Ponting 'must be sacked'

[GVGjr]

Ponting 'must be sacked' (http://www.theage.com.au/news/cricket/ponting-must-be-sacked/2008/01/07/1199554570948.html)

I normally like to hear what Peter Roebuck has to say but this appears to be way off the mark. This is however a huge crisis for Test cricket and issue has gotten way out of hand.
I think we were very lucky to win, I think we probably pushed things too far but calling for Pontings head is just a grab for a headline.

Thoughts?

RICKY Ponting must be sacked as captain of the Australian cricket team.

If Cricket Australia cares a fig for the tattered reputation of our national team in our national sport, it will not for a moment longer tolerate the sort of arrogant and abrasive conduct seen from the captain and his senior players in the past few days. It was the ugliest performance by an Australian side for 20 years. The only surprising part of it is that the Indians have not already packed and gone home.

That the senior players in the Australian team are oblivious to the fury they raised among many followers of the game in this country and beyond its shores merely confirms their own narrow and self-obsessed viewpoint.

Doubtless, they were not exposed to the messages that poured in from distressed enthusiasts aghast to see the scenes of bad sportsmanship and triumphalism presented at the SCG during and after the match. Pained past players called to express their private disgust. It was a wretched and ill-mannered display and not to be endured from any side let alone an international outfit representing a proud sporting nation. Make no mistake, it is not only the reputation of these cricketers that has suffered — Australia itself has been embarrassed.

The notion that Ponting can hereafter take the Australian team to India is preposterous. He has shown not the slightest interest in the wellbeing of the game, not the slightest sign of diplomatic skill, not a single mark of respect for his accomplished and widely admired opponents. Harbhajan Singh can be an irritating young man but he is head of a family and responsible for raising nine people. And all the Australians elders want to do is to hunt him from the game. Australian fieldsmen fire insults from the corners of their mouths, an intemperate Sikh warrior overreacts, and his rudeness is seized upon.

In the past few days, the Australian captain has presided over a performance that dragged the game into the pits. He turned a group of professional cricketers into a pack of wild dogs. As much can be told from the conduct of his closest allies in the team. As usual, Matthew Hayden crossed himself on reaching three figures in his commanding second innings, a gesture he does not perform while wearing the colours of his state. Exactly how he combines his faith with throwing his weight around on the field has long bemused opposing sides, whose fondness for him ran out a long time ago.

Michael Clarke had a dreadful match but he is a young man and has time to rethink his outlook. That his mind was in disarray could be told from his batting. In the first innings he offered no shot to a straight ball and in the second he remained at the crease after giving an easy catch to slip. On this evidence, Clarke cannot be promoted to the vice-captaincy of his country. It is a captain's primary task to rear his younger players and to prepare his successor for the ordeals of office.

Nothing need be said about the catch Clarke took in the second innings except that in the circumstances, the umpires were ill-advised to take anyone's word for anything. The Indians were convinced that Ponting grounded a catch he claimed on the final afternoon at the SCG. Throughout those heated hours, the Australian captain remained hostile, kicking the ground, demanding decisions, pressuring the umpires. So much for his corporate smile over the past few years.

Probably the worst aspect of the Australians' performance was their conduct at the end. When the last catch was taken they formed into a huddle and started jumping up and down like teenagers at a rave. It was not euphoria. It was ecstasy. They had swallowed a pill called Vengeance, among the most dangerous on the shelves. Not one player so much as thought about shaking hands with the defeated and departing. So much for Andrew Flintoff consoling a stricken opponent in his hour of defeat.

Neither could Ponting nor Adam Gilchrist stop himself from publicly chiding Tony Greig for daring to criticise the timing of the declaration. They should have been thanking their lucky stars that three wickets fell in five balls, one of them in dubious circumstances. Australia had 150 runs and five minutes to spare. It was not fit conduct from an Australian captain or vice-captain. Ponting was rude towards Indian reporters at his media conference.

He has not provided the leadership expected from an Australian cricket captain and must be sacked. On this evidence, the time has also come to thank Hayden and Gilchrist for their services. None of them is a bad fellow. All of them will look back on this match not as their finest hour but their worst. Obviously, a new captain and side is required. But that is a task for another day. It is possible to love a country and not its cricket team.

[Mantis]

Very scatheing attack and you would expect a fair bit of backlash from Cricket Australia on this matter.

Would this article jeopardise Roebuck's position in commentating with the ABC?

I agree with many points of this article. Ponting and co. carried on like spoilt brats. Ponting should have been reprimanded for his out signal to the umpires after Clarke's disputed catch. The umpire's have a job to do so don't try and influence there decision.

I also am grieved with Gilchrist. He takes the moral ground by walking, but appeals excessively for the Dravid decision which blind freddy could see came off the pad. He was in the perfect position yet still tries to influence the umpire's decision by throwing the ball in the air and carrying on like a pork chop. Not good enough Adam.

And don't get me started on Clarke. Cannot stand him.

If this team breaks the record for longest winning streak perhaps we should put an asterix beside the number in reference to this game as we will do with the current leading wicket taker.

[GVGjr]

Very scatheing attack and you would expect a fair bit of backlash from Cricket Australia on this matter.

Would this article jeopardise Roebuck's position in commentating with the ABC?


This shouldn't be a problem for Roebuck with the ABC. He might have trouble getting interviews or comments from the players but he is after all just expressing his views.


I agree with many points of this article. Ponting and co. carried on like spoilt brats. Ponting should have been reprimanded for his out signal to the umpires after Clarke's disputed catch. The umpire's have a job to do so don't try and influence there decision.


I tend to agree that the Australian team went too far but to call for Pontings head is too extreme. Trust channel 9 to do a puff piece last night with Ponting to try and water everything down.


I also am grieved with Gilchrist. He takes the moral ground by walking, but appeals excessively for the Dravid decision which blind freddy could see came off the pad. He was in the perfect position yet still tries to influence the umpire's decision by throwing the ball in the air and carrying on like a pork chop. Not good enough Adam.



I'll cut Gilchrist some slack. He might have gone too far but I won't question his character or integrity.


And don't get me started on Clarke. Cannot stand him.



He has a fair bit of talent but he isn't as good as he is being portrayed. I wouldn't have him in the side and speculation that he will be the next captain doesn't thrill me in the slightest.

[Topdog]

I've never disagreed with you so much!



I agree with many points of this article. Ponting and co. carried on like spoilt brats. Ponting should have been reprimanded for his out signal to the umpires after Clarke's disputed catch. The umpire's have a job to do so don't try and influence there decision.

You cannot be serious on this point. It is something that happens time and time again and has happened forever and a day. To imply that Ponting's integrity is questioned is just flat out unbelievable for me. Here is a man who never claims a false catch and him appealing is being attacked?

