Thread: Should the Indian Cricket Team go Home?

Keep going

Originally Posted by jmk89

"Monkey" is the internationally recognised form of racist taunt to black sportsmen - if you go to a soccer match in Europe it is not uncommon for the crowd to heckle black players every time they receive the ball with monkey noises. And the clubs get fined for this if it happens on the basis that it is racist.

So for anyone to use "monkey" to a black sportsman is to use a word as bad as calling an indigenous Australian a "boong". So far, 'goose' means "fool'" or "dill" but is not racist.

Yes, poor bloody monkeys can't defend themselves. Common Punter, give them hell in Perth.

Originally Posted by Groggy

No news in there Geoff. I don't follow the cricket or football any more for precisely those reasons. It used to be that cricket was a test of character and skill, hence it being called a gentlemen's game. Now, like other sports, there is nothing noble about it, it is just a grubby scramble for cash, not something you would want kids to role model themselves from.

Its sad, but that is the way it is. Look at all the problems world wide across all "sports" now with performance enhancing drugs, gambling, both legal and illegal, it is all about money.

The players are having a lend if they think we look up to them as "sportspersons" all they are is employees of whatever parent organisation, be that the AFL, Cycling Australia, Swimming Australia, or in this case Cricket Australia.

They are no more role models to Australia's youth than what I am. They are people who perform a function for there employer, just like you and I do.

We make them role models because we say they are, in most cases they have no say in it...and that is wrong.

Unfortunately SW Asian customers are the only ones that I insist on 100% deposit when they order from me. Bitter experience. Similarly I found a high degree of discrimination in India. As a whitey I copped some rather rude remarks from hosties, cabbies, bank, immigration and hotel staff. But then the caste system is alive and well there isnt it. Its the only country Ive been where I dont want to go back.

But that is not the point, as someone said would they be so noisy if they had won or drawn, which it looked like they would.... till the 2nd last over. From my point of view Kumble was man of the match for sheer bloodyminded stubborness in defending his wicket. There was a lot of very determined play by both sides, a brilliant test match, the best in years.

I think its all just a way to sell a few more newspapers, both here and in India.

Bl..dy oath padre!!And take their bats with them

Originally Posted by Geoff Dean

So using the logic that if you hit it and don't walk you are cheating because you know you are out, then equally if like Ponting, you hit it into your pads and are then given out LBW, you shouldn't go because you know you are not out.

If a batsman has to accept the umpires bad calls of out against him, then it is only fair that they can also take advantage of an umpires bad calls in his favour

It is up to the umpire to say whether you are out, not up to the player to confirm it for him.

There is NO excuse for being dishonest, period!

It takes a big man to "do the right thing" under difficult circumstances, Andrew Simmonds is no longer such a big man in the eyes of kids etc. This kind of play / attitude is teaching young people it's ok to be dishonest expecially if you can get away with it.

To walk when you know you're not out, but the umpire has ruled you out is ALSO "doing the right thing".

As has been mentioned, this is SPORTSMANSHIP!

Sportsmanship, ha! that's almost dead and buried in cricket. So much for what USED to be called the "GENTLEMANS" game - there are few such gentlemen in the Aussie team.

The saying "what goes around comes around" is true and some repercussions are in process now.

I gather you are within the 71% whereas you can gather I am in the dwindling minority of 29% that STILL think honesty is the best policy.

NO offence or agitation is intended in this post

.

Originally Posted by NCArcher

Please point out any rules that have been broken. Australia has played within the rules.

Andrew Simonds hit/nicked the ball and was caught. According to the rules, that is OUT. Andrew Simonds stayed at the crease even though he knew AND ADMITTED that he knew he was out - THAT is cheating!!!

If they lose 3 straight the Indian fans will be burning effegies of their own players.

More likely the Indians will be burning effigies of the Aussies or the umpires because the Indian loss may be due to the cheating or bad umpiring.

Originally Posted by Geoff Dean

It's no longer sport...it is big business, a huge moneymaking venture for all involved, with players careers on the line. Walk after a first ball snick and your career could be over or stay and make 100 and get a new contract for next year valued at $400,000, and an extra $5-600,000 in endorsements.

This is STILL no excuse for being dishonest!!!

What you are implying is that it's ok to cheat and stay at the crease and then accept payment for being DISHONEST

Walking only puts more pressure on an umpire...Was that a snick? No couldn't have been, this guy walks, must be not out!

WHAT? It puts LESS pressure on the umpire if the umpire can rely on the honesty of the batsman to walk if he knows he was out - that honesty has long since gone .

Gentlemen, and i use the term loosly
I, as an ex cricket fan have been waching this thread, most comments re racism are trying to be even handed.
but one or two of you are displaying a hatred bordering on the fanatic.
I think we all know that some comments and name calling are racist in intent.
as somone pointed out, one oz to another, the term bastard can be a term of endearment.
I think only a fool would try to argue that Monkey, kafir, boong etc are not deliberate terms of racial abuse.

