Even after extending play by half an hour on the first day at
If you remember, they were tardy at the SCG too. However, despite batting for a fair amount of time on the last day, the Australians still had 70 overs to bowl at the Indians.
Don't you think the same scenario is being repeated? I see this as a deliberate ploy by the Australians to dictate the number of overs they have to face on the last day.
The 1992-93 Australia Vs West Indies series, the Test match at WACA ended rather abruptly with
There was one other unanticipated outcome - the curator was sacked.
Hmm... I thought knee jerk reactions were our preserve.
Cluck!cluck!cluck! A very, very sub continental reaction.
By all accounts the Indian team has decided to drop Yuvraj and Harbhajan.
Curiously, no one seemed to have considered dropping Dhoni. Frankly he seems to have lost that edge and seems happy to coast along, whereas Karthick, despite his run of bad form hungers to perform. On current form Karthick can easily replace Dhoni. However, as Vice Captain, Dhoni's inclusion is a given.
Another interesting aspect is the inclusion of Sehwag. Given the hellish nature of the pitch and the devilish attack, signs portend a failure and with it a batting collapse. How will the team management treat him? Will it be back to the dungeons? As usual, the Indian team management has chosen to go with the prevailing public sentiment.
Ganguly is down with fever or is it a cold. All depends on how he feels tomorrow. What if he is still unwell, will they fall back on Yuvraj?
Finally the WACA pitch grounds man claims it is fast and the Australians have confirmed it by going in with four pacers. Chris Rogers in an interview has said that pitch plays faster after the first day. If you are to believe the locals then who ever wins the toss should choose to bat first.
Given the brittle batting, the Indians may opt to bowl first. If they opt to bowl first from then on it would be an uphill task to win the Test.
Forgive me if this is old hat, this is the first time I am hearing it.
Bobilli Vijay Kumar in his column (I couldn't find the date) titled 'There's much more to all this than meets the eye' contends:
Was some mysterious force hell-bent on ensuring
More importantly, has the Indian team got wind of something? Does it believe,
Something is brewing and it doesn't smell good.
To me it seems far-fetched.
Anyone has anything to add to this?
"To err is human, to forgive divine, as the old saying goes. However, I consider
it a sad day to see umpires sidelined after making only two wrong decisions out
of a record of 35 appeals."
An interesting article "Leadership is not just winning" argues that Ponting's behaviour can be attributed to how Channel Nine conceives cricket – a gladiator contest, where you have to win to stay alive. It says,
In part, Channel Nine has been responsible for the decline in behaviour on the cricket field over the past 30 years -- Kerry Packer's World Series Cricket saw to that.
It sounds radical, but if you look beyond the words, it is a traditionalist's lament, a yearning for the good old days, when the traditions were as important as winning. An ache for the time when it was a gentleman's game and 'sportsmanship' was paramount.
Do you think we can get those good old days back?
"Sir Ed's jubilant line after conquering Mt Everest in 1953 – 'we
knocked the bastard off' – will be used by Hogg's defence team as an example of
why the word isn't always intended in an abusive manner."
"The member, however, hinted at a compromise wherein
"Talks are on, I can't say more at this moment. You are free to interpret it the way you like," said the member.
Since I have been given the license I consider it to be the cheapest, the most lowdown and the most cynical thing ever.
The scales have fallen from my eyes and the cynicism behind it hurts.
"However, Symonds said some rival cricketers could afford to make a
racist comment without raising his ire.
'Even with opposition players, if I do know them well and they
want to joke about something like that, it doesn't stir me up so what's happened
is something I and the Australian boys have taken very seriously. It (the racism
affair) is a really difficult thing for me to comment on as it hasn't been
totally resolved,' he said."
Australia coach Tim Nielsen believes "shock" and "confusion" caused
Michael Clarke to stand his ground after edging the ball to first slip during
the controversial Sydney Test.
"To be honest, he'd been sitting around waiting for a couple
of hours, he was dead keen after missing out in the first innings to get some
runs and he was shocked and confused and he made the point that 'Once he
(Benson) gave me out I got off there',' Nielsen said."
