Australia v India (Boxing Day Test Cricket)

[glyn]

From the Sydney Morning Herald. :icon_conf

That is an astonishing article.

 

[foxin_oz]

That is an astonishing article.

To be honest, Peter Roebuck's comments do not reflect the opinions of the majority of Aussies who have watched this match. I'm an Englishman in Oz, but have played "A" grade cricket out here and also indoor cricket, and have been an avid fan of cricket in general. There were a few bad decisions which might have cost India this match, but in the end they threw it away in a naive and senseless display of crap batting. A draw was always going to be the end result of this test. They can't blame the umpires for the way they capitulated so easily in the end. The Indians didn't object too much when members of the crowd in India were calling Symonds a monkey and making ape gestures at him. Now Singh has been banned for doing the same on the pitch they don't like it. They are burning effigies of the umpires over in India right now. Am I crazy or has this world gone mad? It's a game FFS!!! And there are hints from leading Indian businessmen that this could have an effect on Australia's trade with India. Talk about going overboard. This whole thing has been blown up out of all proportion and I strongly suggest that Messrs Ponting and Kumble get it sorted before it escalates into a diplomatic nightmare. :icon_roll

 

[Steven]

To be honest, Peter Roebuck's comments do not reflect the opinions of the majority of Aussies who have watched this match. I'm an Englishman in Oz, but have played "A" grade cricket out here and also indoor cricket, and have been an avid fan of cricket in general. There were a few bad decisions which might have cost India this match, but in the end they threw it away in a naive and senseless display of crap batting. A draw was always going to be the end result of this test. They can't blame the umpires for the way they capitulated so easily in the end. The Indians didn't object too much when members of the crowd in India were calling Symonds a monkey and making ape gestures at him. Now Singh has been banned for doing the same on the pitch they don't like it. They are burning effigies of the umpires over in India right now. Am I crazy or has this world gone mad? It's a game FFS!!! And there are hints from leading Indian businessmen that this could have an effect on Australia's trade with India. Talk about going overboard. This whole thing has been blown up out of all proportion and I strongly suggest that Messrs Ponting and Kumble get it sorted before it escalates into a diplomatic nightmare. :icon_roll

I think the Indians are upset because a white South African (brought up under Apartheid) has chosen to accept the word of a largely white side without corroborating evidence.

Proctor should have called the two Captains in and read the riot act rather than accepting one side's version over another.

Moreover given the years of unchecked sledging that the Australians have dished out it is gut wrenchingly hypocritical that they should now complain. :icon_conf

 

[foxin_oz]

I think the Indians are upset because a white South African (brought up under Apartheid) has chosen to accept the word of a largely white side without corroborating evidence.

Proctor should have called the two Captains in and read the riot act rather than accepting one side's version over another.

Moreover given the years of unchecked sledging that the Australians have dished out it is gut wrenchingly hypocritical that they should now complain. :icon_conf

I think I agree with most of what you have to say, however, gut wrenchingly deserves a hyphen IMO ...

 

[Willlow]

I think the Indians are upset because a white South African (brought up under Apartheid) has chosen to accept the word of a largely white side without corroborating evidence.

Proctor should have called the two Captains in and read the riot act rather than accepting one side's version over another.

Moreover given the years of unchecked sledging that the Australians have dished out it is gut wrenchingly hypocritical that they should now complain. :icon_conf

I think there is a difference between sledging and claims of racism! :icon_roll

 

[1966]

This from the Times sums it up quite nicely for me:

The present row in cricket has been brewing for damn near 50 years. Ever since sledging became widespread, it was always going to escalate to a point when two teams could no longer bear to be on the same pitch and the whole structure of cricket would totter.

The gloriously ironical part is that it is the Australians who are swooning like virgins and saying that sledging has gone too far. This from the nation who invented sledging, this from the nation who gloried in sledging, this from the nation who believed that sledging was irrefragable proof of national machismo.

It was Australia who coined the term sledging - meaning a remark of sledgehammer subtlety - and it was Australia who dignified it, with the declaration by Steve Waugh, the captain from 1999 to 2004, that sledging was “mental disintegration”.

The point everybody missed is that cricket is not an insult competition, any more than it is a spitting competition. But, hey, the Australians are world champions and everything they do must be right. So for years, every cricketing nation has tried to be as much like Australia as possible: to hire Australian coaches, to establish Australian-style academies and to use playground insults on the cricket pitch.

Sledging is part of the game, Australians say. That’s true, just as kicking people in the shins is part of football and punching people in the nose is part of rugby. Both these acts are punished. Offenders concede fouls and get sent off. Punishment doesn't stop it, but it keeps it under control. But sledging has been out of control for years.

