• SPORTS
    AND
    GAMING
  • Sports & Gaming Moderators: ghostfreak

Fucking Australians have ruined cricket

duck_racer

Bluelighter
Joined
Jul 27, 2003
Messages
6,779
Location
South Yorkshire wastelands
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tms/2008/01/players_are_the_problem_not_um.shtml

Anybody who finds themselves surprised by the events on India's tour of Australia must have been living on a different planet for the past five years.

The unedifying drama unfolding in Sydney is the result of a number of issues which have been bubbling away beneath the surface with increasing intensity.

They all exploded in a furious head as Australia single-mindedly homed in on their record-equalling 16th Test victory, without giving a damn about the consequences on the way.

Let’s start what will probably be a controversial, but honest, assessment by congratulating Australia on their achievement.

What a shame it is that the legacy of this fine team will be so tarnished by the ugly and offensive manner in which it plays the game – and has done for at least three years.

Ricky Ponting’s men have trampled all over the spirit of cricket by offering the lame excuse that they are "hard". In their world, deliberately conning the umpire is part and parcel of the game: “It’s his decision," they offer as a cop-out.

Just look at Andrew Symonds, who visibly gloated for the media when he admitted he had got away with a catch behind the wicket early in his first innings - what a miserable performance.

And what effect does that have on the umpire’s confidence – or that of the players in him?

This Australia team plays the game to win – there’s nothing wrong in that – but it has negated its responsibility to those who watch it and, more importantly, the next generation of cricketers who will inherit the battered sprit of cricket that Ponting’s team leaves in its trail.

Cricket can be an aggressive sport, but it is the ball and the bat that should do the talking. The hostile, nasty and intimidating environment that the Australians create on the pitch is a key ingredient in unsettling an opponent.

Little wonder that, sometimes, a volatile character lashes out in what he would perceive as self-defence, and what does it say of these "hard" men that they then go and report him to the umpire?

They can give it, but can’t take it.

That, of course, does not offer any defence for racism. If Harbhajan Singh did racially abuse Symonds, he must be punished for it.

But the above might offer some insight into how a cowed opponent could suddenly react to the intense pressure and intimidation that has been deliberately and ruthlessly applied to him by the fielding team.

Purely because we are talking about India here, I am going to throw in Sreesanth’s name as an example of an Indian cricketer who has often – and recently - gone well beyond the spirit of cricket: it is not purely an Australian thing.

And that is why the decision to remove Steve Bucknor from the next Test is so short-sighted.

As I warned when Darrell Hair was seen off by the Pakistan Cricket Board 18 months ago, the way was opened for powerful cricket teams to dispose of officials when a decision is made they do not like. How dare the game be held to ransom in this way.

But the real fault lies with the players – and it is their behaviour, attitude and respect for the game and its traditions that need urgently to be addressed.

Umpires will always make mistakes – just as the players do (although you wouldn’t believe it sometimes) and undermining their confidence by removing their most senior colleague in this way is unbelievably foolish.

Cricket is truly at a crossroads.

Administered these days by businessmen who have no feel for, or genuine love and understanding of the game, cricket is played purely for money, ego and power for those who control it.

Goodness knows where it will end unless a stand is taken, and that action must be directed by all the countries at all of their players, and not the umpires.

Couldn't agree more. It's all very well being a talented team but if you play in suca graceless manner it takes all the glory - and enjoyment - out of the sport.

I can remember the massive fuss kicked up in the UK in 05 when a sub fielder made a catch and that most simian of cricketers Ponting kicked off saying how unfair it was blah blah.
 
Watching the final session of this match was one of the most intense and enjoyable ever. It was what makes 5 days of Test cricket the pinicle of sport. Even with 10 overs to go and Australia needing 4 more wickets, the pressure on the Indians showed why the Aussies are the best in the business.

But...... once taking that final wicket they showed why even in their own country so many people feel that winning isn't everything. Given the close nature of the match, and the fact the Indians had bad umpiring calls against them at a rate of 5:1, the first thing Ponting should have done was wrap his arm around the Indians captain, Kumble, who was batting at the bowlers end and say,
"Fuck that was a tough match, you were a bit unlucky, lets have a beer (or other my Hindu friend) and see if we can do it again next Test."

Instead they jumped around and whooped it up with their fists pumping and generally inflammed the situation more. World record or not, it was a time for humility.

