome of Victorian cricket, never walked. Lord Harris, who is possibly the most establishment figure the game has ever known, admitted in his autobiography to have stood his ground when he knew he was out. "This is a case when the umpire on appeal has decided that a batsman is not out," he wrote. "The batsman, although he knows he was out, has no business to retire from the wicket."
In the 1920s there is a story of Johnny Douglas, the Essex amateur captain, storming into the Gloucestershire dressing room to berate a young Wally Hammond, at the time a professional, for not walking. Both were at one time England captains.
And yet at the same time Jack Hobbs admitted to Gubby Allen that he had edged a ball but stayed when given not out. When Allen remonstrated, Hobbs replied that it was unfair to undermine the umpire, adding that "if I had [walked] then he would almost certainly have given me out at the next possible opportunity." Hobbs was one of the game's true gentlemen - in all but name as he was no amateur - but his point was clear. The umpire is there to make decisions and not the player.
In the post-war period the debate rumbled on. There were many complaints that some batsmen were walkers unless the situation was tight in which case they would stand their ground, aided by the umpire giving them the benefit because of their reputation as a walker. Writing in The Guardian, Mike Selvey claimed that Colin Cowdrey walked for obvious decisions but not for marginal ones in the hope his reputation would save him.
When England visited Australia in 1982-83 they made a collective decision not to walk, the logic being the Australians never did so why should they. It was once said that an Australian only ever walks when his car breaks down.
Bill Lawry, a former captain of Australia, was clear about the issue when he played. "Leave it to the umpire," he said. "The umpire has a job and I have mine. I will not walk." That's fine. He knew he would get a break one day but that on another he would be on the rough end of a bad decision. His view was that the two evened themselves out. As long as a non-walker accepts a bad decision with good grace, what is the problem?
Steve Bucknor, in the eye of the Sydney storm, said a few years ago that some batsmen would only walk when they had passed a hundred and not before they had scored. "If he knows he is out and he goes, that's good for the game," he said. "But the umpire should not depend on someone who is a walker. Otherwise, that same walker may embarrass the umpire.''
In short, unless every player in the world walks without hesitation, it won't work - and human nature means that simply will not happen. There is too much at stake to ask even the most ardent walker to give himself out when he gets the thinnest of edges after being on the receiving end of a string of bad decisions and is, as a result, batting for his place.
Not walking is not cheating. Claiming a catch you know you have not caught cleanly is; the same goes for claiming a bat-pad catch when you know it was nowhere near the edge. The difference is that in one you are leaving the umpire to make his decision, in the other you are openly trying to deceive him.
The umpiring at Sydney was as poor as the umpiring was good in Cape Town. The officials got several decisions badly wrong, and not just ones that the benefit of endless replays showed as being errors. That is something for the ICC to address as it is becoming clear that the demands put on a tiny panel of elite umpires by a burgeoning fixture list is causing the best of them to crack.
The one thing the players can do to help is to leave all the decisions to them. The one thing the public can do is to accept that players should not be expected to act as their own hangmen.
Martin Williamson is executive editor of Cricinfo
Not walking is not cheating
Martin Williamson
January 6, 2008
http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/inli...8597.jpg?alt=1
While the poor umpiring during the Sydney Test has attracted many of the headlines, much vitriol has also been directed at several players for not walking when they have nicked the ball. At best they have been accused of unsporting behaviour, at worst of downright cheating.
And yet what is it about cricket that it is the only major sport in the world where some people demand that players do the umpires' jobs for them? There is nothing in the Laws that requires a batsman to walk, although there is a widespread feeling that batsmen always used to do so in the good old days, and by not doing so now the current generation show themselves as being inferior.
The reality is that walking has always been a contentious issue. The concept grew up in social cricket in Victorian times when the whole ethos of gentlemen being sportsmen was formulated. And yet, even at that level, there were some batsmen who walked and some who did not.
WG Grace, the epitome of Victorian cricket, never walked. Lord Harris, who is possibly the most establishment figure the game has ever known, admitted in his autobiography to have stood his ground when he knew he was out. "This is a case when the umpire on appeal has decided that a batsman is not out," he wrote. "The batsman, although he knows he was out, has no business to retire from the wicket."
In the 1920s there is a story of Johnny Douglas, the Essex amateur captain, storming into the Gloucestershire dressing room to berate a young Wally Hammond, at the time a professional, for not walking. Both were at one time England captains.
And yet at the same time Jack Hobbs admitted to Gubby Allen that he had edged a ball but stayed when given not out. When Allen remonstrated, Hobbs replied that it was unfair to undermine the umpire, adding that "if I had [walked] then he would almost certainly have given me out at the next possible opportunity." Hobbs was one of the game's true gentlemen - in all but name as he was no amateur - but his point was clear. The umpire is there to make decisions and not the player.
In the post-war period the debate rumbled on. There were many complaints that some batsmen were walkers unless the situation was tight in which case they would stand their ground, aided by the umpire giving them the benefit because of their reputation as a walker. Writing in The Guardian, Mike Selvey claimed that Colin Cowdrey walked for obvious decisions but not for marginal ones in the hope his reputation would save him.
