<< WSJ NOW SJ ~ MAIN ~ SIR EDMUND HILLARY >>
ROEBUCK RETREATS
Apparently it was all just some helpful tree-shaking:
Time to shake the tree. Sacking the captain was the only story remotely dramatic enough to bring everything out into the open. And so the article was written. It had almost been sent earlier in the match but a fever had taken hold and the thought occurred that mood might have been affected. But the point was valid. The leadership had failed.
And so the debate began ... A nerve had been touched and the important matters were going to be addressed.
I wonder how Roebuck would view a front-page column calling for his sacking.
UPDATE. It’s John Howard’s fault.
UPDATE II. Both Roebuck in his initial piece and reader zscore recall England bowler Andrew Flintoff consoling Australia’s Brett Lee after the Second Test in 2005. Very well; but neither mention the First Test in that series, when Ponting required eight stitches to his face after being struck by Steve Harmison - and no England fielder asked the skipper if he was all right.
What a gutless wanker. He called for it, now he doesn’t like the thought that every cricketer in the country is now loathe to discuss any matter with him whatsoever. It’s time the SMH let Spanky Roebuck go, else he go the way of Alan Ramsey. A bitter, twisted old fool, who’s irrelevance becomes increasingly obvious on a daily basis. Quite frankly, I’d say he was already there.
Every sentence in the article is an embarrassing attempt at self justification. Deep down, he knows he’s an idiot, but like the Indian team, he can see the fault in others but can’t admit it in himself. He lost me when he started his endless campaign to defend the chuckers, but now his just become a total embarrassment to cricket, to journalism, and to himself.
But then, the writes for The Age. So I suppose that’s his job.
Furious back-peddling by Spanky Roebuck, He truly is ‘spanking the monkey’ on this one.
Posted by AlphaMikeFoxtrot on 2008 01 10 at 07:12 PM • permalinkI think Roebuck is still right on Ponting and Clark stepping down.
I wonder how Tim Blair would react to a front page article in the SMH calling for him to resign for expressing his own journalistic opinion - yes, hysteria. Which is probably how Roebuck is reacting now to Blair. Roebuck wrote his column the same as usual - it was SMH’s editor who put it on the front page so where is the criticism from Blair of SMH’s editor? Its not as if the SMH is being criticized for its editorial judgment - there are not a few Aussies who agree with that judgment.
The problem comes down to Ponting and especially his lack of ethics, his elephantine memory for being perceived slights and his wafer-thin skin to criticism, and if you don’t believe me, read the latest Captain’s Diary. If Punter wants to play a game with bat and ball where winning is paramount and honour means nothing, then let him go play American baseball and not cricket.
What has got most Australians excited is that Ponting’s Australian team are playing cricket contrary to the spirit of Australian fair play.
Yes the Indians are being prissy. Yes, I think that the reaction of the Indian idiots burning effigies is ludicrous. Yes I think the BCCI’s pressuring of the normal disciplinary process is interference and BCCI should be told where to go.
But let’s indulge a little conspiracy theory here. Ponting’s nemesis on the field of play has been Harbajan Singh, who was the person who got him out with a dubious lbw that caused Punter to throw his rattle across the dressing room. So he gets Symonds to rile the thin-skinned Sikh with some charmless humour as only Roy knows how and low and behold Harbajan refers to Symonds as a monkey and Ponting goes immediately to the umpires. Suddenly Singh is in trouble and Punter is in the clear, or is he?
Then Punter decides that the Indians can be rattled and if Punter was got out under dubious circumstances then so can the Indians. So he packs the infield with close fielders and appeals for everything. The tired Umpires cave in.
He won the game didn’t he? Isn’t that the most important thing?
No, Punter, it isn’t.
Flame away.
#15 - But let’s indulge a little conspiracy theory here.
Let’s indulge in a counter conspiracy. You are a tea drinking, cucumber sandwich with the crusts cut off eating Pom. Who can not stand the fact the Australia has spanked you harder than a young boy at Roebuck’s place, year in year out.
What is this honour in cricket malarkey you speak of?