Okay, the Indians are precious. Threatening to take their bat and ball (and squillions of broadcast dollars ) home isn't the answer. At least the playing conditions in Oz are for the most part fair. How many tours of the subcontinent in the past have been doctored with one sided pitches and dubious umpiring. (Lets not forget why they introduce neutral umpires in the past 10 yr). Hell even staying 5 stars at the Sheraton doesn't make tourists immune from Bombay belly.

India got well and truely stomped on in this series. In a game of inches, between the 2 best sides in the world, mental toughness will often win in the end. They have had their chances to compete and have unfortunately come up short so far. Acting like sooks will not win them the next Test in Perth ( not that the bouncing WACA pitch will do their wristy batsmen any favours). If Singh did use the term "Monkey" then 3 match ban is fair. Take it on the chin and stop this nonsense about being hurt by being called a "bastard". It's not the same. The world is not against you India.

I don't think Australia has ruined cricket. They have removed the term "gentlemens game" from the annuals yes, and "win at all costs" attitude has won them no friends, but who really needs and Aussie as a friend any way. Lets not forget that they have revolutionised and revitalized Test cricket over the past decade. I remember teams playing for draws from about day 3 ( I'm looking at you England) or run rates of 1.85 over 5 days. Australia are willing to entertain to win a game. They are usually willing to set a target with the chance of losing, to get a result. I love seeing the Aussies lose ( no matter how infrequent) but I do enjoy watching them win. I just wish they would respect their opponents and more importantly the Great game that is cricket.......:D
 
Is it just coincidence that this same team who have ruined cricket have just equalled their own world record?
thers too much made of sportmanshp in cricket in my opinion. The aussies have shown that succesful cricket comes at a price.
 
I really can't see what the Aussies did wrong, aside from winning (again). The appealed for a few dubious catches, they got the benefit of several questionable umpiring decisions, on the flip side they also copped the pineapple on few.

The essence of the final day was this:

Australia set India a total of 333 off 72 overs, a run rate of 4.62 on a flat track.
India have 4 of the best batsmen ever to play the game in their line up, Australias bowling attack has a combined total of 86 tests to their credit, the likes of Laxman, Dravid, Tendulkar and Ganguly have in excess of 600.
Now consider an ODI, if you score less than 280 of 50 overs, you're in trouble, Australia gave India 333 of 72, and they just couldn't cut it. Nevermind the dismissal of Dhoni and Ganguly, Dravid, Jaffer, Tendulkar, Youvraj, and Laxman, Kumble, Harbhajan, were all fair dismissals. If you're going to complain about 2 lower order dismissals, perhaps the question you should be asking is why has it got down to that? What happened to your top order? Why did we let Australia set us 333 runs to begin with when we have a 2 world class spinners and they have none.

The batting tactics of the Inidians was negative, therefore they can only expect negative results, and nevermind the umpires, how bout the indian fielding... How bout the team they selected - where are Sehwag and Pathan and Sreesanth

And why shouldn't the Aussies celebrate, they've just equalled a world record, with ever chance of breaking it, and they equalled it in such an intense fashion.

Sour grapes india, they way they carried on was like they were the only team ever to have been given poor decisions in the entire history of sport. Suck it up and get on with it.

Perhaps we should even look at the bigger picture here, the final two tests are dead rubbers, what better way to spark a little interest than to have a team of Sooky lala's, a team of arrogant cunts, some poor umpiring, $50m dollar losses, the threat of a boycott, some racism, some abuse, a little seasoning from players who retired 30 years ago, a little pepper from people who never played the game but consider themselves experts and voila you've got the perfect combination for an eagerly anticipated 3rd and 4th test...
 
The only major thing that I see that the Aussies did wrong was the over-celebrating. Yes, you are excited, yes you have won a series, and equalled a record, but you can still be a gracious winner. We really don't have to run around all crazy rubbing peoples noses in it.

Yes there were some over the top appeals, but then what is an appeal anyway? It's asking the umpire the question: Was it out?? You have EVERY right to ask that question if you are not sure. Yes the umpires were under a hell of a lot of pressure and made some ATROCIOUS decisions, but you still have the right to ask.

Now swifty, you REALLY can't compare the run rates in one day matches to what was required by the Indians in the 4th innings of a test match on a degrading pitch. One day pitches are usually batsmen friendly, similar to an early 3rd day test strip. A 5th day pitch at the SCG is NEVER going to offer runs at the same rate as any standard one day match now. Oh and Dravid got a shocking decision. But other than that, I agree with your other points :)

CB :)
 
The run rate comparision is ridiculous. Go look up the number of teams who have ever successfully chased 330 in the 4th innings. It's not many, in all of test history. Never mind doing it in less than a day. The Indians only ever had an extremely remote chance of winning that match; Ponting's tactics were to bat them out of the game.

