I am amazed about the comments such as that aussies played fairly in Sydney. And I really don't understand how people even percieve things differently. so national pride and patriotic feeling blinds your eyes when it comes to international matters.
I don't have to quote incidents that happened in Sydney test - from "more than 10 umpring decisions against one country" to on field antics and appalling behavior of OZs" everything ahs been analysed and synthesized by millions of souls.
But OZs who played that sydney test will definitely know [which they will never accept or someone might in their autbiography to boost the sales] who should have won that test.
the most appalling, the same players who intentionally made the game look like an ugly war are queing up for IPL contracts. And the worst is, the franchisee heads {who are bloody Indians] are bidding for these players.
So its e fans who'll be disappointed with these incidents. Not the admnistrators. they want just MONEY
read an article on IPL and that public memory is short and they will forget sydney saga
they must be the real bastards and money fcukkers who jus want money and doesn't care about people.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Thursday, January 31, 2008
No Matter how much I write - doesn't seem to be enough [as OZs have done so much in the space the last 4 weeks
I think what Paul McGuiness has said in cricinfo blog is right. India should stop playing Australia and Australian players should not be allowed to participate in IPL. Let Cricket Australia form their own council and play within their own group as wished by theird ardent fans. they do not have to play with a country which cannot accept their honest and law abiding "sledging"
the OZs who destroyed aborigines talk about racism......
the fact is - even the fanatic OZs know that racist accusation was a perfectly planned screenplay to ratte indian team [as OZs were scared of a defeat] and to downplay umpiring decisions [12] which were disgustingly against India.
I saw the video of underarm bowling of the last ball to ensure a tie against new zealand in 1982 onde day cricket - this shows how ugly and stinking OZs are when it comes to winning. they will win - at any cost. and the losing team should keep their mouth and as* shut!!1 if they retaliate - OZs will cry and accuse them of racistic comments.
the OZs who destroyed aborigines talk about racism......
the fact is - even the fanatic OZs know that racist accusation was a perfectly planned screenplay to ratte indian team [as OZs were scared of a defeat] and to downplay umpiring decisions [12] which were disgustingly against India.
I saw the video of underarm bowling of the last ball to ensure a tie against new zealand in 1982 onde day cricket - this shows how ugly and stinking OZs are when it comes to winning. they will win - at any cost. and the losing team should keep their mouth and as* shut!!1 if they retaliate - OZs will cry and accuse them of racistic comments.
Only OZs can sldge - Opposition should only recieve
The aggression needs to be directed in the acitivities of the play; rather than influencing the atmoshphere. Aussies have developed that trick to baffle the competing teams by sledging which is not cricket. Is n't this a workaround to overcome some weakness of the art of the cricketing skills? They certainly won by baffling the team, intimidating the umpire. Even their media starts whirling around the other teams, why? Why are they so afraid of a loss - and if they can't take a loss; they wouldn't improve in the very skills; and induldge more in extraneous skills like sledging. The bloddy OZ bastards have to stop this !
Perhaps, no country should play cricket with them......As one OZ pointed out that OZ will come out with their own cricket council and they won't invite INDia.. I woner who's going to loose becos of that. That stupid OZ didn't realise that OZ wil bankrt if not for Indian cricket fans
Perhaps, no country should play cricket with them......As one OZ pointed out that OZ will come out with their own cricket council and they won't invite INDia.. I woner who's going to loose becos of that. That stupid OZ didn't realise that OZ wil bankrt if not for Indian cricket fans
How AUSTRALIA enacted the Sydney Cricket Drama
January 31, 2008
Posted by Mukul Kesavan in Cricinfo - 10 hours ago
Shock and Awe
Anil Kumble and Sachin Tendulkar put the BCCI on notice after Mike Procter's decision to hand Harbhajan Singh a three-Test ban © GNNphoto
The two greatest Test series India has played in recent times have been against Australia: 2001 at home and 2008, Down Under. There's a curious symmetry to these two contests: India won the first one, 2-1 and lost the second one 1-2. Harbhajan was the pivot on which both turned: as a hero in the first (he took an astonishing 32 wickets in three Tests) and as a villain in the second, after his run-in with Symonds. If the 2001 series saw the beginning of Tendulkar's transformation into an attritional player, the one just ended saw that master-craftsman persona discarded as Tendulkar went back to being the Master. And in both series India stopped a great Australian team's astonishing winning run: Waugh's team and Ponting's, were looking for a seventeenth consecutive victory and both were thwarted by unlikely defeats.
In the seven years between these two 21st century contests, international cricket was dominated by two developing narratives.
One was driven by the strength of the Indian economy, the purchasing power of its consuming middle class and the consequent and massive increase in the television revenues controlled by the BCCI. The Indian board became the paymaster of world cricket and cricket's calendar became India-centric. This made other countries understandably uneasy and when incidents like the Sehwag controversy in South Africa provoked the BCCI to flex its muscles, Anglo-Australian commentators saw not an evolutionary shift in cricket's centre of gravity, but a thuggish take over, while south Asian fans and journalists saw a western unwillingness to acknowledge the end of empire.
The second story was a growing South Asian unease with the successful Australian attempt to claim the moral high ground in world cricket. Australians don't like it but the country's cricketers are widely seen as potty-mouthed bullies who manage to get away with murder partly because they sledge strategically and partly because the Australian definition of 'hard but fair'—filth on the field and a beer off it—seemed to have been swallowed whole by the umpires and match referees who supervise international cricket. Every time Ponting tells television cameras that after 2003 the Australian team cleaned up its act and then cites figures to show that Australian players have been brought before the match referee much less often than any other major Test side, aggrieved Indian supporters put this down to Australian hegemony. They remain convinced that umpires are willing to sanction manly truculence (obscenity, lewdness and intimidation) but not shrill petulance (jack-in-box appeals, visible disappointment) because the former affects players while the latter is directed at umpires. This sense of being hard done by is reinforced by the pattern of bad decisions suffered by touring teams in Australia, Kumar Sangakkara's appalling decision being perhaps the worst in recent times.