What’s said on the pitch stays on the pitch. It’s all part of a man’s code. Anyone who complains is a poofter. Thus, Australia brought this childish practice of sledging into cricket, with the result that all the other international teams feel obliged to do the same.

Last summer, England players threw jellybeans on to the pitch to insult Zaheer Khan, of India. I mean, how pathetic is that? India were furious about that, too. The Asian teams come from a culture in which politeness is a more respected thing than it is in Australia or England, but many Asian cricketers have thought it appropriate to fight back in kind.

Continuing escalation is inevitable. If I called you an idiot, again and again and again, you would eventually call me a bloody fool. What would you think if I then staggered back in horror. “He called me a fool! He said bloody! This mustn’t be allowed!” That is what has happened.

Australia led the way in insults and now, claiming that an India player used a racist term, they are saying that rude behaviour on a cricket pitch is terrible, rotten, awful, mustn’t be allowed. If Harbhajan Singh did call Andrew Symonds a monkey as a racist insult, it is pretty nasty. As nasty as when Darren Lehmann, the Australia batsman, called the Sri Lankans “black c***s”. Many Australians defended Lehmann’s outburst because it was “in the heat of the moment”. It was pretty nasty, no matter what the moment’s temperature.

There are a million complications in this row, to do with ever-rising Indian nationalism, ditto Indian prosperity, the changing centres of power in cricket and a million issues of culture, politics and self-worth. Such things are normal in international sport, part of its endless fascination.

The reason the row has got out of hand is not because of racism. It is because too soft a line has been taken on the practice of sledging for far too long.

No one in authority wanted to be seen to be picking on the Australians; none of the players wanted to complain because he would look soft and insufficiently masculine - and, what’s more, he would get sledged ten times worse next time.

Cricket should not have set racism as the final frontier of unacceptable behaviour; a line should have been drawn years ago at the point when banter becomes bitter invective. Cricket has been soft on a serious matter for decades and now cricket is in crisis.

Australia has long promoted mental disintegration; as a result, we are facing the disintegration of cricket.

 

[1966]

To be honest, Peter Roebuck's comments do not reflect the opinions of the majority of Aussies who have watched this match. I'm an Englishman in Oz, but have played "A" grade cricket out here and also indoor cricket, and have been an avid fan of cricket in general. There were a few bad decisions which might have cost India this match, but in the end they threw it away in a naive and senseless display of crap batting.

I wouldn't expect the majority of Australians to agree with PR's view with their questionable integrity.

When you say a few bad decisions I take it you are talking about the 7 which were proved to be factually wrong (this does not include lbw's).

 

[Steven]

I think there is a difference between sledging and claims of racism! :icon_roll

See the post two above. :icon_wink

 

[Willlow]

See the post two above. :icon_wink

As I said sledging is COMPLETELY different to racism.

The Australians haven't been racist towards Singh and then got upset when he has come back at them. The whole point of sledging is to get under the oppositions skin. For instance Shane Warne called Ian Bell the 'Sherminator' and Andrew Strauss 'Lord Plum'.

I don't doubt the Australians were winding Singh up with some comment or another but for him to allegedly come back at Symmonds and call him a Monkey is out of order.

Don't get me wrong I hate the Australians and would have liked nothing more then India to stop them reaching the record. However, I think the idea of Australia bringing racist comments upon themselves by sledging is ridiculous

 

[1966]

As I said sledging is COMPLETELY different to racism.

The Australians haven't been racist towards Singh and then got upset when he has come back at them. The whole point of sledging is to get under the oppositions skin. For instance Shane Warne called Ian Bell the 'Sherminator' and Andrew Strauss 'Lord Plum'.

I don't doubt the Australians were winding Singh up with some comment or another but for him to allegedly come back at Symmonds and call him a Monkey is out of order.

Don't get me wrong I hate the Australians and would have liked nothing more then India to stop them reaching the record. However, I think the idea of Australia bringing racist comments upon themselves by sledging is ridiculous.

I think your point is a little naieve, the arguments about Australian sledging do not refer to humourous examples like yours above but to their regular use of terms / words like; "feck off", "bastard", "C**t" when abusing opposition players.

 

[Steven]

As I said sledging is COMPLETELY different to racism.

The Australians haven't been racist towards Singh and then got upset when he has come back at them. The whole point of sledging is to get under the oppositions skin. For instance Shane Warne called Ian Bell the 'Sherminator' and Andrew Strauss 'Lord Plum'.

I don't doubt the Australians were winding Singh up with some comment or another but for him to allegedly come back at Symmonds and call him a Monkey is out of order.