The sportsmanship issue: didn't Ponting claim a catch when asked by the umpires if it had carried? Isn't that a bit different from appealing when uncertain? To state that you're sure it was a wicket?
 
The pitch was fine, maybe a few demons, but other than the occasional low bounce I really couldn't see much wrong with it, it wasn't turning, it was swinging, either conventional or reverse, it hadn't quickened, plus the indians expressly asked for the outfield not to be watered in order to quicken it.

besides which, it's all or nothing, you don't get set 333 runs with more than ample time to get it and play out a draw. As far as I see it, if you start playing for a draw, then you'll lose, if you go on the attack and have a go, hey you might just get there, but there's no shame in going out in a blaze of glory, there is plenty of shame playing negatively and losing though.
 
Infinite Jest said:
The run rate comparision is ridiculous. Go look up the number of teams who have ever successfully chased 330 in the 4th innings. It's not many, in all of test history. Never mind doing it in less than a day. The Indians only ever had an extremely remote chance of winning that match; Ponting's tactics were to bat them out of the game.

The sportsmanship issue: didn't Ponting claim a catch when asked by the umpires if it had carried? Isn't that a bit different from appealing when uncertain? To state that you're sure it was a wicket?

go look up the number of overs to chase that amount down, the RRR is up around the 6+ per over, no 4.5.

The comparison is no ridiculous at all, to not draw the comparison is ridiculous - you don't go and play a one dayer for a draw, why should you play a test.
 
When the West Indies were dispatching the rest of the world with contempt in the 70's and 80's they were at their intimidating best. Aggressive, arrogant and not above dishing a bit of chin music to the lower order.

Yet they were loved by crowds around the world. Why? It may have been the love of herb and reggea but methinks it was more that they seemed like top blokes.

Even with the loss of Shane Warne, the Aussies are still a bunch of tossers. Barring Gilchrist and perhaps Hayden, I wouldn't want to share a beer or spliff with any of them.
 
I'm going to stick by my argument that there is a big difference between test cricket and one-day cricket. Though I probably shouldn't have said 'ridiculous'.

Take a look at the all time highest 4th innings scores.

By my count, only 13 times have teams successfully chased more than 330 runs in the 4th innings. Only once has a team chased more than 330 at more than 4 runs/over.

There's a big difference between tests and one-dayers: most notably the fielding restrictions, but also the bowling restrictions and the definition of a wide. In one day cricket, only two fielders can be outside the circle early on, giving the batsman every opportunity to hit over the top: not possible in tests.

In one-day cricket, each team will usually have one or two all-rounders who will have to bowl ten overs between them, regardless of how badly they are bowling. More chance for easy runs - wouldn't happen in a test (although to be fair the Aussies used 6 bowlers, who all (apart from Clarke) bowled between 11 and 19 overs).

Finally in tests there is more leniancy over calling wides; think for example of Zimbabwe-England about ten years ago: England were set to win, chasing about 150-200, but Zimbabwe kept bowling wide down leg, and the Poms couldn't score. Again, not a realistic tactic in one-dayers.

Arguably India, down 1-0, should have chased. But the odds were very much against them.
 
I never said there wasn't a hge difference, all I'm saying is that the Indians had the wrong attitude and that's where they attitude of Australia and and the rest of the cricketing world differ so much, I just used One Dayers to to clarify that you get this many overs to score that many runs, nevermind anything else - that is the equation and that's how india should've looked at their equation.

Instead of looking at the target and saying No-one's ever chased down that before, lets just play for the draw, they should have broken it down to a ball by ball, over by over equation. They should've picked on the weak links and play the stronger bowlers on their merits. I'm still going to say that a top order with over 600 tests worth of experience should have destroyed that total in 60 odd overs especially considering the in experience of the australian bowling attack.

Brad Hogg and Mitchell Johnson should've, and would've been taken apart if they had the right mindset.

Andrew Symonds bowling off break on a flat track should've been belted for 8+ runs an over, shit I could smash Symonds for 8 an over.

Anil Kumble and Harbhajan wasted so much time on the 4th day and some of the 5th bowling shit down legside to contain rather than attack, to employ such a tactic when the game was still anybodies shows they had already given up bowling Australia out and were already thinking of the draw.

Australia had a very attacking field for the majority of the day, a field that could've been exploited for 4 or 5 runs an over, but India were just playing for the draw.
 