Australian cricket is hegemonic for the best possible reasons. Australia has had the best cricket team by miles for more than ten years, its coaches have, at one time or another, have tried to drill Australian skills into other national squads, its sports science and its training methods are cutting edge and Channel 9's cricket telecast has taught the world how to cover cricket. But because its players fetishize a hardnosed take on the game, they, unlike the West Indies in their pomp, are universally unloved and in recent years the Ugly Australian stereotype has been rendered uglier by Ponting's charmless leadership.
Indians don't think much of Ponting for several reasons. His first tour was dogged by rumours of bad behaviour, his second tour was an embarrassment (he scored less than a dozen runs in three Test matches), his onfield aggression struck Indians as offensive, his unlovely habit of spitting into his palms and rubbing them together left desis wondering how he got people to shake hands with him and not only did he look remarkably like George Bush, he behaved like him too.
Bush invaded Iraq and then managed to get the invasion ratified by the United Nations after the fact. Anglo-American rhetoric about the legitimacy of pre-emptive war is similar to Australian cricket's argument that bullying (so long as it wins matches) can be justified as robustness. 'Hard and Fair' in the world defined by Bush, begins to read like 'Shock and Awe'.
It is in this charged context that the just concluded Test series between India and Australia unfolded, and in the second Test at Sydney, the two grand narratives of 21st century cricket, India's growing economic clout and Australia's cricketing hegemony, met like unsheathed live wires. It didn't help that the tension between the two teams had been personified. Sreesanth and Harbhajan Singh took it upon themselves in the recent one-day series between the two countries to answer sledging with fevered aggression. Harbhajan went on record to say that Australian behaviour was 'vulgar' and that they were bad losers. We are now told that he had a run-in with Symonds in Baroda, so when Sreesanth didn't make the squad to Australia, he was, for the Australian team, the Ugly Indian.
From the Indian point of view, the Sydney Test was a textbook illustration of the way in which an Australian series is loaded against the opposition. The Indian team got a slew of awful umpiring decisions, the Australians did their tiresome all-in-the-game-mate routine, Clarke exploited a gentleman's agreement to claim a dodgy catch, Ponting disclaimed a catch and then unsuccessfully appealed for another that he had obviously grounded (and, post-match, barked at an Indian reporter who questioned him about it), then reported Harbhajan for racially abusing Symonds.
The most satisfying part of Hansen's judgment is his characterisation of Michael Clarke as an unreliable witness © Getty Images
When Mike Procter upheld the Australian charge and banned Harbhajan for three matches he brought the two live wires into contact and the lights nearly went out on the game. Indian players have been on the receiving end of the match referee's kangaroo court before and know it to be dysfunctional. Procter is a notably inept match referee who presided over the shambles created by Darrell Hair and the Pakistan cricket team last year. For him to have taken the word of the likes of Michael Clarke, who as a batsman had stood his ground after being caught off a massive edge at slip and who as a fielder had confidently claimed a bump ball catch, over the testimony of Tendulkar who insisted he hadn't heard 'monkey' being said, was the final straw. The most satisfying part of Hansen's judgment is his characterisation of the slippery Clarke as an unreliable witness.
I think it's likely that Harbhajan called Symonds a monkey, but judgment can't be based on what I or anyone else thinks: it rests on what can be proven. There was no corroborative evidence in the Harbhajan affair and the hostilities of the Sydney Test had destroyed any trust between the two sides, leaving the Indian team in a state of thin-skinned rage at being robbed. Procter managed to compound this mess by unequivocally finding for the Australians without explaining how he had come to his conclusions.
This is when India flexed its muscle, but the 'India' in question wasn't the BCCI, it was the Indian team. Anil Kumble and Sachin Tendulkar, the two most senior players in the Indian side, one its best bowler and the other its best batsman for nearly twenty years, put the BCCI on notice. They insisted that the Board stand by Harbhajan and made it clear that the team was unwilling to go on with the tour if Procter's decision wasn't reversed.
Journalists who think the BCCI used the occasion to assert itself are just plain wrong. The Indian board has no interest in cricket as such: witness the absurd schedule it framed for the Indian team. Left to itself, the Board would have hung Harbhajan up to dry (as it had sacrificed Bishan Bedi over the 'Vaseline' affair decades ago) and gone on with the tour: it was Tendulkar's ultimatum that goosed them into action. Press criticism of the BCCI's brinkmanship in chartering a plane to fly the team home from Adelaide if the appeal went against Harbhajan, could just as well be directed at the Indian team, because I'm certain that the old firm, Kumble & Tendulkar, had something to do with the arriving one-day specialists being quartered in Adelaide in solidarity with Harbhajan.
I suspect the reason for this last flourish was the report that Judge Hansen was likely to consider new audio evidence that had not been made available to Procter. The tapes didn't have Harbhajan saying 'monkey' but they had Hayden telling Harbhajan that a word he had used amounted to racism. My guess is that the possibility that the Australians would spin this as clinching evidence, drove Kumble and Tendulkar to circle the wagons in Adelaide. And here's the thing: it worked. The Australians agreed to press the lesser charge. Having set up this eyeballing contest, they blinked.
Is this the end of the rule of law as we know it and the onset of anarchy? No. On the evidence of the third and fourth Tests, it feels more like the dawn of a new age of civility on the ground and a possible end to sledging. There was a time in Test cricket (a very long time) when Australia and England were more equal than the rest and the game survived that asymmetry. It'll survive this one
Posted by Mukul Kesavan in Cricinfo - 10 hours ago
Shock and Awe
Anil Kumble and Sachin Tendulkar put the BCCI on notice after Mike Procter's decision to hand Harbhajan Singh a three-Test ban © GNNphoto
The two greatest Test series India has played in recent times have been against Australia: 2001 at home and 2008, Down Under. There's a curious symmetry to these two contests: India won the first one, 2-1 and lost the second one 1-2. Harbhajan was the pivot on which both turned: as a hero in the first (he took an astonishing 32 wickets in three Tests) and as a villain in the second, after his run-in with Symonds. If the 2001 series saw the beginning of Tendulkar's transformation into an attritional player, the one just ended saw that master-craftsman persona discarded as Tendulkar went back to being the Master. And in both series India stopped a great Australian team's astonishing winning run: Waugh's team and Ponting's, were looking for a seventeenth consecutive victory and both were thwarted by unlikely defeats.