I also am grieved with Gilchrist. He takes the moral ground by walking, but appeals excessively for the Dravid decision which blind freddy could see came off the pad. He was in the perfect position yet still tries to influence the umpire's decision by throwing the ball in the air and carrying on like a pork chop. Not good enough Adam.

I can't understand this one at all. Every keeper would have appealed there and I'd love to know how someone behind the stumps was in the perfect position to see a ball coming off the pads or the bat.

And don't get me started on Clarke. Cannot stand him.

He stood his ground much like at least 2 Indians did in this match and 1 in the first.

If this team breaks the record for longest winning streak perhaps we should put an asterix beside the number in reference to this game as we will do with the current leading wicket taker.

That is a steaming pile of horseshit. This game may have been marred but it was by pathetic umpiring decisions and not by anything that the Australians did.

[Mantis]

You cannot be serious on this point. It is something that happens time and time again and has happened forever and a day. To imply that Ponting's integrity is questioned is just flat out unbelievable for me. Here is a man who never claims a false catch and him appealing is being attacked?

The umpires job is to give the batsman out NOT the fielders. I agree that Ponting never claims a false catch, but it's not his job to make the decision for the umpire even though he was in a very good position to see it.

I can't understand this one at all. Every keeper would have appealed there and I'd love to know how someone behind the stumps was in the perfect position to see a ball coming off the pads or the bat.

He would have seen that the gloves were along way behind his pad and that the deflection had occured well before the ball passed his bat/ glove region and to think otherwise is being naive.

He stood his ground much like at least 2 Indians did in this match and 1 in the first.

That's crap he knicked it to first slip and then stood around like he was being hard done by. He is the golden boy of Australian cricket and is setting a terrible example to the kids watching. There is a big difference in standing your ground if you knick it to first slip compared to the keeper too.

Plus it was a shit shot much like the one he played or didn't play in the 1st innings.

That is a steaming pile of horseshit. This game may have been marred but it was by pathetic umpiring decisions and not by anything that the Australians did.

Helped by the Australian's pressurising of the umpires. I am as Australian as they come, but I am very disappointed with the way the team carried itself during this match. They have become bigger than the game itself.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I'm missing something here.

The Indians got screwed by the umpires, no question, but how is that the Australian's fault?

The Australian side has done nothing more than what every test playing team has done for 130 years.

It seems Roebuck's problem was that the Australians celebrated when they won, so what?. I saw them line up to shake the Indian players hands, what's the problem?

A few inconsistancies in the media. Ponting gets a bad call and shows his disappointment as he walks off. Tony Greig calls it a disgrace and it's in the papers. Dravid cops a bad one and shows his disappointment walking off and the commentators say "and rightly so". I have no problem with what either batsman did, I just don't see where Ponting deserved critisism.

I assume the catch they are discussing was the one off Dhoni? No question the hand holding the ball hit the ground with the ball facing down - not out, which was correctly given - but I think that Ponting saw the ball hit the glove and was so focused on taking the catch and then anxious to see if the umpire had seen the glove that he simply hasn't realised what he had done. Remember that two days earlier he had owned up when he knew he didn't take the catch.

With the Gilchrist one, I think he thought it was a catch. The appeal was instantaneous and full-on. The umpire was the one who should have realised he was nowhere near it, blame him.

In Australia you have to be good - no-one likes a loser - but you can't be too good. It makes the rest of us look bad. That's why we like Pat Rafter but not Lleyton Hewitt and Craig Parry but not Greg Norman. Until you get old, then we love you again.

[Chops]

That is a steaming pile of horseshit. This game may have been marred but it was by pathetic umpiring decisions and not by anything that the Australians did.
Agreed.
I had a huge argument with my family on this issue last night.

There should be an uproar with what Kumble said about Australias not playing in the spirit of the game. The Indians are hardly squeaky clean here.

I know the Aussies aren't angels but they are just as bad as the Indians.
I didn't see Clarke knick to slips where he waited for the umps decision but I do know the last wicket of the game Sharma didn't walk either when he clearly gloved it to slip. I can't beleive walking out with the wrong gloves wasn't planned either.
The excessive appealing or slowing of play was the border of gamesmanship too.

What upsets me is that Indians stick had a chance to win the game 333 runs in 70 overs was difficult but getable in this day and age of 1day-20/20 cricket. They choose to go defensive immediately and claim they were robbed prior to the game being over.

[Chops]

The umpires job is to give the batsman out NOT the fielders. I agree that Ponting never claims a false catch, but it's not his job to make the decision for the umpire even though he was in a very good position to see it.

And the umpire gave him out in this case too. If the ump asked for Ponting opinion or took it into consideration then its the umpires choice.

Helped by the Australian's pressurising of the umpires.
You mean like what Kumble did all first test and for 1 over straight this one?
I remember seeing Harbajan take a hat trick in 2001 and I still think 2 were doubtful. I'm pretty sure the Indians were over appealing then and it influenced the decisions.

[Scorlibo]

This article is one of the worst I've seen. In reference to the Harbajhan Singh racist sledge Roebuck states,

"The notion that Ponting can hereafter take the Australian team to India is preposterous. He has shown not the slightest interest in the wellbeing of the game, not the slightest sign of diplomatic skill, not a single mark of respect for his accomplished and widely admired opponents. Harbhajan Singh can be an irritating young man but he is head of a family and responsible for raising nine people. And all the Australians elders want to do is to hunt him from the game. Australian fieldsmen fire insults from the corners of their mouths, an intemperate Sikh warrior overreacts, and his rudeness is seized upon."

Ricky Ponting has simply reported to the umpires a breach of the rules and a racist attitude shown by Singh which is not tolerated by modern society. Roebuck reckons that Ponting, in reporting such racist slander, shows no respect for Harby? What rubbish! Ponting shows no respect for racism. Roebuck now goes on to say that Singh is responsible for raising 9 people, and implies that it is Pontings fault that he will face a three match suspension because he reported Singh's racism? So Peter, you would prefer racism to be kept quiet would you? What an idiot.
The Aussie team probably sledges more than any other team, I'll admit that, and if Singh had made any normal sledge then the Australian team would look like a bunch of immature kids, but the fact is that it wasn't any normal sledge, it was a racist one - no, not a rude one Peter, a racist one.
I mean who is really carrying on like spoilt brats here? The racism sensitive Aussies or the Indians and the BCCI who are going on some sort of cricket strike because they are unhappy that racism was punished by the ICC.
The Aussies have also been criticised for "overappealing" in the last innings, when really it shouldn't matter how often they appeal if the umpires are on the ball. India probably received a few unlucky decisions during the match, but as Andrew Symonds said after his century making innings, it all evens out in the end, you get some lucky decisions, and you get some unlucky ones.
The Australian cricket team was just trying to win a test match, and the comments made by Anil Kumble at the end of the match, stating that "only one team was playing in the spirit of the game" should be dismissed promptly as being the sour remarks of a very sore loser and bad sport.