Virender Sehwag has shown support for Harbhajan Singh, saying he believed
Harbhajan never said anything racist. Sehwag also said his team would respond if
Australians start the sledging in Perth.
The focus on Yuvraj makes me conclude that he is a certainty for the Perth Test.
Jaffer with his near century is unlikely to be dropped.
Most probably Bhajji is going to be benched.
But if I had a say I would still have Bhajji in the team just to needle the Australians.
Do you agree?
The general impression about umpires are they put up with long working hours and low wages for the love of the game
That image no longer holds true. Umpires, particularly in cricket, are payed quiet handsomely for their pains.
Take a look at what Steve Bucknor earned last year. He reportedly earned $ 135,000 over a period of 34 days. Now that's a lot of money for bossing around.
Long hours and low pay –it is definitely not Bucknors lot.
Caught in a bind over the sacking of Bucknor, Speed warned:
"We can't have one set of rules for the
That's exactly what we all desire. To quell more appeals and other brinkmanship, I suggest that Speed makes the whole process transparent.
What do you say?
There are many who feel sacking Bucknor has set an unhealthy precedent. There are others who say "Each time an Indian cricketer appeals, umpires are now compromised. Enrage the monster, and pay for it with your job. Quite the message of encouragement for a group already under immense pressure in their day-to-day duties."
However, in my opinion sacking Bucknor has set a good precedent. Any one who has played cricket lets say from W.G.Grace to the nondescript kid have smarted under the arbitrariness and bias in an umpire's decision.
This sacking will serve the purpose of letting all umpires know that incompetence, cussedness, arbitrariness and bias will not be tolerated.
Bucknor's sacking has made clear that umpires have to shape up or ship out. Isn't that a good precedent?
It has finally dawned on Ponting that some his teams antics need examination. A contrite Ponting says,
"We'll look at some of the footage, its perception and the way people see things when they're off the field. I might be talking to opposition players on the field but it might be construed by people watching on television that you're in a slanging or sledging match when that's not the case. I think it's important that we sit back and look at that footage. Look at our body language. See if there are areas that we can improve on."
Good idea Ponting, I suggest you to take a look at 'Pup's' body language as you declare Ganguly's catch clean.
Watch Clarke take an involuntarily step back and mumble inaudible words.
If you are half as good at reading body language as I am, you will realize that 'the future Captain' of
For if he was sure, he would have rushed forward and supported you vociferously.
"Cricket columnist Malcolm Conn, of The
Australian newspaper, said Ponting should be championed as a national hero for
exposing racism in cricket.
“Ponting deserves to be feted, not condemned,”
Conn wrote."
"'To me good umpires should officiate the match, even if it isHaving seen atrocious 'home umpiring' and how a couple of bad decisions can invoke cries of bias, I am for neutral umpires i.e., competent neutral umpires.
played by his home team, so that we have the best men in the centre. The
credibility factor should be taken into account while posting
umpires.'"
The appeal has given the illusion that
Foremost among them, is the suspicion that the ICC is a racist organisation. There is a long held view, that the sub-continental teams have coped stiffer punishment than other cricketing nations.
ICC's refusal to address it and exhibit transparency in its process and procedures has induced a feeling of persecution and given rise to the impression that we, the sub-continental teams, have to resort to brinkmanship for justice.
The Harbhajan episode is an excellent pointer. Indian fans find it unbelievable that Procter has chosen to ignore the words of the only person who was at the scene of the crime and side with a complainant on the basis of hearsay as the other witnesses were mere passer-by's.
The ICC and their adjudicator Procter may argue it is not so, they have legitimate reasons to ban Harbhajan. If it was so why don't they assuage our anger by making the process transparent?
Why have they gagged Procter? Let him explain, why would we complain if the answers are honest?
"Former Test umpire Dickie Bird believes controversial officialIf only he had listened, he would had his reputation and respect he had earned intact.
Steve Bucknor has now 'gone on too long' and should retire."
He also added that "When you get to that age... I have said to
Steve, 'Don't go on too long, get out while you are still respected'. I think he
has gone on too long."