In the seven years between these two 21st century contests, international cricket was dominated by two developing narratives.
One was driven by the strength of the Indian economy, the purchasing power of its consuming middle class and the consequent and massive increase in the television revenues controlled by the BCCI. The Indian board became the paymaster of world cricket and cricket's calendar became India-centric. This made other countries understandably uneasy and when incidents like the Sehwag controversy in South Africa provoked the BCCI to flex its muscles, Anglo-Australian commentators saw not an evolutionary shift in cricket's centre of gravity, but a thuggish take over, while south Asian fans and journalists saw a western unwillingness to acknowledge the end of empire.
The second story was a growing South Asian unease with the successful Australian attempt to claim the moral high ground in world cricket. Australians don't like it but the country's cricketers are widely seen as potty-mouthed bullies who manage to get away with murder partly because they sledge strategically and partly because the Australian definition of 'hard but fair'—filth on the field and a beer off it—seemed to have been swallowed whole by the umpires and match referees who supervise international cricket. Every time Ponting tells television cameras that after 2003 the Australian team cleaned up its act and then cites figures to show that Australian players have been brought before the match referee much less often than any other major Test side, aggrieved Indian supporters put this down to Australian hegemony. They remain convinced that umpires are willing to sanction manly truculence (obscenity, lewdness and intimidation) but not shrill petulance (jack-in-box appeals, visible disappointment) because the former affects players while the latter is directed at umpires. This sense of being hard done by is reinforced by the pattern of bad decisions suffered by touring teams in Australia, Kumar Sangakkara's appalling decision being perhaps the worst in recent times.
Australian cricket is hegemonic for the best possible reasons. Australia has had the best cricket team by miles for more than ten years, its coaches have, at one time or another, have tried to drill Australian skills into other national squads, its sports science and its training methods are cutting edge and Channel 9's cricket telecast has taught the world how to cover cricket. But because its players fetishize a hardnosed take on the game, they, unlike the West Indies in their pomp, are universally unloved and in recent years the Ugly Australian stereotype has been rendered uglier by Ponting's charmless leadership.
Indians don't think much of Ponting for several reasons. His first tour was dogged by rumours of bad behaviour, his second tour was an embarrassment (he scored less than a dozen runs in three Test matches), his onfield aggression struck Indians as offensive, his unlovely habit of spitting into his palms and rubbing them together left desis wondering how he got people to shake hands with him and not only did he look remarkably like George Bush, he behaved like him too.
Bush invaded Iraq and then managed to get the invasion ratified by the United Nations after the fact. Anglo-American rhetoric about the legitimacy of pre-emptive war is similar to Australian cricket's argument that bullying (so long as it wins matches) can be justified as robustness. 'Hard and Fair' in the world defined by Bush, begins to read like 'Shock and Awe'.
It is in this charged context that the just concluded Test series between India and Australia unfolded, and in the second Test at Sydney, the two grand narratives of 21st century cricket, India's growing economic clout and Australia's cricketing hegemony, met like unsheathed live wires. It didn't help that the tension between the two teams had been personified. Sreesanth and Harbhajan Singh took it upon themselves in the recent one-day series between the two countries to answer sledging with fevered aggression. Harbhajan went on record to say that Australian behaviour was 'vulgar' and that they were bad losers. We are now told that he had a run-in with Symonds in Baroda, so when Sreesanth didn't make the squad to Australia, he was, for the Australian team, the Ugly Indian.
From the Indian point of view, the Sydney Test was a textbook illustration of the way in which an Australian series is loaded against the opposition. The Indian team got a slew of awful umpiring decisions, the Australians did their tiresome all-in-the-game-mate routine, Clarke exploited a gentleman's agreement to claim a dodgy catch, Ponting disclaimed a catch and then unsuccessfully appealed for another that he had obviously grounded (and, post-match, barked at an Indian reporter who questioned him about it), then reported Harbhajan for racially abusing Symonds.
The most satisfying part of Hansen's judgment is his characterisation of Michael Clarke as an unreliable witness © Getty Images
When Mike Procter upheld the Australian charge and banned Harbhajan for three matches he brought the two live wires into contact and the lights nearly went out on the game. Indian players have been on the receiving end of the match referee's kangaroo court before and know it to be dysfunctional. Procter is a notably inept match referee who presided over the shambles created by Darrell Hair and the Pakistan cricket team last year. For him to have taken the word of the likes of Michael Clarke, who as a batsman had stood his ground after being caught off a massive edge at slip and who as a fielder had confidently claimed a bump ball catch, over the testimony of Tendulkar who insisted he hadn't heard 'monkey' being said, was the final straw. The most satisfying part of Hansen's judgment is his characterisation of the slippery Clarke as an unreliable witness.
I think it's likely that Harbhajan called Symonds a monkey, but judgment can't be based on what I or anyone else thinks: it rests on what can be proven. There was no corroborative evidence in the Harbhajan affair and the hostilities of the Sydney Test had destroyed any trust between the two sides, leaving the Indian team in a state of thin-skinned rage at being robbed. Procter managed to compound this mess by unequivocally finding for the Australians without explaining how he had come to his conclusions.
This is when India flexed its muscle, but the 'India' in question wasn't the BCCI, it was the Indian team. Anil Kumble and Sachin Tendulkar, the two most senior players in the Indian side, one its best bowler and the other its best batsman for nearly twenty years, put the BCCI on notice. They insisted that the Board stand by Harbhajan and made it clear that the team was unwilling to go on with the tour if Procter's decision wasn't reversed.
Journalists who think the BCCI used the occasion to assert itself are just plain wrong. The Indian board has no interest in cricket as such: witness the absurd schedule it framed for the Indian team. Left to itself, the Board would have hung Harbhajan up to dry (as it had sacrificed Bishan Bedi over the 'Vaseline' affair decades ago) and gone on with the tour: it was Tendulkar's ultimatum that goosed them into action. Press criticism of the BCCI's brinkmanship in chartering a plane to fly the team home from Adelaide if the appeal went against Harbhajan, could just as well be directed at the Indian team, because I'm certain that the old firm, Kumble & Tendulkar, had something to do with the arriving one-day specialists being quartered in Adelaide in solidarity with Harbhajan.