The thought of Ponting being sacked is the extreme of extremes and is proposterous to anyone paying attention to Ponting's team's incredible 16 match, record equalling, winning streak.
The Indians are the ones acting like spoilt brats here, threatening to abandon the series because they got a few questionable decisions and because Harbajhan has received punishment for his racist outburst.
The reason this article angers me is because many people read Roebuck's articles and this article will unfortunately influence many other's opinions and give a bad name to the Australian cricket team when really they have done nothing wrong. If anything they deserve applause for their wonderful winning streak.

[Scorlibo]

Agreed.
I had a huge argument with my family on this issue last night.

There should be an uproar with what Kumble said about Australias not playing in the spirit of the game. The Indians are hardly squeaky clean here.

I know the Aussies aren't angels but they are just as bad as the Indians.
I didn't see Clarke knick to slips where he waited for the umps decision but I do know the last wicket of the game Sharma didn't walk either when he clearly gloved it to slip. I can't beleive walking out with the wrong gloves wasn't planned either.
The excessive appealing or slowing of play was the border of gamesmanship too.

What upsets me is that Indians stick had a chance to win the game 333 runs in 70 overs was difficult but getable in this day and age of 1day-20/20 cricket. They choose to go defensive immediately and claim they were robbed prior to the game being over.

I couldn't agree with you more ES. I was also questioning the wrong gloves drama, and the game was winnable, it was India who made it unwinnable for themselves - they aimed for a draw and fell short.

[Mantis]

You mean like what Kumble did all first test and for 1 over straight this one?
I remember seeing Harbajan take a hat trick in 2001 and I still think 2 were doubtful. I'm pretty sure the Indians were over appealing then and it influenced the decisions.

I agree that the Indian's do it excessively and we get the shits when they do, but we have fallen into the same trap. We do not play our cricket this way, we never have, but we are following the Indians lead with this one.

Kumble and H. Singh appeal excessively and they should be told to shut up by the referee and/ or umpires.

[ledge]

My thoughts on Ponting,
Yes he is the most arrogant captain i have witnessed, he did inherit a great team, i think he lost the ashes series in England because of his arrogance,(50% of Englands runs came from 3rd man and he still wouldnt put a fielder there all series).
But in saying that i think he would be the best performing captain i have ever seen as far as individual performances are concerned.
I also think the decision by Andrew Symonds not to walk was shocking and really did start the ball rolling in the sooking stakes.
If what i heard is true that both captains agreed on being in the spirit of the game at the start of the series, well Symonds should have walked, but in Pontings defence he can only tell the players, out in the middle its up to the individual and in the end Ponting has no option but to stick up for his players wrong or right.
Asking for him to be sacked is totally rediculous!
Remember writers have jobs because they are paid to be controversial.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I had an interesting conversation with an Indian guy who works here.

He said that the internal politics from within Indian cricket meant that they had to raise a fuss. If the Indian players had meekly accepted the result they would have been slaughtered by their own press and administrators.

By kicking up a fuss they have got the Indian media on their side - it's all those 'ugly Australians' fault.

[Raw Toast]

Roebuck is a friend but he tends to go a bit over the top with righteous anger and I think this is one of those occasions. It's a bit extreme to call for Ponting's head, not to mention those of Gilchrist and Hayden.

That said I think Ponting's behaviour for much of the test was appalling. He was very petulant when getting out in the first innings after being given a clear life by the umpires. Re the catch he claimed - he went off like a spoilt brat even when it seemed fairly clear he had it wrong. Sockeye's offered the generous interpretation of this, but as a captain his reaction was still shameful and I think requires an apology (which I think he would never give). And it's now clear, I reckon, that whenever things are tight with Ponting's team they behave horridly.

I'd imagine that Gilchrist would be fairly ashamed of the Dravid dismissal. He claims he doesn't appeal when he doesn't think it is out, but I don't understand how a keeper of his experience could have strongly believed Dravid nicked this one. Dravid's reaction was not as bad as Ponting's I don't think. He walked immediately and shook his head mournfully a few times (it was an awful decision), but he didn't rail against the world like Ponting does.

The appeal and subsequent decision left a sour taste in the three members of our house following the game, and though we all support Australia (I love the Australian cricket team), we were hoping for a draw after that.

Kumble's claim that only one team was playing within the spirit of the game is also a bit hysterical - he and Harbajhan do over-appeal. But it's no accident that virtually every team in the first-class cricketing world has accused the Australians of poor sportsmanship. And the umpiring decisions going v heavily in Australia's favour at home is no one off either. The team has successfully exploited poor umpiring in close to every home series this century imo.

[Raw Toast]

With the Gilchrist one, I think he thought it was a catch. The appeal was instantaneous and full-on. The umpire was the one who should have realised he was nowhere near it, blame him.

I'd like to think so but it beggars belief for me. IIRC former Australian cricketing journalist Malcolm Knox (who got a bit disilluioned with the way the Australians were playing the game), wrote a novel about a fictional Australian player where the slips fielders and keeper agree in a close match that the next chance anything remotely close comes along they will all go up, with predictable results.

I'm not saying they spoke about it in this case, but I'm sure it's happened before. It may even have happened many times in the last 130 years, but it's not how I want to see cricket played.

(Interestingly for me at least, I don't care that much if the dogs win on a dodgy umpiring decision or three. Maybe if we've dominated for a decade-and-a-half I will. I guess there are fewer key decisions in cricket and justice also seems more important - spirit of the game and everything.)


In Australia you have to be good - no-one likes a loser - but you can't be too good. It makes the rest of us look bad. That's why we like Pat Rafter but not Lleyton Hewitt and Craig Parry but not Greg Norman. Until you get old, then we love you again.

Good theory but it doesn't work for me I don't think. Yeah I liked Rafter and really don't like Hewitt. But it took a fair while for me to stop supporting Hewitt - I think it was after he was no longer number one. And Hewitt is the archetypal spoilt brat. Lots of older Australian tennis fans who delighted in our dominance from the post-war till the late 70s hate Hewitt.

Norman is a knob but I still supported him when he was playing. Warne is another knob but I loved watching him bowl and was v happy to have him on the team (steroid masking agents notwithstanding).

[westdog54]

While many of the criticisms in that article were entirely valid, the article loses credibility by calling for Ponting's sacking.

Could he have handled the Harbhajan Singh matter a litle better? Probably. He could have pulled his players away from the altercation, then had a word to the umpires, or even Harbhajan himself, at the next interval

Did the Australians play outside the spirit of the game? Debatable, but at times they did. Yes The indians do it quite a lot but The best cricket team in the world should be able to rise above that.