The joy of cricket used to be in the good will and sportsmanship teams displayed to one another, the ovation given to clive lloyd springs to mind.

This seems to have disappeared and dont blame the media they only feed off the spectators.

Some of you are a discrace to australian sport.

Astrid


thats why

MrFixIt, you seem to be under the impression that there once was a golden age in cricket when everyone walked when they snicked a ball and were caught behind. This "Golden Age" never existed. WG Grace (yes, the doctor himself) stated that he would never walk. Many prominent players throughout history have stated that they would never walk. Some of the greatest players in history were not walkers. Some players were, and there has been a time, particularly at first class level and below (but not above) when walking predominated. But it was never universal.

I played a fair bit of cricket in my youth, and I've watched a lot more and read about much more than I've watched. I always walked. But I played with a lot of players that didn't, and to my mind I thought they should, as a moral thing. But it isn't against the laws of the game not to walk. I know of two brothers (related to me - I know them well), one always walked, the other didn't believe in walking at all. Which of them is right? According to the laws and history of cricket, both of them are right. I have come to accept and even respect that one person's views on this subject are not necessarily valid for all. Symonds is not a cheat. Ponting is not a cheat. They are both permitted, within the laws and traditions of cricket, to not walk. As they are to walk if they choose. Having known a couple of umpires in my time, they always reckoned that the worst type of batsman to officiate in front of was the bloke that walked sometimes - because they never knew if he was 'out' or not. The truth is you are 'out' if the umpire gives you out.

Now personally, I would prefer that all players walked. But I would also prefer not to have a third umpire. I'd prefer to rely on the decision of the umpires on the field, and I'd go so far as to stop any slow motion replays from square of the wicket, or things like hawkeye and snicko. In my opinion these things undermine the authority and respect that umpires are entitled to. I believe that the performance of every test umpire should be formally reviewed after every test match, by the ICC, and the panel of umpires should consist of those umpires that consistently perform at a high level and without bias. I think that would sort these problems out.

Bucknor has now been dropped from the next test, which I think is the right thing to do. But it shouldn't have been done because India complained - it should have been done because of his poor performance (and he has a recent history of such poor performances unfortunately). Benson also had a shocker. The appointing of umpires shouldn't be reliant on whether a team complains.

Unfortunately, I think Harbhajan will be 'exonerated' of the racist charges, because of political pressure. IMHO, he is clearly guilty as charged, and the Indian team management should be reprimanding him rather than supporting him. That they are not, and are instead attempting to cast aspersions on the Australian team diminishes them and the game that they are meant to support. I am appalled that the game that I love so dearly is coming to the stage where it is being run by money and politics rather than by the truth. Personally I couldn't care less if there was no money involved in test cricket. It would still go on, because there will always be blokes like me who would play for free.

Someone else's turn....

Edit: I also meant to include one of the best sledges I've ever heard of (courtesy of Fitzy in the SMH). The Voss brothers were playing against each other in the AFL, and the younger was lining up to take an important kick at goal. The elder, standing on the mark, just before the kick, says "My dad slept with your Mum". Incontrovertible, and completely effective (the kick missed).

Poppa, you couldn't have said it any better.

Originally Posted by Wongo

Lets just ban cricket all together. Stupid game.

I was going to suggest that , but didn't want to be sledged.



Kev.

I like the assumption implicit in

Unfortunately, I think Harbhajan will be 'exonerated' of the racist charges, because of political pressure. IMHO, he is clearly guilty as charged,

There is no evidence other than Symonds and Gilchrists statement. The other statements were hearsay - Punter and the rest apparently said that Symonds told them he said it. Tendulka on the other hand claims that it was not said. On the evidence of the game who would you believe? He may well have but the evidence is a bit thin.

I don't care if they walk or don't walk as long as they are consistent. Punter clearly was out caught behind but elected to await the umpires decision. When given out to a dodgy LBW later on he had a tanty on the way to the dressing room and let everyone know it was a dodgy decision. If he accepts the first decision then he should accept the second one. IMHO I think it would be better for the game if no one walked and everyone accepted the decision without the selective tantrums.

Remember Katich having a dummy spit while he was walking back to the pavilion in the Ashes loss. It was a bad decision but he still got fined.

Notice how there is no talk about Dravid's dummy spit..

I'm sick of them already.

In any event, the Indians are hopeless. How can a country of one billion not produce 11 decent or consistent players (at any sport for that matter).

What gets me is that this team were playing for a draw at best. A draw. They didn't cop 10 bad decisions in getting out for 200 odd runs again. They are just crap. Nothing new there.