I suspect the reason for this last flourish was the report that Judge Hansen was likely to consider new audio evidence that had not been made available to Procter. The tapes didn't have Harbhajan saying 'monkey' but they had Hayden telling Harbhajan that a word he had used amounted to racism. My guess is that the possibility that the Australians would spin this as clinching evidence, drove Kumble and Tendulkar to circle the wagons in Adelaide. And here's the thing: it worked. The Australians agreed to press the lesser charge. Having set up this eyeballing contest, they blinked.
Is this the end of the rule of law as we know it and the onset of anarchy? No. On the evidence of the third and fourth Tests, it feels more like the dawn of a new age of civility on the ground and a possible end to sledging. There was a time in Test cricket (a very long time) when Australia and England were more equal than the rest and the game survived that asymmetry. It'll survive this one
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Procter Should Be Sacked and his properties confiscated
Harbhajan Singh has been cleared of charges of racism, and submitted instead to his usual hotheadedness on the field, insult and abuse not amounting to racism. From his readiness to plead guilty to abuse on the field during the Test match at Sydney, one can see how offensive he found the idea of being charged with racism. In fact, if there is one thing that was conveyed from Australia most unequivocally these past weeks, it is the entire team’s resolve to have this slur against Harbhajan removed. Especially the senior members of this team know what racism is, how it silently works in international sport, and when a charge — such as the one the Australians levelled — is simply just not on. So, with the charge withdrawn, upon appeal, the tour goes on happily, that story one would presume is over.
But it is not. The last three weeks have seen an ugliness that still attaches itself to the field of play. And that ugliness is indicative of how unreformed the international cricket establishment is. For closure, this episode does not need a head to roll for its ugliness as much as it needs a guarantee that this won’t recur. For that, Mike Procter must be removed from official responsibilities in cricket matches in the future. The manner in which he brought his own subjectiveness into play while hearing Andrew Symonds’ charge against Harbhajan is appalling. Appalling enough to suggest that his moral authority as a match referee is irreparably eroded.
Procter said in his defence while pronouncing judgment on Harbhajan, “I am South African, and I understand the word racism.” It is dangerous to level charges of racism without irrefutable proof, but Procter should look at his own history to see the pattern of bias that emerges. Recall how in 2003 he banned Rashid Latif, then Pakistan’s captain-wicketkeeper, for claiming a false catch. In Sydney, what did we get from Procter when Ricky Ponting and his fielder claimed a clean catch when it had so obviously been grassed? Silence. Mark the distinction, Latif was appealing, Ponting had a batsman dismissed with his gesture, under the catching agreement. Procter is a symbol of the unreformed, colonial cricket establishment. It must be changed, the way Sunil Gavaskar changed the MCC. And Procter should recall how racism was fought in South African sport: within the national team, not against foreigners.
But it is not. The last three weeks have seen an ugliness that still attaches itself to the field of play. And that ugliness is indicative of how unreformed the international cricket establishment is. For closure, this episode does not need a head to roll for its ugliness as much as it needs a guarantee that this won’t recur. For that, Mike Procter must be removed from official responsibilities in cricket matches in the future. The manner in which he brought his own subjectiveness into play while hearing Andrew Symonds’ charge against Harbhajan is appalling. Appalling enough to suggest that his moral authority as a match referee is irreparably eroded.
Procter said in his defence while pronouncing judgment on Harbhajan, “I am South African, and I understand the word racism.” It is dangerous to level charges of racism without irrefutable proof, but Procter should look at his own history to see the pattern of bias that emerges. Recall how in 2003 he banned Rashid Latif, then Pakistan’s captain-wicketkeeper, for claiming a false catch. In Sydney, what did we get from Procter when Ricky Ponting and his fielder claimed a clean catch when it had so obviously been grassed? Silence. Mark the distinction, Latif was appealing, Ponting had a batsman dismissed with his gesture, under the catching agreement. Procter is a symbol of the unreformed, colonial cricket establishment. It must be changed, the way Sunil Gavaskar changed the MCC. And Procter should recall how racism was fought in South African sport: within the national team, not against foreigners.
punty dog of australian cricket - his artificial drama
punty dog and his cohorts palyed an ugly drama on 4th Jan in Sydney cricket test. They did it with perfect screen play. it was found out that they rehearesed this act several times sacrificing their regular net practice.
Will the spinless BCCI take any action against the CA/ICC
Will the spinless BCCI take any action against the CA/ICC
Provocator - the creature is not punished; but the one who was provocated - Harbhajan is punished with 50% match fee
and bloody Australian Media cries....why? becos it has been proved with video evidence that OZs - puntingdog, clrjidog, haydenpig and the creature planned this incident with prefect screen play to downplay the buckanior's impiring favours...
I posted the above opinion in as many blogs, forums and yahoo Answers...but no many believed me....
Finally, the spinless Indian media went thru the sydney test's video and transcript of every ball to understand the drama that ensued....
If I were in Hansen's shoes - I would have banned punty dog and creature permanently from cricket
Courtesy: Cricinfo.com
Lack of sufficient evidence, a more rigorous judicial process and an inexplicable botch-up on the part of the ICC allowed Harbhajan Singh to get away with a 50% fine, it emerged after Justice John Hansen read out the reasons for his verdict a day after the hearing in Adelaide.
Andrew Symonds' inability to conclusively say whether Harbhajan Singh had used the word monkey or a Hindi abuse, and his admission that the language did not fall under the requirements of a level 3.3 offence played a crucial part.
But Hansen also said Harbhajan had "reaped the benefit" of database and human errors, with his offence in November 2001 - when he was fined 75% of his match fee and given a suspended sentence of one Test - not being made available to the assisting counsel at the time of sentencing. He said he "would have required more extensive submissions as to the offence in mitigation, which could have led to a different penalty".
In a 22-page document that detailed the reasons for his decision, it emerged that Sachin Tendulkar's word could have had a big role to play too. Unlike Mike Procter, who thought Tendulkar was not in a position to hear what was uttered, Hansen said "extensive video footage" establishes that Tendulkar "was within earshot and could have heard the words".