Should Symonds have walked? That's a matter for Symonds and no-one else. If it was me, then yes, I would walk, purely that's how I play sport. Any of those on this board who have played RecFooty alongside me (a few have posted in this thread already) can vouch for that. Did he know he was out at the time? You don't look back that quickly unless you've edged the ball, that should have been a dead give-away for Bucknor. It was a howler, but that's sport.

Should/Could Ponting have been more diplomatic to the Indian Press? I don't think he needed to, his character has brought into question and he's got a right to defend himself.

As for the Australian celebrations after the game, I didn't see any Australians doing any Gymnastics after taking a wicket. That was childishness in the extreme.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I'd like to think so but it beggars belief for me. IIRC former Australian cricketing journalist Malcolm Knox (who got a bit disilluioned with the way the Australians were playing the game), wrote a novel about a fictional Australian player where the slips fielders and keeper agree in a close match that the next chance anything remotely close comes along they will all go up, with predictable results.


I've played enough cricket to know that you simply can't fake it. Because you never know when the next close one will be it's impossible to be spontaneous. If you predermine that you're going to appeal full-on for the next close one you end up looking like a goose when no-one else goes up.

Gilchrist thought it was out, it's the only explanation for his immediate and full-on appeal.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Yeah I liked Rafter and really don't like Hewitt. But it took a fair while for me to stop supporting Hewitt - I think it was after he was no longer number one. And Hewitt is the archetypal spoilt brat. Lots of older Australian tennis fans who delighted in our dominance from the post-war till the late 70s hate Hewitt.

Norman is a knob but I still supported him when he was playing. Warne is another knob but I loved watching him bowl and was v happy to have him on the team (steroid masking agents notwithstanding).

Why do you like Rafter and not Hewitt? What has Hewitt ever done other than try to gee himself up by yelling out "C'MON" between points (annoying perhaps, but a hell of a sight better than grunting during points)?

I love Hewitt for his never, ever give in attitude and refusal to be beaten (I'd like some Bulldog players to take some lessons from him for starters).

Rafter spent his entire career in Bermuda avoiding paying Australian tax after we funded his development at the AIS.


And why is Norman a knob? Returned to Australia practically every year for over 20 years. This would have cost him millions in lost prizemoney in the USA.

What did he ever do to be hated?

The answer to both questions is easy. They were both good enough to have extended spells as world no. 1.

[Raw Toast]

Why do you like Rafter and not Hewitt? What has Hewitt ever done other than try to gee himself up by yelling out "C'MON" between points (annoying perhaps, but a hell of a sight better than grunting during points)?

I love Hewitt for his never, ever give in attitude and refusal to be beaten (I'd like some Bulldog players to take some lessons from him for starters).

Rafter spent his entire career in Bermuda avoiding paying Australian tax after we funded his development at the AIS.

And why is Norman a knob? Returned to Australia practically every year for over 20 years. This would have cost him millions in lost prizemoney in the USA.

What did he ever do to be hated?

The answer to both questions is easy. They were both good enough to have extended spells as world no. 1.

Maybe the problem is that I don't generally believe in easy answers (I'd be in a different career if I did).

I wasn't Rafter's biggest fan, but he played tennis with grace and humility. I think his living in Bermuda is pathetic (as are his acting skills).

As I said previously I supported Hewitt early, I think all the time he was number one, and also loved his fighting spirit. He never grew out of his petulance though, seeks to antagonise opponents, never admits any wrong-doing and conducts himself with very little grace and maturity. (I also think tennis has passed him by because though he knows he should play attacking tennis, whenever things get tight he goes conservative and just gets the ball back in.)

Norman was a champion, and I loved watching him play golf. I don't hate him by any means, just think he shoots off without thinking and isn't that much of a thinker. But I don't think you can compare him to Hewitt (Norman was a much more dominant player over a much longer time). I don't think Norman is that hated. Hewitt is disliked and I think for legitimate reasons.

[firstdogonthemoon]

Punter is a massive sook. Can dish it out but cannot take it.

Singh should get rubbed out if he said something racist, however Ponting has opened a can of worms - from now on Australia should expect formal complaints every time they open their obnoxioius cheating racist mouths. The idea that Australia are accusing India of racism is hysterical and causes me to giggle like a madman.

Everyone seems to like Australia winning, but no one seems to respect the Australian Cricket Team. Ponting has lead the team in a boorish and obnoxious, win at all costs manner and should go.

Leadership is about MORE than winning. If you cannot win with dignity, eventually people will get sick of you. People are sick of Ponting.

He is also a petulant whiner has a face like a ferret.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Punter is a massive sook. Can dish it out but cannot take it.

Singh should get rubbed out if he said something racist, however Ponting has opened a can of worms - from now on Australia should expect formal complaints every time they open their obnoxioius cheating racist mouths. The idea that Australia are accusing India of racism is hysterical and causes me to giggle like a madman.

Everyone seems to like Australia winning, but no one seems to respect the Australian Cricket Team. Ponting has lead the team in a boorish and obnoxious, win at all costs manner and should go.

Leadership is about MORE than winning. If you cannot win with dignity, eventually people will get sick of you. People are sick of Ponting.

He is also a petulant whiner has a face like a ferret.

We've disagreed about a lot of things over the last few years, but I think I disagree with this more than anything else you've ever written.

I can remember one racist issue with Darren Lehmann - something he said in the dressing room with no Sri Lankans present - and he got rubbed out.

The same should apply to anyone else. Say something offensive, get rubbed out.

The Australians are expected to be whiter than the driven snow but the others can get away with behaviour that would never be considered acceptable by the Australians.

I expect all teams to be treated the same but the fact is they aren't.

It doesn't help that the Australians are good, there's no bigger crime in the eyes of the Australian public than a fellow Australian being successful.

[The Underdog]

I wasn't as annoyed about this whole affair as many seem to be, however a few things stood out to me.

The Australians not shaking hands with the opposition at the end of the game. Kumble stood there as players rushed past him to congratulate each other and jump around like knobs.

Why are players happy to accept the umpires decision when it goes their way but they act like petulant schoolboys when they get a bad one? Ponting had no right to question being given out when he clearly had a life earlier. You live by the sword, you die by it.

Ponting was extremely lucky. He was 3 Michael Clarke wickets and 10 minutes from being hugely criticised for a late declaration.

I thought both teams behaviour was ordinary, highlighted by Ponting's atttitude and Harbajan's celebration when he got Ponting in the 2nd innings.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I wasn't as annoyed about this whole affair as many seem to be, however a few things stood out to me.