Busty St Clare said:
I don't think Australia has ruined cricket. They have removed the term "gentlemens game" from the annuals yes, and "win at all costs" attitude has won them no friends, but who really needs and Aussie as a friend any way. Lets not forget that they have revolutionised and revitalized Test cricket over the past decade. I remember teams playing for draws from about day 3 ( I'm looking at you England) or run rates of 1.85 over 5 days. Australia are willing to entertain to win a game. They are usually willing to set a target with the chance of losing, to get a result. I love seeing the Aussies lose ( no matter how infrequent) but I do enjoy watching them win. I just wish they would respect their opponents and more importantly the Great game that is cricket.......:D

Well in my opinion removing the 'gentlemans game' from Cricket has all but ruined it. The sport relied on fair play to make it successful. All the incidents in this test and I notice NOBODY has mentioned Australias sledging, famous for being the worst out there, going totally unpunished but a comment ALLEDGEDLY made in the heat of the moment (not defending Harbhajan here but there's no actual evidence) was immediately reported by that whining little turd Ponting straight to the umpires...

If you enjoy your games to be totally hard edged, without any humility and willing t go to any lengths to win then I suppose you'll like the Australian way. Personally I can enjoy a game without this desperate need to win - and to remember what the words 'sport' and 'sporting' are supposed to stand for.

Personally I think it's a crying shame. I'm glad those 'in the know' in Cricket have seriously denounced their actions.

And who was the one comparing a bit of Bangalore Belly to cheating officials into making decisions? Jeez 8)
 
Don't get me wrong DR, I may be married to an Aussie but I think still they are a pack of unsporting pricks. I was saying that the Indians were being a bit precious cosidering their track record.

If you want a gentlemens game then take away the money and play in those wonderful English village ovals with picket fences and 20 overs lost due to rain.

Indian authorities holding a weak ICC to ransom just because they generate 70 % of cricket revenue is a bit off colour if you ask me.

I generally feel sorry for India but they should just put up or shut up. Last time I checked there weren't 2 Australian umpires, nor were they selected by Australian cricket.

Talley Ho what, what.....;)
 
Busty St Clare said:
Don't get me wrong DR, I may be married to an Aussie but I think still they are a pack of unsporting pricks. I was saying that the Indians were being a bit precious cosidering their track record.

If you want a gentlemens game then take away the money and play in those wonderful English village ovals with picket fences and 20 overs lost due to rain.

Indian authorities holding a weak ICC to ransom just because they generate 70 % of cricket revenue is a bit off colour if you ask me.

I generally feel sorry for India but they should just put up or shut up. Last time I checked there weren't 2 Australian umpires, nor were they selected by Australian cricket.

Talley Ho what, what.....;)

Yeah I agree with what you said about India. And the ICC was totally wrong IMO for backing down and removing Bucknor from the next test. The fault lies with the players not the umpire, as stated in the op, and Australia are the most guilty for creating this type of situation.

I disagree with you about fair play being something quintessentially English and, somehow, eccentric. Perhaps we have different opinions about what sport is..

Right, off to drink a warm beer and cup of tea on my penny farthing, pip pip.
 
duck_racer said:
but a comment ALLEDGEDLY made in the heat of the moment (not defending Harbhajan here but there's no actual evidence) was immediately reported by that whining little turd Ponting straight to the umpires...

Just a quick note on this, I think it is RIDICULOUSLY unfair to criticise Ponting about "whining" in this situation, when the ICC Code of Conduct stipulates that if there is any racist comment made, that the captain of the team that the comment was made to/about has to IMMEDIATELY report it to the umpires, then also, at the next available opportunity - for example the end of an over, to report it to the match referee.

So basically, Ponting was doing EXACTLY what was required of him in the case of a racist comment being made. I'm not saying that a comment was made or it wasn't, but it was alleged, and in that situation, Ponting did EXACTLY the right thing, so any criticism about whinging or whining here is completely redundant and ridiculous.

CB.
 
Fuck that, cricket ruins itself- tossers in white garb farting around for five days in the most unlikely off positions- silly mid off what on earth is that? Wheres naughty front row huh?

Sorry, after being subjected to cricket for my entire childhood I LOATHE it, but I will say the aussie cricket team is a gerat example of the stupidest Aussie people- ie. the majority.
 
sledging of any kind is fine IMO, until it insults race, religion, sexual persausion or gender.

I would still like someone to point out exactly what it is that Australia have done to ruin cricket.
 
Top