What do you think of cricketer Harbhajan Singh's "monkey'' comment and should he have received a three-test ban? asked
Here is the result:
It is not a racist insult. (738 votes, 10.1%)
He should not have said it, but not been banned. (531 votes, 7.2%)
Aussies can dish it out, but can't take it. (4534 votes, 61.7%)
It's racist and the ban was right. (253 votes, 3.4%)
It was wrong but should have stayed on the field. (580 votes, 7.9%)
Any racist insult should cop a severe penalty. (263 votes, 3.6%)
Sledging is part of cricket, especially in tests. (444 votes, 6.0%)
Here is the disclaimer: Stuff polls are not scientific and reflect the opinions of only those internet users who have chosen to participate
BTW, I voted any racist insult should cop a severe penalty. How would you vote?
Waffling by Adam Gilchrist.
Adam has clarified that if he is not fully sure, he does appeal, and yesterday he claims that he was not sure about whether or not Rahul had nicked it.
Unfortunately, it adds fuel to fire.
Unsurprisingly
Amazingly Ponting was also personally unpopular, with 82 per cent of over 1600 people saying he was not a "good ambassador for the game of cricket".
So while the popularity of cricket is not down - with Channel 9 securing an "Ashes-like" peak of 2.6million viewers on Sunday - it appears the hard-line tactics of Ponting's
Talkback airwaves across the country also heard opposition to a win-at-all-costs mentality.
When it comes to sports we are all alike. We like hard charging sportsmen and not sportsmen who push the envelope when it comes to gamesmanship.
New evidence has emerged that Symonds is rather slow on the up take.
Reading an article on relationship breakdowns in a women's magazine, Symonds exclaimed to his colleagues: "What a stupid question: 'When was the last time you had a row with your partner?"' After his team-mates picked themselves up from the floor, it was explained to Symonds that the question referred to an argument, not the boating activity.
In light of this evidence we urge the ICC to revaluate Symonds interpretation of 'racial' abuse. J
How do we make the Australian cricketers understand what we mean when we say 'The Aussies don't play the game in the right spirit?'
Undoubtedly, the win at all cost attitude has made
The press conference at the end of the Sydney Test, was a classic example of their incomprehensibility. When asked a persistent question about a catch; Ponting in turn asked 'are you questioning my integrity?'
Actually, his question sums it up. Being an insular sporting nation,
Someone somewhere has to sit down with the Australian players and make them understand that the onus is on
Here are the results at the time of writing. (The poll is open).
Herald Sun
• Close
Poll Results
Thanks for voting, here are the results so far:
Did
Yes
78% (1069 votes)
No
21% (286 votes)
Total votes
Total of 1355 votes
(BTW, you will have to vote to see the result.)
As my access is minimal Iam unable to give you the break up of the voters.
However, since it is an Australian newspaper I assume the majority of the voters are Australians and taking it to its logical conclusion I conclude most Australians feel the umpires gave
Speed defends Bucknor, Benson:
"It's a difficult job made more difficult by technology and improvements in technology. I think we have the best umpires available.
It is as clear as day that the technology was not the problem; it is the umpire's ill-judgments which are the cause for concern. Moreover going by Bucknor's recent record it is high time ICC put him to pasture. Benson came across as inexperienced and naïve. One other thing which stood out was the reluctance exhibited by both the umpires to refer quiet a few doubtful decisions to the third umpire. Is it their ego which stopped them?
All said and done Speed's statement is only going to enrage an already irate cricket follower. What do you say?
Symonds didn't like the pat on the arse.
AUSSIE superstar Andrew Symonds will argue that he was just standing up for a mate at tonight's Cricket Council Code of Conduct hearing into his fiery exchange with
Where did 'monkey' come from?
Things are hotting up in the 'racial abuse' case involving Harbhajan Singh and Andrew Symonds.
….the ICC roped in reputed British lawyer Nigel Peters to advice match referee Mike Procter during the disciplinary hearing against the Indian off-spinner on Sunday.
The BCCI should tread carefully. This case could be blow up in their face.
This could be the most telling of all comments on the latest Harbhajan Singh/ Andrew Symonds episode.