Let us further add to the conspiracy. You rifle through Marks and Spencer catalogues looking for frilly dresses and corsets.
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2008 01 10 at 07:47 PM • permalinkThe thing is Infidel Tiger, he probably would.
Posted by Mr Hackenbacker on 2008 01 10 at 07:49 PM • permalinkRe #24
Read the original article. I think Roebuck was expressing revulsion at the way the match was conducted by Ponting, the dishonour to Anil Kumble and the constant abusive appealing which is contrary to the spirit of the game.
Cricket is a game about honour. To play the game without honour is not cricket, and a few commenters on this board excepted, is not Australian. That’s what Aussies are reacting to.
#28
Sounds like good hockey, which Don Cherry would approve of.Cheers
Posted by J.M. Heinrichs on 2008 01 10 at 08:18 PM • permalinkI think there are plenty of cricket lovers out there who would agree with John A, if not go as far as Roebuck.
The last decade has seen Australia win everything at cricket and beat everybody almost at will. They have nothing left to prove, except that they may some day be capable of showing some class and dignity when they win.
Remember when England won the Ashes, and the photo of Flintoff crouching down to shake the hand of a disconsolate Brett Lee? That was one of the great photos, and one of the great moments, of cricket.
Can we ever expect a moment like that from Ricky Ponting? Not on your life, based on the behaviour of him and his team in Sydney.
O/T - Vale Bunyip
At your request we have been trying to monitor the following page for changes:
Unfortunately, we have been unable to successfully access that page…This is usually due to the webmaster moving the page or closing their site.
Looks as if Professor Bunyip has gone forever. A true patriot who is greatly missed.
Posted by walterplinge on 2008 01 10 at 08:34 PM • permalinkRe #32
I think Punter was actually saved by the hyperbolic reaction of the Indians especially the very visible pressure exerted to get rid of Steve Bucknor from the Perth test.
The Australian selectors could not sack Ponting as it would look like they were caving in to Indian pressure. Had India conducted itself with a lot more dignity, then Ponting might well have found himself out in the cold.
But I’m certain that they will have given Punter a stiff warning about his behavior and the standards of cricket expected of the Australian team and his as Captain. It will be that behavior, not India’s, which will be in the spotlight. They will certainly not want a repeat of the SCG.
I want Australia to win the Perth test, but I want the Australian team to win it fairly with humour, panache and most of all honour the way we all know they can. They represent a decent, fair-minded country, not a paycheck.
#35 - What occurred in Sydney, that hasn’t occured in any other Test Match? Symonds being racially abused was the only anomally.
Please also name the Test playing nation that Australia should model its behaviour on?
You are living in a fantasy land, where cricket is played on village greens and no one dives for the ball for fear of marking their creams with a grass stain.
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2008 01 10 at 08:43 PM • permalinkHistory only remembers the results Roebuck.
Just a little karma coming back to haunt the Indians as far as I’m concerned and we’re not dealing with bias only a couple of questionable decisions by independent umpires.
How many teams have gone to India and been on the receiving end of biased decisions and treatment, plenty! No naval gazing from the billion population only smiles indicating “look at the scoreboard”Posted by Hank Reardon on 2008 01 10 at 09:08 PM • permalink#36 i agree Infidel it was the nearly the same as every test match ive watched in the past 15 years , the main problem is the commentators who have super slow motion replays and can harp on them ad nauseam ,John A #28"abusive appealing obvious only watched Australia bowl, where did they dishonor anil kumble too
#28:
I think Roebuck was expressing revulsion at the way the match was conducted by Ponting,
What? He tried to win it. His team was down at the end of the first innings and they fought back. That’s what makes test match cricket so interesting. Did he resort to racial slurs to win the match? Oops, sorry, wrong team.
the dishonour to Anil Kumble
I am assuming you feel that Kumble’s words and actions are also within the ‘spirit’ of the game?
and the constant abusive appealing which is contrary to the spirit of the game.
So you are saying that only one of the sides out there did this? What about lingering at the crease after being given out?