The Australians not shaking hands with the opposition at the end of the game. Kumble stood there as players rushed past him to congratulate each other and jump around like knobs.

Why are players happy to accept the umpires decision when it goes their way but they act like petulant schoolboys when they get a bad one? Ponting had no right to question being given out when he clearly had a life earlier. You live by the sword, you die by it.

Ponting was extremely lucky. He was 3 Michael Clarke wickets and 10 minutes from being hugely criticised for a late declaration.

I thought both teams behaviour was ordinary, highlighted by Ponting's atttitude and Harbajan's celebration when he got Ponting in the 2nd innings.

I distinctly remember seeing all the players lining up after the game shaking hands.

Ponting's declaration showed to me he was more concerned about winning the series than the record for concecutive wins. Take the draw in Sydney, smash them in Perth and go to Adelaide 2-0 up.

Australia has no obligation to give India a chance.

[Mantis]

Ponting's declaration showed to me he was more concerned about winning the series than the record for concecutive wins. Take the draw in Sydney, smash them in Perth and go to Adelaide 2-0 up.

Australia has no obligation to give India a chance.

Agree on these points.

Who gives a toss what Tony Greig thinks. And on Tony Greig doesn't he look bloody ordinary at present. I made the comment to a few mates while viewing the Cricket Show that he looks like Darth Vader when he takes his mask off in Return of the Jedi.

[The Underdog]

I distinctly remember seeing all the players lining up after the game shaking hands.

Ponting's declaration showed to me he was more concerned about winning the series than the record for concecutive wins. Take the draw in Sydney, smash them in Perth and go to Adelaide 2-0 up.

Australia has no obligation to give India a chance.

I was thinking more of a disappointed Kumble patting a player on the back and being ignored after the final wicket. I understand the players were excited but I just think you can keep it in check for long enough to shake the hands of the guys in the middle, especially Kumble who batted his heart out.

I understand what Ponting was trying to do with his declaration, but I thought a slightly earlier declaration would have given Australia a better chance without really giving India much of a shot on day 5 on that pitch. Surely you give you self the best chance of winning regardless. I know we have a good record in Perth, but we haven't won it yet. I know this is academic as we won, but it was only because M.Clarke got 3 wickets at the end that none of the recognised bowlers even looked like getting. They were lucky on that score. I agree that we don't need to give India a chance but would a lead of 290 and an extra 30-40 minutes bowling at them been more of a chance?

[G-Mo77]

It's refreshing to see some opposing thoughts on the Australian cricket team. It's also nice to see the word "Un-Australian" not thrown around either, something I have been called for many years and seems the standard response for people who say anything negative about the Australian Cricket team.

I can't support this team at all and haven't for a long time now, they have turned me off cricket completely. I doubt I'll ever be back the last test just reinforced my thoughts on this team and looks like it has opened the eyes of many more. This team needs to change it's ways! I don't think sacking Ponting will help but he certainly needs to be pulled aside and spoken to by a higher power in Australian Cricket. When a country starts turning on your team, and slowly that is happening, something needs to be done.

[Sockeye Salmon]

It's refreshing to see some opposing thoughts on the Australian cricket team. It's also nice to see the word "Un-Australian" not thrown around either, something I have been called for many years and seems the standard response for people who say anything negative about the Australian Cricket team.

I can't support this team at all and haven't for a long time now, they have turned me off cricket completely. I doubt I'll ever be back the last test just reinforced my thoughts on this team and looks like it has opened the eyes of many more. This team needs to change it's ways! I don't think sacking Ponting will help but he certainly needs to be pulled aside and spoken to by a higher power in Australian Cricket. When a country starts turning on your team, and slowly that is happening, something needs to be done.

The country isn't turning on our team, just those who don't like successful people.

[Mantis]

The country isn't turning on our team, just those who don't like successful people.

I enjoy successful sports team and individuals. I don't like tossers and I don't like people who think they are better than everyone else. There is a a fine line as to be successful you need a hint of arrogance, but I think too many of the current Australian team cross this line without realising it.

If nothing else comes of this I think the Australian players are now aware that they must behave in a more respectful manner on the cricket field because most of the paying public will not tolerate there arrogance.

[hujsh]

I find it interesting that the Indians would accept the Australian's deal to listen to the fielders for contentious catches and then say that we can't be trusted because we don't walk.

If you go to baggygreen.com.au there is footage of Harbhajan being bowled and then standing his ground.

[G-Mo77]

The country isn't turning on our team, just those who don't like successful people.

No, it is far from tall poppy syndrome. Mantis summed up everything in his post I don't need to add much more.

I'll just edit a few things though Mantis:

Australia doesn't like tossers and don't like people who think they are better than everyone else.

[hujsh]

The country isn't turning on our team, just those who don't like successful people.

I'll buck the trend and agree with you. Apart from being excited at winning, Ponting being upset at his integrity being questioned and reporting racism i don't know what the Aussies have done to be worse than the Indians who have threatened to leave, blackmailed the ICC and have called Symonds a monkey allegedly for the second time.

I know Ponting wasn't happy with the journo who questioned his integrity because he claimed a catch (the bat pad of Dohni that was given not out) when his hand, still in firm control of the ball, touched the ground. That meant that it wasn't a catch but who can blame him for thinking it was a catch

If I was Ponting I would be upset when he has gone far to say he didn't take a catch that looked out, of the bowling of Johnson I believe, that any Indian would have appealed for.

[hujsh]

I enjoy successful sports team and individuals. I don't like tossers and I don't like people who think they are better than everyone else. There is a a fine line as to be successful you need a hint of arrogance, but I think too many of the current Australian team cross this line without realising it.

If nothing else comes of this I think the Australian players are now aware that they must behave in a more respectful manner on the cricket field because most of the paying public will not tolerate there arrogance.

When were they disrespectful? I wouldn't rate their celebrations worse than any I have seen from the Indians and sledging is fine by me.

[Sockeye Salmon]

The Australians have done nothing more or worse than any other test playing nation. For every example you give me of the Australian's bad behaviour I'll show you plenty more from every country.

The only difference is Australia is better than the rest at playing cricket and being too good is a crime in this country.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Heard an interesting comment on SEN this morning.

One of the announcers (can't remember which one) said he had been speaking with a cricket journo (that he wouldn't name) who said that he thought "the bowlers were all good blokes but some of the batsmen weren't".

He went on to say that there were some journos who felt they had been slighted by certain players "and would even things up a little".

I imediately thought he was reffering to Peter Roebuck and his astonishing attack on Ponting.

[G-Mo77]

The only difference is Australia is better than the rest at playing cricket and being too good is a crime in this country.

OK that seems to be your fall back on this whole issue. I have tall poppy syndrome and so does anyone else who says anything bad about the Australian Cricket Team.