Tendulkar said he heard Harbhajan "use a term in his native tongue "teri maa ki" which appears to be pronounced with an "n". He said this is a term that sounds like "monkey" and could be misrepresented for it."
Symonds couldn't recall if he had heard Harbhajan use that particular Hindi abuse and accepted that it was a possibility. He also didn't find favour with the judge with his explanation for abusing Harbhajan after he had patted Brett Lee on the back side. Symonds said he had objected because "a Test match is no place to be friendly with an opposition player" but Hansen dismissed that explanation ("If that is his view I hope it is not one shared by all international cricketers").
Michael Clarke's account was critical, considering that it did not coincide favourably with the rest. "It is not without significance that the Australian players maintain other than Mr Symonds that they did not hear any other words spoken, only the ones that are said to be of significance to this hearing," Hansen said.
"This is a little surprising in the context where there was a reasonably prolonged heated exchange. Indeed Mr Clarke went so far as to say that he did not hear Mr Symonds say anything. Given Mr Symonds' own acceptance that he initiated the exchange and was abusive towards Mr Singh, that is surprising. This failure to identify any other words could be because some of what they were hearing was not in English."
Hansen's report included the statement of agreed facts that contained the signatures of the seven players concerned. He also pointed out to the "agreement" between Symonds and Harbhajan in Mumbai last year, adding that it was Symonds who had breached it by "provocative abuse".
Towards the end of his statement, though, Hansen admitted that the ICC had advised his assistant counsel, John Jordan, with only one of Harbhajan's previous infractions, a Level 2.8 offence back in April 2003 when he made an abusive comment to an umpire. However, it was only after his verdict that Hansen was made aware of the three other cases which he had not been informed of earlier.
The first, a Level 1 offence back in 1998, was overlooked because offences under the old Code of Conduct were not included in the ICC database. The second, a Level 1 offence in November 2005, was not made available because of a "human error". Hansen said the extent of his punishment wouldn't have changed even if he knew about the first two but added that knowledge of the third, a Level 2 offence in November 2001, "could have led to a different penalty".
Hansen denied any deal had been struck between legal counsel for the Australian and Indian players to downgrade the charge. He was also critical of all parties involved in the confrontation in Sydney, saying "their actions do not reflect well on them or the game".
I posted the above opinion in as many blogs, forums and yahoo Answers...but no many believed me....
Finally, the spinless Indian media went thru the sydney test's video and transcript of every ball to understand the drama that ensued....
If I were in Hansen's shoes - I would have banned punty dog and creature permanently from cricket
Courtesy: Cricinfo.com
Lack of sufficient evidence, a more rigorous judicial process and an inexplicable botch-up on the part of the ICC allowed Harbhajan Singh to get away with a 50% fine, it emerged after Justice John Hansen read out the reasons for his verdict a day after the hearing in Adelaide.
Andrew Symonds' inability to conclusively say whether Harbhajan Singh had used the word monkey or a Hindi abuse, and his admission that the language did not fall under the requirements of a level 3.3 offence played a crucial part.
But Hansen also said Harbhajan had "reaped the benefit" of database and human errors, with his offence in November 2001 - when he was fined 75% of his match fee and given a suspended sentence of one Test - not being made available to the assisting counsel at the time of sentencing. He said he "would have required more extensive submissions as to the offence in mitigation, which could have led to a different penalty".
In a 22-page document that detailed the reasons for his decision, it emerged that Sachin Tendulkar's word could have had a big role to play too. Unlike Mike Procter, who thought Tendulkar was not in a position to hear what was uttered, Hansen said "extensive video footage" establishes that Tendulkar "was within earshot and could have heard the words".
Tendulkar said he heard Harbhajan "use a term in his native tongue "teri maa ki" which appears to be pronounced with an "n". He said this is a term that sounds like "monkey" and could be misrepresented for it."
Symonds couldn't recall if he had heard Harbhajan use that particular Hindi abuse and accepted that it was a possibility. He also didn't find favour with the judge with his explanation for abusing Harbhajan after he had patted Brett Lee on the back side. Symonds said he had objected because "a Test match is no place to be friendly with an opposition player" but Hansen dismissed that explanation ("If that is his view I hope it is not one shared by all international cricketers").
Michael Clarke's account was critical, considering that it did not coincide favourably with the rest. "It is not without significance that the Australian players maintain other than Mr Symonds that they did not hear any other words spoken, only the ones that are said to be of significance to this hearing," Hansen said.
"This is a little surprising in the context where there was a reasonably prolonged heated exchange. Indeed Mr Clarke went so far as to say that he did not hear Mr Symonds say anything. Given Mr Symonds' own acceptance that he initiated the exchange and was abusive towards Mr Singh, that is surprising. This failure to identify any other words could be because some of what they were hearing was not in English."
Hansen's report included the statement of agreed facts that contained the signatures of the seven players concerned. He also pointed out to the "agreement" between Symonds and Harbhajan in Mumbai last year, adding that it was Symonds who had breached it by "provocative abuse".
Towards the end of his statement, though, Hansen admitted that the ICC had advised his assistant counsel, John Jordan, with only one of Harbhajan's previous infractions, a Level 2.8 offence back in April 2003 when he made an abusive comment to an umpire. However, it was only after his verdict that Hansen was made aware of the three other cases which he had not been informed of earlier.
The first, a Level 1 offence back in 1998, was overlooked because offences under the old Code of Conduct were not included in the ICC database. The second, a Level 1 offence in November 2005, was not made available because of a "human error". Hansen said the extent of his punishment wouldn't have changed even if he knew about the first two but added that knowledge of the third, a Level 2 offence in November 2001, "could have led to a different penalty".
Hansen denied any deal had been struck between legal counsel for the Australian and Indian players to downgrade the charge. He was also critical of all parties involved in the confrontation in Sydney, saying "their actions do not reflect well on them or the game".
DISGUSTING SYDNEY CRICKET TEST - 2ND JAN 2008
Only one team played within the spirits of the game - whole world knows who it is. Indians should have returned back after that horrific experience. I don't know why on earth they chose to stay!!!!!!!!
Sydney 2008 will go down in the annals as the Test match when cricket bled. Never has such a compelling, edge-of-the-seat game left a bitter aftertaste. Indian fans have spilled into the streets, outraged at the travesty of justice.