When England visited Australia in 1982-83 they made a collective decision not to walk, the logic being the Australians never did so why should they. It was once said that an Australian only ever walks when his car breaks down.
Bill Lawry, a former captain of Australia, was clear about the issue when he played. "Leave it to the umpire," he said. "The umpire has a job and I have mine. I will not walk." That's fine. He knew he would get a break one day but that on another he would be on the rough end of a bad decision. His view was that the two evened themselves out. As long as a non-walker accepts a bad decision with good grace, what is the problem?
Steve Bucknor, in the eye of the Sydney storm, said a few years ago that some batsmen would only walk when they had passed a hundred and not before they had scored. "If he knows he is out and he goes, that's good for the game," he said. "But the umpire should not depend on someone who is a walker. Otherwise, that same walker may embarrass the umpire.''
In short, unless every player in the world walks without hesitation, it won't work - and human nature means that simply will not happen. There is too much at stake to ask even the most ardent walker to give himself out when he gets the thinnest of edges after being on the receiving end of a string of bad decisions and is, as a result, batting for his place.
Not walking is not cheating. Claiming a catch you know you have not caught cleanly is; the same goes for claiming a bat-pad catch when you know it was nowhere near the edge. The difference is that in one you are leaving the umpire to make his decision, in the other you are openly trying to deceive him.
The umpiring at Sydney was as poor as the umpiring was good in Cape Town. The officials got several decisions badly wrong, and not just ones that the benefit of endless replays showed as being errors. That is something for the ICC to address as it is becoming clear that the demands put on a tiny panel of elite umpires by a burgeoning fixture list is causing the best of them to crack.
The one thing the players can do to help is to leave all the decisions to them. The one thing the public can do is to accept that players should not be expected to act as their own hangmen.
Martin Williamson is executive editor of Cricinfo
nodd
Bencher
Was the recent test against India the best test you've watched??
Those who don't consider calling Symonds(West Indian heritage) a monkey, a racist sledge, please tell me what they think the reaction may have been if an Aussie, South African or Englishman had used the same terminoligy toward a West Indian, black African or sub-continent player.
I personally don't believe it should have been reported- what happens on the field stays on the field and if there is a problem sort it out like men.
But I can imagine the uproar if the term was used by a whitefella.
Those who don't consider calling Symonds(West Indian heritage) a monkey, a racist sledge, please tell me what they think the reaction may have been if an Aussie, South African or Englishman had used the same terminoligy toward a West Indian, black African or sub-continent player.
I personally don't believe it should have been reported- what happens on the field stays on the field and if there is a problem sort it out like men.
But I can imagine the uproar if the term was used by a whitefella.
Was the recent test against India the best test you've watched??
No Matas but one's worth should not be decided by the colour of ones skin.
I dont for one moment believe you are condoning racism BTW, but at least thsi is more interesting than your usual religion or political arguments
No Matas but one's worth should not be decided by the colour of ones skin.
I dont for one moment believe you are condoning racism BTW, but at least thsi is more interesting than your usual religion or political arguments
Matabele
Journey Man
Was the recent test against India the best test you've watched??
Neither do I think one's worth should be determined by race. But there is still wisdom in a rational assessment of the differences in race and the interplay between them, don't you think?
Only an ostrich would pretend that there's nothing in play.
Neither do I think one's worth should be determined by race. But there is still wisdom in a rational assessment of the differences in race and the interplay between them, don't you think?
Only an ostrich would pretend that there's nothing in play.
clontaago
First Grader
Was the recent test against India the best test you've watched??
In 2 months time this will all be forgotten about, and the most successful cricketing nation in the history of the sport will be the world record holders for the most consecutive tests won.
The Indians can **** off back to the third world slum that they belong in and things will be back to normal.
In 2 months time this will all be forgotten about, and the most successful cricketing nation in the history of the sport will be the world record holders for the most consecutive tests won.
The Indians can **** off back to the third world slum that they belong in and things will be back to normal.
clontaago
First Grader
Was the recent test against India the best test you've watched??
And to me that means what? **** all, thats what it means.
Cricket will always be ruled by an independent governing body regardless of where the money comes from. Games will still be played. Australia will still win.
And to me that means what? **** all, thats what it means.
Cricket will always be ruled by an independent governing body regardless of where the money comes from. Games will still be played. Australia will still win.
| Team | P | W | L | PD | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
5 | 4 | 1 | 23 | 10 |
|
5 | 4 | 1 | 14 | 10 |
|
6 | 4 | 2 | 48 | 8 |
|
6 | 4 | 2 | 28 | 8 |
|
5 | 3 | 2 | 25 | 8 |
|
5 | 3 | 2 | 14 | 8 |
|
6 | 3 | 2 | 38 | 7 |
|
6 | 3 | 2 | 21 | 7 |
|
6 | 3 | 3 | 37 | 6 |
|
6 | 3 | 3 | 16 | 6 |
|
6 | 3 | 3 | -13 | 6 |
|
5 | 2 | 3 | -15 | 6 |
|
6 | 3 | 3 | -36 | 6 |
|
6 | 2 | 4 | -5 | 4 |
|
6 | 2 | 4 | -7 | 4 |
|
5 | 0 | 5 | -86 | 2 |
|
6 | 1 | 5 | -102 | 2 |