Is that better?

[Mantis]

The Australians have done nothing more or worse than any other test playing nation. For every example you give me of the Australian's bad behaviour I'll show you plenty more from every country.
The only difference is Australia is better than the rest at playing cricket and being too good is a crime in this country.

And that makes it right??

I couldn't give a stuff what other countries players are doing as long as our's doing the right thing.

It is the same with the way the Western Bulldogs represents it members, supporters and sponsors. You don't read about our players getting into fights, taking drugs or anything else that tarnishes our brand. We may not be as successful on the ground as the Australian cricket team (one day we might, I hope) but atleast we carry ourselves in a respectful and dignified manner. I must re-iteriate that I don't mind the team playing tough hard cricket, but there is a point where you have to take stock and I think that point has been reached.

[Raw Toast]

Heard an interesting comment on SEN this morning.

One of the announcers (can't remember which one) said he had been speaking with a cricket journo (that he wouldn't name) who said that he thought "the bowlers were all good blokes but some of the batsmen weren't".

He went on to say that there were some journos who felt they had been slighted by certain players "and would even things up a little".

I imediately thought he was reffering to Peter Roebuck and his astonishing attack on Ponting.

Not the way Roebuck operates imo. He generally takes pains to be very fair but does sometimes react out of the heat of the moment - this was one of those occassions. He's already apologised for some of the things he wrote, in his next two columns (http://www.theage.com.au/news/cricket/australians-not-only-ones-with-issues/2008/01/08/1199554654282.html and http://www.theage.com.au/news/cricket/drama-was-needed-to-shake-the-tree/2008/01/10/1199554830484.html).

However his comments clearly struck a chord with lots of people (not all by any stretch) who have delighted in the prowess of Australia's cricketers but felt ashamed by their ugly and unsporting behaviour.

I agree with Mantis - the fact that other teams have behaved badly doesn't matter (other wrongs don't make something right).

You and many others strongly support the actions of the Australian cricket team and I respect that. However, to say that those of us who were upset at what the team did (with an emphasis on Ponting as an individual and the leader) simply cannot accept Australian teams and indivdiuals that are too good is hard to take.

I believe there is such a thing as the spirit of the game in cricket, and I reckon it's worth trying to hold onto it.

[westdog54]

The Australians have done nothing more or worse than any other test playing nation. For every example you give me of the Australian's bad behaviour I'll show you plenty more from every country.
The only difference is Australia is better than the rest at playing cricket and being too good is a crime in this country.

As others have already stated in the thread, the overriding factor here is that the best cricket team in the world should be above such childishness. We should expect, nay, demand, that our players, who are amongst the most professional, and best paid in the world, to be able to act a bit more like adults on the field.

[hujsh]

As far as I'm concerned the Aussies have done nothing wrong on the field and this issue has sidetracked everyone from the fact that an Indian was found guilty of racism and instead of copping it on the chin the team said they want to go home as if this is a game of backyard cricket.

Clever tactics Kumble.

[G-Mo77]

I called Gehrig a monkey last year at the TD. Does that make me a racist?

There was an article from some paper I read about the cultural differences (Be dammed if I can remeber were it was) it said something about being called a bastard in India was a pretty awful insult. So do they punish Hogg for it?

I'd take Monkey as a compliment. :p

[Sockeye Salmon]

And that makes it right??

I couldn't give a stuff what other countries players are doing as long as our's doing the right thing.

It is the same with the way the Western Bulldogs represents it members, supporters and sponsors. You don't read about our players getting into fights, taking drugs or anything else that tarnishes our brand. We may not be as successful on the ground as the Australian cricket team (one day we might, I hope) but atleast we carry ourselves in a respectful and dignified manner. I must re-iteriate that I don't mind the team playing tough hard cricket, but there is a point where you have to take stock and I think that point has been reached.

Then if you think that there is an endemic problem in test cricket that's fine, say so.

But don't pretend that we're the only ones doing it and don't single us out as being worse than anyone else because were not.

[hujsh]

I called Gehrig a monkey last year at the TD. Does that make me a racist?

There was an article from some paper I read about the cultural differences (Be dammed if I can remeber were it was) it said something about being called a bastard in India was a pretty awful insult. So do they punish Hogg for it?

I'd take Monkey as a compliment. :p

Gehrig is not black. That is like saying I called an Englishman a currymuncher I must be racist.

Monkey is designed to be a racist taunt at black people. When they were first allowed to play soccer in England people threw bananas at them to emphasise that point. Remember that Symonds was born in England.

The Indians have been warned about making racial slurs when Symonds was first called a monkey so they decided at the start of the series that they would not go there. That is different to a regular comment like calling someone a bastard. I doubt that anyone called Clarke or Ponting a monkey.

The Indians (public) have no problem being racist but are quick play the racism card and everyone is sticking up for them.

[G-Mo77]

That is different to a regular comment like calling someone a bastard.

As I said regular here but deeply offensive in Asia. Seems pety but this is something that sparked it all. I'm not saying Hogg should be suspended but it was just a point to show the cultural differences involved.

I think all teams are just being to precious. Like most things now days.

By the way a black man making another racial remark at another black man like "monkey" seems completely stupid. I'm assuming your a white guy so it would be like me calling you whitey or something like that I'm sure you wouldn't take offence to that. :confused:

[hujsh]

As I said regular here but deeply offensive in Asia. Seems pety but this is something that sparked it all. I'm not saying Hogg should be suspended but it was just a point to show the cultural differences involved.

I think all teams are just being to precious. Like most things now days.

By the way a black man making another racial remark at another black man like "monkey" seems completely stupid. I'm assuming your a white guy so it would be like me calling you whitey or something like that I'm sure you wouldn't take offence to that. :confused:

Monkey is meant as a racist comment and they all knew that especially Harbhajan. Hogg would not have realised that bastard was so offensive.

You can't really compare being racist to a white person with being racist to a black person because of the history.

When you allow any racism in sport it can escalate pretty quickly because it isn't offensive to just one person but an entire race.

[Lantern]

Then if you think that there is an endemic problem in test cricket that's fine, say so.

But don't pretend that we're the only ones doing it and don't single us out as being worse than anyone else because were not.


There is an endemic problem in test cricket. We are not the only ones doing it and every nation should work on eradicating it, and every team has individuals that brush against or cross the line regularly, just as every team has individuals that hold the spirit of cricket in high esteem and do their nation proud (Gilchrist, Lee, Clark come to mind in the Australian team).

However, WE are Australians, and can only take responsibility for what OUR country does. Lead by example, as it were, even if no one else follows. Criticism of this team has come from many different quarters, not only journalists. Politicians of different stripes, 'Legends' from other sports, the common man. This criticism has also been brewing for a long time. This cricket team can either take the simplistic stance (as you unfortunately have, SS) of claiming some sort of systemic 'tall poppy syndrome' that apparently affects all quarters and renders all of us irrational, or actually use it as an opportunity to take stock and have a look at itself. An opportunity to improve.