For four days long, Mark Benson and Steve Bucknor parlayed their ineptitude, reserving their worst for India on the final day.
Bucknor first sentenced poor Rahul Dravid, seemingly for an edge to the keeper. It was clear that Bucknor had been deceived by the gravity of appeal. Television replays confirmed that at least three columns of light could have passed through the space between Dravid’s bat and pad.
It’s amazing that Bucknor could actually hear a faint edge given that a thick snick off Andrew Symonds on Day One didn’t flinch him one bit.
If ever this India side craved one afternoon of long tedium, it was at Sydney. India desperately wanted Dravid to consume time as only he can. Dravid's wicket was just that little tonic Australia needed to make early inroads in the Indian middle order.
The Jamaica-born umpire found a perfect ally in Mark Benson who didn’t think it fit to consult the third umpire when Sourav Ganguly edged Brett Lee to Michael Clarke. Worse still he took Ricky Ponting’s verdict as God’s verse.
Television replays proved inconclusive which entitled Ganguly to benefit of doubt. In a game where there was so much at stake, Benson let Ponting and Clarke’s claims take sway when technology could have been used.
Ganguly had another case: the ball had clearly touched the ground when Clarke rolled over in the act of taking the catch. Once again time was of essence; India by losing the well-set Ganguly at that stage were virtually heading for the inevitable.
Bucknor and Benson had effectively sealed India’s fate on Day One when Andrew Symonds was presented a bonanza of reprieves. Save for the two who mattered the most, nobody at the stadium might have missed the cluck of the bat when Symonds edged Ishant Sharma to MS Dhoni. Symonds was on 31 then.
It baffles reason that even the third umpire Bruce Oxenford after mulling over scores of replays got it wrong when he turned down a stumping with Symonds on 48. Australia were 133/6 at that stage; and India had a realistic change of shutting them out under 200. Then another one at 148 when Bucknor decided not to refer the appeal to third umprie. Perhaps, he knew that is not going to change the decision anyway after the previous referral.
The whole Test was riddled with blatant umpiring errors with India getting the hard knocks at crucial junctures like Jaffer’s dismissal in the first innings to a no ball and Ponting getting a let off at 17 after edging one on the leg side – the sound could have had no other source but the willow which was at a fair distance from his stuffing.
Should that have happened, Australia, and not India, would have had to do all the catching up in this Test. India would have easily won the test which, ironically, they lost due to Bucknor and his allies. Will the Gods know why on earth, elite umpires performed that way? Nobody has dared to investigate on the lines of match fixing and bribing.
Australia are old hands at deception. Ponting’s vociferous appeal to claim a questionable catch off Dhoni was on expected lines. But what about Adam Gilchrist acclaimed as Australia’s emissary of honesty. Wouldn’t he have known that Dravid hadn’t nicked the ball?
The Sydney Test has sullied the very spirit of cricket; it might also have exacted a great price. was this Test an aberration? or is it going to be a trend setter? Last thing the game needs is death of faith.
If ICC doesn't restructure and reform itself, this game is sure to die. They should come out with new rules to ban sledging and make the umpries accountable for their wrong decisions instantaneously.
Well, at the end of the day - a game which India should have won easily - they were forced to loose by external factors - bucknor, benson, bruce, ponting, symonds and procter...all were equally involved.
Sydney 2008 will go down in the annals as the Test match when cricket bled. Never has such a compelling, edge-of-the-seat game left a bitter aftertaste. Indian fans have spilled into the streets, outraged at the travesty of justice.
For four days long, Mark Benson and Steve Bucknor parlayed their ineptitude, reserving their worst for India on the final day.
Bucknor first sentenced poor Rahul Dravid, seemingly for an edge to the keeper. It was clear that Bucknor had been deceived by the gravity of appeal. Television replays confirmed that at least three columns of light could have passed through the space between Dravid’s bat and pad.
It’s amazing that Bucknor could actually hear a faint edge given that a thick snick off Andrew Symonds on Day One didn’t flinch him one bit.
If ever this India side craved one afternoon of long tedium, it was at Sydney. India desperately wanted Dravid to consume time as only he can. Dravid's wicket was just that little tonic Australia needed to make early inroads in the Indian middle order.
The Jamaica-born umpire found a perfect ally in Mark Benson who didn’t think it fit to consult the third umpire when Sourav Ganguly edged Brett Lee to Michael Clarke. Worse still he took Ricky Ponting’s verdict as God’s verse.
Television replays proved inconclusive which entitled Ganguly to benefit of doubt. In a game where there was so much at stake, Benson let Ponting and Clarke’s claims take sway when technology could have been used.
Ganguly had another case: the ball had clearly touched the ground when Clarke rolled over in the act of taking the catch. Once again time was of essence; India by losing the well-set Ganguly at that stage were virtually heading for the inevitable.
Bucknor and Benson had effectively sealed India’s fate on Day One when Andrew Symonds was presented a bonanza of reprieves. Save for the two who mattered the most, nobody at the stadium might have missed the cluck of the bat when Symonds edged Ishant Sharma to MS Dhoni. Symonds was on 31 then.
It baffles reason that even the third umpire Bruce Oxenford after mulling over scores of replays got it wrong when he turned down a stumping with Symonds on 48. Australia were 133/6 at that stage; and India had a realistic change of shutting them out under 200. Then another one at 148 when Bucknor decided not to refer the appeal to third umprie. Perhaps, he knew that is not going to change the decision anyway after the previous referral.
The whole Test was riddled with blatant umpiring errors with India getting the hard knocks at crucial junctures like Jaffer’s dismissal in the first innings to a no ball and Ponting getting a let off at 17 after edging one on the leg side – the sound could have had no other source but the willow which was at a fair distance from his stuffing.
Should that have happened, Australia, and not India, would have had to do all the catching up in this Test. India would have easily won the test which, ironically, they lost due to Bucknor and his allies. Will the Gods know why on earth, elite umpires performed that way? Nobody has dared to investigate on the lines of match fixing and bribing.
Australia are old hands at deception. Ponting’s vociferous appeal to claim a questionable catch off Dhoni was on expected lines. But what about Adam Gilchrist acclaimed as Australia’s emissary of honesty. Wouldn’t he have known that Dravid hadn’t nicked the ball?