Look, I won’t disagree with you that, at times, the Aussies come across as arrogant and that their behaviour is not perfect. However, looking at the events that transpired at the test to demand standards only of Ponting is ridiculous and at best un-just.
Rosebuck again descends into the BS “family man” argument with his beloved Indians. I mean, seriously, write about the latest fairy book Roebuck for all I care about your ‘shaking” and a baking.
John A, I have said it before, but Kumble’s constant appealing for anything that hit the pad was pathetic, and on at least 1 occasion descended to an hysterical leap into the air and lillee like 2 arms up full scream, onyl to be given not out. The umpires copped it from both sides, and is something they have handled a hundred times before.
re Flintoff, please. It is well known what he said to aussie batsmen, and that photo was minutes after the group hugging that took place. btw you did see the aussies line up and shake hands with the indians after the match? just because it wasn’t all televised, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
Both ponting and clarke have acknowledged some conduct needs reviewing.
Now, lets see the BCCI remove their boycott threat. They are saying Harbhajan was innocent and therefore unless found so by the authorities the tour will be called off. Isn’t this blackmail? Isn’t this in breach of their ICC agreement?
Either they remove this thread before the hearing or it will have no credibility, no matter which way the result comes down.
Also something new, Roebuck said Harbhajan apologised (for this incident, if I read that correctly, but I think he means the first incident). Does that mean he now agrees he said the monkey comment? Where does that place him re telling his teammates he didn’t, and what Tendulkar has said?
#32 zscore, you might find this interesting:
What Flintoff really said to Brett Lee after the Edgbaston Test….
And thats all I’m going to contribute to a cricket thread for the time being.John A, India was reported for over-appealing in South Africa, among other offences, and when they didn’t like the charges, refused to play with the appointed umpires. They have a record for hypocrisy longer than Harbajhan’s bent arm. (Dohni’s grounded catch against England last year, Monkey chants back in October, Tehdulkar ball tampering back in South Africa etc etc etc)
And as for playing in the right spirit, it was Australia who tried to win the game, while India blatantly wasted time - first taking forever to bowl their overs (with every fielder on the fence) and then dragging out endless pitch conferences and pad adjustments when batting - and that was all Kumble’s work.
Perth won’t last three days. It’ll be murder.
Peter m also puts his finger on some wonderful backtracking by the Indians. Another example was their manager: Firsthe said Harbajhan had said nothing, then he said Harbajhan was only retaliating - which makes it clear that he did say something.
As it can now be clearly seen that Symonds says to Harbajhan “so I’m a Monkey am I?”, and Ponting can be clearly seen saying “that’s the second time you’ve called him a monkey”, it’s getting beyond a joke that the Indians keep denying it.
Oh, but no, it’s all a conspiracy by the Australians - script writers have been at work setting up the dialogue! Very amusing. But let’s be frank. Great sportsman that he is, and lovely chap as well, Symonds just isn’t bright enough to pull that off. Christ, it was is guileless honesty that kicked this all off by admitting he’d hit the ball in the first innings. (Even though everyone knew he hit it, apparently admitting it was a terrible sin. Funny world.)
I’m sorry, but are you fucking insane John A (#35)? Do you really think Ponting was ever actually going to be sacked in saying he was ‘saved’? You are out there on the same planet as Spanky on this one. By the way, did anyone see Spanky out and about today?
Posted by AlphaMikeFoxtrot on 2008 01 10 at 11:21 PM • permalinkLet’s not overlook the viewpoint of Geoff Lawson that Australia’s cricketers disrespect the baggy green cap that the team needs a reality check. Roebuck also cites other senior and experienced cricket coaches, former players, etc who have voiced similar concerns. I don’t particularly care about all this, but these viewpoints suggest something is amiss with the behaviour of Ponting et al.
And let’s wait to see how fares Harabjhan’s case on appeal. I hear via the wireless that he is to claim that his said something in a non-English tongue that was misheard as “monkey”. Could be a ‘late invention’ of course, but let’s see.