This thread has already had several other examples: Hewitt/Rafter, Parry/Norman. Even leaving aside what Australians say of these players, the positive/negative duality is universal across most observers of these players, regardless of nationality. No one is perfect, everyone has faults, yes, but arrogance seems to be the definitive trait that turns people off. I can see the point that it IS churlish to harrangue Lleyton and Greg, for, as many have already pointed out, they are sportsmen dedicated to winning in their respective sports.

However, the Australian Cricket Team has always had a larger role, rightly or wrongly. During Mark Taylor's era the job of captain of the Australian Cricket Team was described only half-jokingly as being the 'second most important appointment in the country', after the Prime Minister's. It is the one team sport that cuts across state lines (unlike the AFL, League etc.) and, in a sense, belongs to all of us. It is also our predominant INTERNATIONAL team, that is, one that competes at a (relatively) international stage, not just a local one (the Socceroos, Rugby and Hockey teams are our genuinely international teams but they are not quite the mainstream sports in Australia that cricket is).

Thus, for better or worse, the Australian Cricket Team is seen as sort of quasi-ambassadors for our country. Granted, some in our country appreciate the doggedness and competitiveness of the team, including its gamesmanship and aggressive behaviour. This is fair enough, and it is your prerogative and right to have that position, SS. However, there are segments of our society (some even in the Australian team, it seems) that believe that winning with grace is also important, that competitiveness and character are not incompatible or mutually exclusive, and perhaps also would prefer that a more polished personality than a Ricky Ponting hold the role of captain. This is not a universal opinion, nor should it be, and it is fair enough to disagree with it, but it is bad form to accuse these people of a simplistic notion such as 'tall poppy syndrome', or to deliberately misrepresent their views and be disingenuous about the whole debate.

Winning and dominance has never been an issue with the Australian public in general. We loved (and still love) our all-conquering tennis teams from the 50s and 60s, the Hockeyroos throughout the 90s; Sir Donald is as dominant a player as cricket has ever seen, and is universally admired, and no one has any (real) problem with Tiger Woods, who is as dominant and ruthless as they come, but also a gentleman on the course. In fact, the Australian public has an ongoing love affair with probably the most dominant sportsperson of our time, Roger Federer, also probably the nicest person in world sport and the personification of winning with grace.

I do not, and cannot believe that the Australian Cricket Team attracts criticism simply because they are successful. They can believe otherwise, but to do so would simply be deliberately missing the point that so many are trying to make.

[G-Mo77]

You can't really compare being racist to a white person with being racist to a black person because of the history.

OK so African Americans calling each other nigger a better fit then? They do it all the time and they're not offended by it.

[Lantern]

ps.

Following from my previous post, other ridiculously dominant/successful Australian teams/individuals that the Australian public generally like/love/admire:

Rod Laver, Ian Thorpe, Kieren Perkins, Australian Rugby Team captained by John Eales... I'm sure we can all add more to this list.

Even Steve Waugh's team, though tough and uncompromising (and crossed the line on several occasions) had the respect of the public. In my opinion, it was because Steve Waugh himself, although a fiercely competitive and patriotic warrior, on the whole carried himself with maturity, more a statesman in the mold of Mark Taylor, and his team seemed to unintentionally cross the line by being overly-competitive, a failing towards which the Australian public is a lot more sympathetic (thus the continued support in many quarters for our Lleyton), but this team crosses the line (or straddles it) by being too clever by half and gamesmanship (which is just a euphemism, of course, for borderline cheating), and comes across as severely childish at times. Ponting, a brilliant batsman and a very good (and lucky) captain tactically, has never been one for niceties or statesmanship (thus immediately appealing to those of us in this country who fancy ourselves as 'battlers'), and comes off churlish and immature in the media whenever his team or himself is criticised. The team do themselves no favours with their apparent arrogance and immaturity in handling criticism. Much of this furor could have been diffused with a more diplomatic and mature hand than the uber-defensive and pouty behaviour shown by Ponting himself and James Sutherland (head of Cricket Australia). Again, rightly or wrongly, as the cricket team is seen as supposed ambassadors of our country, it is a difficult quandary emotionally for many of us who love the institution known as the Australian Cricket Team but regret being represented by individuals (not all, it must be said) who come across as highly-paid, spoilt, and borderline dishonest sportsmen.

I cheered heartily when Steve Waugh's all-conquering team set the record, and I would have loved to have been able to do the same when this team pulled off the feat of equaling it. Unfortunately, that was not to be for many of us, and for me it had nothing whatsoever to do with dominance or success or anything of the sort. It was simply the bad taste left in the mouth from going-ons (from both teams) from day three to five of this test that, for all the brilliance of the on-field action, was simply 'not cricket'.

[hujsh]

OK so African Americans calling each other nigger a better fit then? They do it all the time and they're not offended by it.

It is completely different.

[Sockeye Salmon]

As I said regular here but deeply offensive in Asia. Seems pety but this is something that sparked it all. I'm not saying Hogg should be suspended but it was just a point to show the cultural differences involved.

I think all teams are just being to precious. Like most things now days.

By the way a black man making another racial remark at another black man like "monkey" seems completely stupid. I'm assuming your a white guy so it would be like me calling you whitey or something like that I'm sure you wouldn't take offence to that. :confused:

Because the monkey chants are directed at someone from an African background rather than Asian or European.

Prior to the tour "monkey" was on the official list of banned offensive words. Both sides had the opportunity to have any word culturally sensitive added and the Indians had no issue with the word "bastard".

"Bastard" also has no racial overtones.

As a side note. In the 1932 bodyline series, Douglas Jardine complained to Bill Woodful about being called a "bastard" by one of the Australian players. Woodful turned to the rest of the team and said "alright, which one of you bastards called this bastard a bastard?"

[Sockeye Salmon]

Mantis/Lantern,

I accept your arguements but don't agree that the Australians behaviour is poor. I think that the Australians behaviour has been perfectly acceptable. It would appear the ICC agrees with me.

"the Australian team was one of four nominees for the ICC's Spirit of Cricket Awards at the September 2007 awards ceremony. With Ireland being one of the other nominees, the Australian team was considered to play the game in a better spirit than at least seven other ICC full members."


http://www.theage.com.au/news/cricket/australian-players-to-continue-to-strive/2008/01/11/1199988590212.html

The media, pandering to the success haters (I include this again for motive) and fed by the Indian management/PR team have deflected the real issues - Harbajan's racist taunt and India's own capitulation (granted helped along by Steve Bucknor).