The Sydney Test has sullied the very spirit of cricket; it might also have exacted a great price. was this Test an aberration? or is it going to be a trend setter? Last thing the game needs is death of faith.
If ICC doesn't restructure and reform itself, this game is sure to die. They should come out with new rules to ban sledging and make the umpries accountable for their wrong decisions instantaneously.
Well, at the end of the day - a game which India should have won easily - they were forced to loose by external factors - bucknor, benson, bruce, ponting, symonds and procter...all were equally involved.
is it Retribution or Indian Revenge - Perth test 16/1/08
OZs do they believe in retribution? for all they did in sydney...they were humiliated, outsmarted, outfoxed, outskilled....completely dominated...by Indians
Hats off!!! to Kumble for delivering a knockout punch...
Indians have won both sydney and perth test - from the point of view of fair and honest cricket fans.
the series is at India 2 and Aus 1 [based on the actual field video recordings]. though stats will claim OZs won sydney test
WISH YOU THE BEST OF LUCK FOR ADELAIDE...HOPE U CAN CONQUER THE CHEATING OZs...ONE MORE TIME....it will be difficult as they will do whatever they can to stop u guys from even drawing a test.
Hats off!!! to Kumble for delivering a knockout punch...
Indians have won both sydney and perth test - from the point of view of fair and honest cricket fans.
the series is at India 2 and Aus 1 [based on the actual field video recordings]. though stats will claim OZs won sydney test
WISH YOU THE BEST OF LUCK FOR ADELAIDE...HOPE U CAN CONQUER THE CHEATING OZs...ONE MORE TIME....it will be difficult as they will do whatever they can to stop u guys from even drawing a test.
Oz Cricketers - The Disgusting Cheats
why no mention about Sydney fiasco.
Do you really think Aus won this series? If OZs are really brave and honest, they should whole heartedly admit that they lost the sydney test..
any true cricket fan [even a casual watcher] would deduce the winner if they have seen all the 5 days of that ill-fated sydney test. if not for bucknor, India would have won that match. Why CA, the OZ 11 and it's disgusting captain and hypocritic commentators don't even mention that...At least by admitting u can save your honour....
And most importantly, the man of the series should go to Bucknor...pls give it to bucknor not to stupid lee as Bucknor single-handedly won the match for OZs
Do you really think Aus won this series? If OZs are really brave and honest, they should whole heartedly admit that they lost the sydney test..
any true cricket fan [even a casual watcher] would deduce the winner if they have seen all the 5 days of that ill-fated sydney test. if not for bucknor, India would have won that match. Why CA, the OZ 11 and it's disgusting captain and hypocritic commentators don't even mention that...At least by admitting u can save your honour....
And most importantly, the man of the series should go to Bucknor...pls give it to bucknor not to stupid lee as Bucknor single-handedly won the match for OZs
Adelaide Test - 24 -29 Jan - India Drew the match
Well, the bloody OZs played negative cricket...got few favourable decisions and played as slow as possible...well below 3 RPO....
If we take out Sydney from this series - India have tied the series.
No body talked ill of bloody OZs after the Melbourne test - as India did not play well. but in Sydnet - they deserve to win - OZs with the help of umpires, CA and ICC they cheated and forced a win out of a loss.
I hope the spineless BCCI demands elimination of this ugly test match from the books.
If we take out Sydney from this series - India have tied the series.
No body talked ill of bloody OZs after the Melbourne test - as India did not play well. but in Sydnet - they deserve to win - OZs with the help of umpires, CA and ICC they cheated and forced a win out of a loss.
I hope the spineless BCCI demands elimination of this ugly test match from the books.
At least one OZ soul implicitly admits that they did loose the series
Gilchris's comments on the concluded India Vs australia 2007/2008 test series -
To the Indian cricket team, I think, Anil, you're right. It's been a fine series. You guys have a 2-1 result. It shows a victory to us but you've played an amazing standard of cricket.
You've really challenged us in a lot of ways and it's been a pleasure of mine whether it's been playing in Australia or India, to play against Indian cricketers. So thank you very much," Gilchrist added, showering praise on the touring Indian team.
source - cricketnext.com
thanks Gilly for admitting that though it shows victory to you guys in the books - you all know who really won the series. You are one soul misplaced within the australian cricket system. rightly you retired from the stinking system.
To the Indian cricket team, I think, Anil, you're right. It's been a fine series. You guys have a 2-1 result. It shows a victory to us but you've played an amazing standard of cricket.
You've really challenged us in a lot of ways and it's been a pleasure of mine whether it's been playing in Australia or India, to play against Indian cricketers. So thank you very much," Gilchrist added, showering praise on the touring Indian team.
source - cricketnext.com
thanks Gilly for admitting that though it shows victory to you guys in the books - you all know who really won the series. You are one soul misplaced within the australian cricket system. rightly you retired from the stinking system.
Disgusting Sydney Cricket Test Match- Revisit
A horrific day of cricket not only saw a Test match being snatched from India because of poor umpiring, but one of their front-line players being banned for three matches for an alleged racial slur that was not proved conclusively.
Match referee Mike Procter announced that Harbhajan had indeed been racist in his remarks to Andrew Symonds when there was apparently no one to corroborate the accusation except for other Aussie players. The umpires had not heard anything and the television cameras and microphones had picked nothing. However, Procter decided not to give the benefit of doubt to the accused when it was one man's word against the other's word.
"I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Harbhajan Singh directed that word (racist remark, probably monkey) at Andrew Syonds and… meant it to offend on the basis of Symonds' race or ethnic origin (West Indian), a release from Procter said.
It was a double-whammy for the Indian team no doubt, the frustration of conceding an unassailable 2-0 lead to the Aussies having not gone down well with the team as umpires Steve Bucknor, Mark Benson and Oxenford put paid to their best chance of winning a Test match in the series. The poor officiating ruined the series which could well have stood at 1-1 after two matches.
On the Indian cricket Board's request, the ICC has agreed not to post Bucknor in the next match, but the damage has already been done. Also, one has to wait and see what comes of the appeal against the ban on Harbhajan, which might just be revoked in a compromise situation.