Ya gotta love the ex players who become saints after they retire. Lawson’s the latest in a long line of them. It’s like Lawry complaining about slow batting, which he does. Hilarious. There are hundreds of pots out there busy calling kettles black (if you’ll excuse the the analogy). Neil Harvey gets wheeled out every few months. Do a bit of research, and you’ll find that nothing much has changed except that Australia are unbeatable and miles ahead of the rest of the world in training and player development. (Remember that back in Bradman’s day, no-one got their knees dirty. Also, the only two countries worth tuppence were England and Australia, so being number one was no big deal.)
BB77 (#47) - Gotta agree with you again and Lawson has a conflict of interest now that he is coaching Pakistan - the next lambs to the slaughter!
Posted by AlphaMikeFoxtrot on 2008 01 11 at 02:05 AM • permalinkI have to agree with a previous comment. If it wasn’t for the Indian’s vast over reaction bordering on a hissy fit, then Roebuck’s call for Punter’s sacking may have been justifed, even if a little extreme.
My usual reference, the office straw poll, can be summarised thus: Ponting is one the best cricketers ever, leading one of, if not the best cricket team to compete at the International test level, (and he is the Australian captain for f***sake) so a little decorum and dignity is appropriate. He behaves as if he’s captaining the Gidgegannup Mines Rovers in a grudge match against the neighbouring Brigades Warriors the morning after a brawl at the local pub.
The thing that I find most surprising is that he and the rest of the team don’t seem to get it. Surely they are not all that thick.
Posted by Dean McAskil on 2008 01 11 at 02:15 AM • permalink#50 - Not to mention that Lawson and Roebuck both are employed by the ABC and for a time Fairfax. Lawson’s got form for being a knob - he wanted Hayden dropped before the last World Cup. 580 runs, 3 centuries, honorary citizenship of St. Kitts and a 100+kg marlin later, makes Lawson’s judgment a touch off.
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2008 01 11 at 02:17 AM • permalink#51,
I know what they do ‘get’. They know full well that had one otheir own made a remark such as Monkey to a member of a non-white team, excatly what would have happened to them. Why should these rules be a one way street?
India were trying to ape Australia, particularly as regards trash talk and have come off second best.
I had the misfortune to meet Lawson in the early 80’s at a function put on in London by the visiting Australian Ashes team. A more pretentious boor, puffed up with his own self-importance would be difficult to imagine. I couldn’t take anything he has to say about conduct and behaviour too seriously.
Posted by Whale Spinor on 2008 01 11 at 02:33 AM • permalinkFrankly I don’t care whatever the Indians said so that carries no weight with me. As my old Dad would say; It is what we do that matters, and for what we (the Australian team) did we should be ashamed.
Posted by Dean McAskil on 2008 01 11 at 02:34 AM • permalinkDean (#56), just what did we ‘do’ that has not been done by every other team, including previous Australian ones, in the past?
Posted by AlphaMikeFoxtrot on 2008 01 11 at 03:00 AM • permalinkGod that “John Howard is at fault” piece is pathetic. It could win an award for longest bow drawing of the year. I wonder how the doofus who wrote that would explain the oft-criticised behaviour of I. Chappell, Lillee, Marsh etc all who were guilty of worse than this current team? Were Whitlam and Fraser also promoting rabid nationalism back then?
AlphaMikeFoxtrot
Nothing. Everything we did has been done before, by almost everyone. A bit like murder, the fact that it is common place does not make it acceptable. And yes I do hold our team (it is not Ponting’s or anybody else’s team) to a higher standard than anybody else.
Posted by Dean McAskil on 2008 01 11 at 03:26 AM • permalinkDean, I still don’t get it. Even Ganguly , who admitted today on TV that he knew he was out and didn’t walk, ‘admires’ the way the Aussies played in the Sydney test.
Posted by AlphaMikeFoxtrot on 2008 01 11 at 04:21 AM • permalink#60 - Stone the crows, Dean. Why should Australia be the only virgin in the whorehouse? The pays lousy and everyone else is having all the fun.