Personally, I have no respect for jounalists generally. They decide what will be contraversial and then either twist the facts to make them suit their headline or, like they've done here, simply repeat something over and over again until it is accepted as fact.

I'm still waiting to find out Australia's crime. Over-appealing? Not walking? Is that the best you can come up with?

Please.

[Chops]

As a side note. In the 1932 bodyline series, Douglas Jardine complained to Bill Woodful about being called a "bastard" by one of the Australian players. Woodful turned to the rest of the team and said "alright, which one of you bastards called this bastard a bastard?"

Might of been the vice captain Victor Richardson?

[Lantern]

I'm still waiting to find out Australia's crime. Over-appealing? Not walking? Is that the best you can come up with?


No question, journalists certainly do beat things out of proportion at times.

However, I was very pleased to see that the team has been mature enough to conduct an honest self-appraisal and come out in the press and apologise to 'the sporting public'. Michael Clarke's apology was also welcome, and I for one am more than happy to accept him at face value and not cast aspersions on his motives. On a side note, it is very refreshing to see all this maturity displayed by both sides in the past few days. I am happily proven wrong, having worried that neither team would find the maturity within themselves to have a good hard look at themselves.

Both sides have also promised to go at it hammer and tongs on the field, which I believe that the everyone will be more than happy with. Competitiveness and doing one's best is not the failing this team was being accused of. Petulance, preciousness and immaturity was.

(Unfortunately, to try to answer your question, SS, you would agree that these aren't easily quantifiable 'crimes' as such, and, at the risk of a very soft argument, it was more the taste that the team left in the mouth with not a single action as such, but more a collection of little actions, a general attitude, and overall ungraciousness over a significant period of time that came to a head in this last test. However, considering the last few days I am left with a far more optimistic view of this team, and have high hopes for them. Incredible winning records aside, this episode may yet be the true making of a great team, and a great captain.) :)

[hujsh]

No question, journalists certainly do beat things out of proportion at times.

However, I was very pleased to see that the team has been mature enough to conduct an honest self-appraisal and come out in the press and apologise to 'the sporting public'. Michael Clarke's apology was also welcome, and I for one am more than happy to accept him at face value and not cast aspersions on his motives. On a side note, it is very refreshing to see all this maturity displayed by both sides in the past few days. I am happily proven wrong, having worried that neither team would find the maturity within themselves to have a good hard look at themselves.


Also that India has dropped the charges on Hogg. They both obviously have cooled down and taken a look through each others point of views.

[hujsh]

(Unfortunately, to try to answer your question, SS, you would agree that these aren't easily quantifiable 'crimes' as such, and, at the risk of a very soft argument, it was more the taste that the team left in the mouth with not a single action as such, but more a collection of little actions, a general attitude, and overall ungraciousness over a significant period of time that came to a head in this last test. However, considering the last few days I am left with a far more optimistic view of this team, and have high hopes for them. Incredible winning records aside, this episode may yet be the true making of a great team, and a great captain.) :)

There was a piece in the Herald Sun by Trevor Grant about how cricketers and cricket enthusiasts seem to think of the sport as pure and don't realize it is just like every sport where winning is the main goal.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23052932-2882,00.html

If your interested:)

[Lantern]

There was a piece in the Herald Sun by Trevor Grant about how cricketers and cricket enthusiasts seem to think of the sport as pure and don't realize it is just like every sport where winning is the main goal.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23052932-2882,00.html

If your interested:)



Thanks, cheers! :)

[Lantern]

here are a couple more with more views on similar themes, if interested...

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/when-winning-is-everything-sports-a-loser/2008/01/13/1200159274546.html

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/cricket-is-no-gentlemens-game/2008/01/15/1200159445892.html

[Sockeye Salmon]

here are a couple more with more views on similar themes, if interested...

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/when-winning-is-everything-sports-a-loser/2008/01/13/1200159274546.html



That Larry Scott bloke is a wanker.

"...the WTA Tour has worked fervently to ensure we have one of the most rigorous and comprehensive anti-doping programs in sports.

We have also taken measures with the other bodies in tennis to prevent match-fixing, including information-sharing agreements with betting regulators, periodic and regular performance reviews of umpires and other officials and anti-corruption education.

These actions were initiated before doping has become a problem on the tour and before match-fixing has ever touched our sport, but we recognise that significant threats exist..."

He's basically saying 'I'm shit hot and we've never had a problem in tennis because I'm onto it'.

He might want to have a chat with Petr Korda and Nicholi Davydenko.

[Lantern]

That Larry Scott bloke is a wanker.

"...the WTA Tour has worked fervently to ensure we have one of the most rigorous and comprehensive anti-doping programs in sports.

We have also taken measures with the other bodies in tennis to prevent match-fixing, including information-sharing agreements with betting regulators, periodic and regular performance reviews of umpires and other officials and anti-corruption education.

These actions were initiated before doping has become a problem on the tour and before match-fixing has ever touched our sport, but we recognise that significant threats exist..."

He's basically saying 'I'm shit hot and we've never had a problem in tennis because I'm onto it'.

He might want to have a chat with Petr Korda and Nicholi Davydenko.

---

I think the WTA is the Women's Tennis Association. I believe the ATP is the body responsible for investigating match-fixing in the men's game. I don't know Larry Scott personally and have no comment on his character. It is a widely held belief though that the women's game is slightly less susceptible to match-fixing because of certain restrictions and protection that exists for the female players that as of now do not apply to the men.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I haven't seen the papers this morning, but I assume they're full of reports about how the Indians shouldn't have appealed for the Gilchrist dismissal and calls for Tendulkar to be sacked for not walking? What a cheat!

[GVGjr]

I haven't seen the papers this morning, but I assume they're full of reports about how the Indians shouldn't have appealed for the Gilchrist dismissal and calls for Tendulkar to be sacked for not walking? What a cheat!

Most of what I heard on SEN was around the fact that Gilly shouldn't walk.

[Mantis]

FWIW can we change the title of this thread to 'Ponting must be dropped'. His footwork is horrible at present and he is in desperate need of some runs.

[hujsh]

Surely the time has come to rest his back at least. Nothing like an injury to hamper your form.

[dales.girl38]

FWIW can we change the title of this thread to 'Ponting must be dropped'. His footwork is horrible at present and he is in desperate need of some runs.

I have no problem with both, but my opinion doesn't mean much as I hate the entire team and may appear biased...;)

[hujsh]

I have no problem with both, but my opinion doesn't mean much as I hate the entire team and may appear biased...;)

That is bad as it means you probably don't like the greatest person in the world ever WAAARRRRRNIEEEEEE! WAAARRRRRNIEEEEEE! WAAARRRRRNIEEEEEE!