But what does India stand to gain from this all, even if Harbhajan's ban is revoked? They have not been able to stop the Aussie winning trail and they next play at Perth, where they hardly stand a chance of pulling it off because of the bouncy pitches there.
The Indian team management was told to continue with the tour despite the players losing their morale, just like the Aussies would have wanted. But are Australia calling the shots at the ICC so much that India are left at the mercy of incompetent officials?
The BCCI secretary, Niranjan Shah, said that "the tour will go on and we'll give the team every possible support," but the cricket Board will have to back its word by action. Taking things lying down is not the way forward
If Symonds's accusation was taken so seriously, why was not the Indian team's complaint that Brad Hogg had called Indian captain Anil Kumble a b*****d? And also, did they consider whether Symonds had instigated Harbhajan to say some words, if at all he did? Does it all mean that the ICC officials are so very sure that the Aussies will not play dirty at any point in time? If they are, they surely are kidding everyone.
Match referee Mike Procter announced that Harbhajan had indeed been racist in his remarks to Andrew Symonds when there was apparently no one to corroborate the accusation except for other Aussie players. The umpires had not heard anything and the television cameras and microphones had picked nothing. However, Procter decided not to give the benefit of doubt to the accused when it was one man's word against the other's word.
"I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Harbhajan Singh directed that word (racist remark, probably monkey) at Andrew Syonds and… meant it to offend on the basis of Symonds' race or ethnic origin (West Indian), a release from Procter said.
It was a double-whammy for the Indian team no doubt, the frustration of conceding an unassailable 2-0 lead to the Aussies having not gone down well with the team as umpires Steve Bucknor, Mark Benson and Oxenford put paid to their best chance of winning a Test match in the series. The poor officiating ruined the series which could well have stood at 1-1 after two matches.
On the Indian cricket Board's request, the ICC has agreed not to post Bucknor in the next match, but the damage has already been done. Also, one has to wait and see what comes of the appeal against the ban on Harbhajan, which might just be revoked in a compromise situation.
But what does India stand to gain from this all, even if Harbhajan's ban is revoked? They have not been able to stop the Aussie winning trail and they next play at Perth, where they hardly stand a chance of pulling it off because of the bouncy pitches there.
The Indian team management was told to continue with the tour despite the players losing their morale, just like the Aussies would have wanted. But are Australia calling the shots at the ICC so much that India are left at the mercy of incompetent officials?
The BCCI secretary, Niranjan Shah, said that "the tour will go on and we'll give the team every possible support," but the cricket Board will have to back its word by action. Taking things lying down is not the way forward
If Symonds's accusation was taken so seriously, why was not the Indian team's complaint that Brad Hogg had called Indian captain Anil Kumble a b*****d? And also, did they consider whether Symonds had instigated Harbhajan to say some words, if at all he did? Does it all mean that the ICC officials are so very sure that the Aussies will not play dirty at any point in time? If they are, they surely are kidding everyone.
Fitting Reply to Ugly Sydney Fiasco
There was India's twelfth man, Harbhajan Singh, gleefully charging across the WACA outfield, holding aloft the Indian Tricolour.
As it streamed out it became an intrepid unmistakable metaphor signifying that justice had been done. If ever there was a defining, defiant message that trampled the contretemps of the Sydney Test in the Australian dirt, this was it.
Bhajji didn't play in Perth as a matter of selection policy. And for those of who watched the four days of what was another enthralling Test, this flag carrying act was an intellectual statement overriding moments of charged adrenalin the victory created.
It was almost as though reading through a compelling script for the latest Daniel Day-Lewis film. There was the memory of unknown lanky New Delhi teenager Ishant Sharma, who two years ago wasn't even considered good enough to earn selection to the Indian Youth World Cup side, working over Ricky Ponting in such a way that it revived memories of the 2005 Ashes Test series.
As it streamed out it became an intrepid unmistakable metaphor signifying that justice had been done. If ever there was a defining, defiant message that trampled the contretemps of the Sydney Test in the Australian dirt, this was it.
Bhajji didn't play in Perth as a matter of selection policy. And for those of who watched the four days of what was another enthralling Test, this flag carrying act was an intellectual statement overriding moments of charged adrenalin the victory created.
It was almost as though reading through a compelling script for the latest Daniel Day-Lewis film. There was the memory of unknown lanky New Delhi teenager Ishant Sharma, who two years ago wasn't even considered good enough to earn selection to the Indian Youth World Cup side, working over Ricky Ponting in such a way that it revived memories of the 2005 Ashes Test series.
Is OZ cricket team captain - a Retarded or a Downsyndrome?
This is what the bloody bastard [well this is australians' favourite word] had to say when asked to comment on the concluded series between India and australia....
I wonder whether he is a born retarded or a downsyndrome or a spastic. whenever I see him smiling, he looks more like a down syndrome......It's quite suprising that such a retarded maniac is allowed to play for his country.
"
Ricky Ponting has scoffed at suggestions Australia were in danger of losing their number one ranking due to the retirement of senior players and India's improving performances.
Australia have lost five of their most experienced players over the last 14 months - Shane Warne, Glenn McGrath, Justin Langer, Damien Martyn and Adam Gilchrist.
But captain Ponting, who is also entering the twilight of his career, said Australia had proven they had the depth to cover any retirements by beating India 2-1 in their four-match series that ended on Monday.
"I think we have done a good job," Ponting told a news conference after the fourth and final test against India ended in a draw at Adelaide."
I wonder whether he is a born retarded or a downsyndrome or a spastic. whenever I see him smiling, he looks more like a down syndrome......It's quite suprising that such a retarded maniac is allowed to play for his country.
"
Ricky Ponting has scoffed at suggestions Australia were in danger of losing their number one ranking due to the retirement of senior players and India's improving performances.
Australia have lost five of their most experienced players over the last 14 months - Shane Warne, Glenn McGrath, Justin Langer, Damien Martyn and Adam Gilchrist.
But captain Ponting, who is also entering the twilight of his career, said Australia had proven they had the depth to cover any retirements by beating India 2-1 in their four-match series that ended on Monday.
"I think we have done a good job," Ponting told a news conference after the fourth and final test against India ended in a draw at Adelaide."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