Former Australian captain Mark Taylor feared Ponting had opened up a can of worms and potential tit for tat citings by rival captains over on-field behaviour.
"I think Ricky has opened up Pandora's Box in terms of this,"
"The Australians play tough cricket and make the odd chirp, if this goes any further I am sure there will be other times when Ricky Ponting will be on the other side of the ledger when the Australian team make the chirp."
So no is above slipping in a racial comment, isn't it.
Dinnie has asked me reveal my darkest secrets. So here goes:
Whew! That's a load off my chest. J
A bowler describes his plight.
"The Newlands boundary looked increasingly small as I approached to start the sixth over – the rest I guess is an over to forget," James Kirtley describes his only over against an in-form Adam Gilchrist and Matthew Hayden in the Twenty20 cricket World Cup.
BTW, do you know any new cricketing related quotes?
That's what Channel 9 says:
Steve Crawley, an executive sports producer with the network, said some of the innovations could not be entirely relied upon.
"I'd hate us to be involved in the judicial system of cricket,"
Umm... technology cannot help…. So how can we eliminate umpiring errors?
It is easy to blame umpires and advocate use of technology as an antidote. However, are umpires the only culprits? How about the lack of sportsmanship and the lost refrain 'it is a gentleman's game'?
When cricket was a gentleman's game, umpiring was a simpler task. The bowler and fielders appealed when they genuinely thought the batsman was out, and the batsman didn't wait for the umpire's decision when he knew he was out. Trust was built into the conduct of the game. The umpire could trust players' reactions and take a decision accordingly.
Let us first inculcate the spirit of sportsmanship in our cricketers.Let it seep into our future cricketing generations and then if found wanting let us go the whole hog and let replays decide
Let us not be absurd and ask
…. should the umpires be penalised for every error they commit for you never know how decisive it could prove?
Since most umpires are well-versed with the cricketing laws, the solution is to have more number of physically fit umpires.
Additionally, we should lessen the technological intervention. It has given rise to more controversies; expansive dramas, hysterical dissent and have successfully reduced umpires to mere ciphers.
Let us stop second guessing the umpire and go back to the days when we unquestioningly accepted his decision.
There are unfounded rumours that
Eh! Unbelievable! But we should also put competitive scores on the board.
I am with Brad Hogg:
Brad Hogg said the human element added to the drama of the game.
"I just think you have to keep the human element in there," he said.
"It is just fantastic when you are … sitting back and enjoying the Boxing Day Test match in your lounge room you have bit more to talk about with that human element and it creates a different feel."
Don't you think cricket would become straitlaced, stiff and lose its charm?
BCCI has directed the Indian team management to lodge a protest with ICC Match Referee Mike Procter against atrocious umpiring decisions made on the opening day of the second Test against
I honestly don't know what good will come off it. Let us await the ICC's and the CAB's response.
What a man!
Andrew Symonds has admitted he should have been given out long before reaching his century against
Coming from a long list of sportsmen who claim bump catches and what not it is heartening to see Symond's sporting side.
Fair go! Gentlemen!
For the umpteenth time the Australian's stage a remarkable recovery.
Symonds may be lucky to still be there after a confident appeal for a caught-behind decision off Indian paceman Ishant Sharma was turned down by umpire Steve Bucknor.
Wish someone calculates the number of times umpires have helped
Meanwhile,
"New Zealand Cricket has threatened to exclude players who join the breakaway Indian Cricket League."
This puts them in a situation of finding quality players to play in the national team.
As Tim May, chief executive of FICA, the international players' association, points out, " So what are we going to do, have a
Uh! Uh! I doubt whether they can field a 'second XI', or maybe yes, if they include half a dozen sheep in the team.
For all their purported hatred for the 'Poms', the Aussies and the English have a 'mutual admiration society' going.
Suppose the England team beats Bangladesh, immediately their media will start talking about how this team could be basis of their next Ashes challenge indicating that 'The Ashes' is the only series they are concerned.
Unfortunately, this affliction seems to have spread to
Which begs the question, do you consider 'The Ashes' to be, in terms of quality and competition, the best Test match series?