Don't get me wrong I hate the Australians and would have liked nothing more then India to stop them reaching the record. However, I think the idea of Australia bringing racist comments upon themselves by sledging is ridiculous

It is a bit like an arms race. It starts with a few small comments until such time the pressure builds on those at the receiving end. Furthermore disrespecting someone for a small reason is one step away from being disrespected for a bigger reason.

In a nutshell sledging may not be racism but it is a strong precursor to rude, arrogant, boorish and disrespectful behaviour.

 

[Willlow]

I think your point is a little naieve, the arguments about Australian sledging do not refer to humourous examples like yours above but to their regular use of terms / words like; "feck off", "bastard", "C**t" when abusing opposition players.

Firstly I dont know how you can say regular use of terms without actually knowing what they say and if it was regular then it would be picked up by the stump microphones as the majority of abuse comes from the wicketkeeper and slips.

Secondly if these words are used then this in not sledging and is therefore not what I am arguing about.

 

[Willlow]

It is a bit like an arms race. It starts with a few small comments until such time the pressure builds on those at the receiving end. Furthermore disrespecting someone for a small reason is one step away from being disrespected for a bigger reason.

In a nutshell sledging may not be racism but it is a strong precursor to rude, arrogant, boorish and disrespectful behaviour.

That is the whole point of sledging.

I think people need to understand what sledging actually is, its not fielders swearing or abusing the bastmen, its getting under there skin with comments that aren't verbal offensive but will distract the batsmen.

When Nixon played against the West Indies he asked a batsman if held his breath when the bowler ran in. The next ball the batsman played a loose shot and was caught. Whether what Nixon had an effect isnt known but it was a form of sledging.

 

[1966]

That is the whole point of sledging.

I think people need to understand what sledging actually is, its not fielders swearing or abusing the bastmen, its getting under there skin with comments that aren't verbal offensive but will distract the batsmen.

When Nixon played against the West Indies he asked a batsman if held his breath when the bowler ran in. The next ball the batsman played a loose shot and was caught. Whether what Nixon had an effect isnt known but it was a form of sledging.

The Australians have been "caught" swearing at and abusing opposition players for many years but because other teams have not complained and umpires and match referee's have preferred to turn a blind eye to them the Aussies have gone unpunished.

This is one of the central arguments in this case, as soon as an opponent gave as good as he got they have cried foul, how ironic.

 

[Willlow]

The Australians have been "caught" swearing at and abusing opposition players for many years but because other teams have not complained and umpires and match referee's have preferred to turn a blind eye to them the Aussies have gone unpunished.

This is one of the central arguments in this case, as soon as an opponent gave as good as he got they have cried foul, how ironic.

I suppose at the end of the day its what you believe is offensive, personally I think if you retaliate with racist abuse no matter what is being said it is unacceptable.

If singh had called Symmonds a Wanker I dont think it would have been problem and the Aussies wouldnt have reported it.

 

[Steven]

That is the whole point of sledging.

I think people need to understand what sledging actually is, its not fielders swearing or abusing the bastmen, its getting under there skin with comments that aren't verbal offensive but will distract the batsmen.

When Nixon played against the West Indies he asked a batsman if held his breath when the bowler ran in. The next ball the batsman played a loose shot and was caught. Whether what Nixon had an effect isnt known but it was a form of sledging.

Who really wants to play or watch a game with that kind of attitude. I belittle a player in order to gain competitive advantage. Just as well Sol Campbell doesn't play top class cricket.

 

[Willlow]

Who really wants to play or watch a game with that kind of attitude. I belittle a player in order to gain competitive advantage. Just as well Sol Campbell doesn't play top class cricket.

It happens in all sport, you don't think defenders make comments to strikers during a game or visa versa? :icon_roll

 

[Willlow]

It happens in all sport, you don't think defenders make comments to strikers during a game or visa versa? :icon_roll

I have heard of an eye for an eye, but a spinner for a spinner?

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,12123_3030900,00.html

 

[1966]

I suppose at the end of the day its what you believe is offensive, personally I think if you retaliate with racist abuse no matter what is being said it is unacceptable.

If singh had called Symmonds a Wanker I dont think it would have been problem and the Aussies wouldnt have reported it.

So one guy decides to re-arrange these well known words - off, bastard, feck - into a well known phrase which he directs at his opponent, who responds by calling him a "big monkey", and only one of these individuals is charged let alone found guilty.

 

[Willlow]

So one guy decides to re-arrange these well known words - off, bastard, feck - into a well known phrase which he directs at his opponent, who responds by calling him a "big monkey", and only one of these individuals is charged let alone found guilty.

Reverse it for a second. An Indian tells an Australian player that he is a fat aussie twat and the Aussie replies with shut up you fcuking bomber or terrorist.

Should the Indian be punished as well as the Australian?

As I said I think it was the fact that Singh allegedly used a racist term rather then the fact he retaliated.