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2008 01 11 at 04:32 AM • permalinkRoebuck had to back down, and so should the couple of idiots here who support him, because Ponting did nothing that remotely justified a call for his sacking, and Roebuck knows that he strayed too far from the Fairfax fantasy zone into the real world.
What exactly did Ponting do? He gave the umpire a bit of a look when he was given a very bad decision. He was asked by the umpire what he thought about a catch, and gave his honest opinion (and had only a couple of days earlier said a catch hadn’t carried). He obeyed the rule, forced on him by the likes of Roebuck, to report racial abuse. He claimed a catch—which *was* clearly a catch (the idiots who say the ball was grounded don’t understand that he had control of it well before then). Symonds didn’t walk, like 95% of all batsmen, and somehow this is a Ponting crime so heinous that he must be sacked. And he and his teammates celebrated their win by running around and hugging each other for a few minutes, which apparently never happens in sport.
The same old non-cricketing bores were wheeled out to criticize the Australians like the do every few years. And it was implied that previous generations of Australian cricketers are disgusted with the way this team plays cricket. In reality, I bet if you asked most previous Australian cricketers they would say that if this team has a fault it’s that it’s too wussy. It’s the most PC, nice-guy Australian team for decades, many of whom wouldn’t be out of place in a sociology tutorial. But they’re Australians, and they win all the time, so all that counts for nothing.
I don’t automatically condone bad behaviour by the Australian team, and I don’t like abusive sledging much. But I watched all of that Test and I didn’t see anything bad. And everything the Australians supposedly did
that was so beyond the pale had been done by the Indians in the very same match, all of which didn’t raise a murmur.Posted by Blithering Bunny on 2008 01 11 at 04:35 AM • permalinkSpot on Bunny (#64)! I nearly choked last night when Channel 9 trotted out John Bertrand, who lead the most ultra-nationalist wankfest in sporting history at the America’s Cup in 1983, to whine about Ponting’s behaviour.
Posted by AlphaMikeFoxtrot on 2008 01 11 at 04:43 AM • permalink#64 - Wish I’d said that, you eloquent bastard.
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2008 01 11 at 05:05 AM • permalinkAs far as I can tell ‘the yobbos’ are happy. So I wonder who he thinks we need to be embarrassed in front of?
Or is it really code for “I strike all the right poses and pull all the right faces, but they are happier than me! It isn’t fair!!”Posted by Toiling Mass on 2008 01 11 at 05:26 AM • permalinkHaneef?
Roebuck brings up HANEEF?
What in the stripes on Aunt Bessie’s bloomer’s is this idiot smoking?
Posted by MentalFloss on 2008 01 11 at 05:57 AM • permalink#65, They trotted out John Bertrand? What was he there to say? (No TV set chez Spot ATM, sorry I’m not up to date…)
Don’t know much about cricket but I know a fair bit about what goes on in the Australian ocean racing scene…and it’s hardly a bunch of choirboys…
Posted by spot_the_dog on 2008 01 11 at 06:26 AM • permalinkSpot, from memory Bertrand and Robert de Castella both droned on about damage to our image overseas, the glory of sport, blah, blah, blah. A case of relevance deprevation syndrome gone wild!
Posted by AlphaMikeFoxtrot on 2008 01 11 at 07:43 AM • permalinkBy the way, what is that fraud Bertrand doing in our sporting hall of fame? He had a boat a zillion times faster than the yanks and almost blew it - the yank skipper was ten times the sailor Bertrand was. What right has he got to talk about cricket?
I suppose de Castella has all those Olympic medals to justify shooting his mouth off. What? Oh yeah…
#73, Thanks for that. Those were some heady days back then, but perhaps Mr Bertrand would be better off sticking to his knitting, as it were. Our international reputation in re ocean racing could use a bit of a spruce-up, if he feels that way inclined…
Posted by spot_the_dog on 2008 01 11 at 08:17 AM • permalinkThe most pathetic aspect of Roebuck’s apology for his first story is the way he prostitutes his association with ‘credible’ quotes from ‘credible’ people to try and lever himself from deep within the shit that he had created.
Fly with the crows Roebuck and you’ll get shot up the ring. Long overdue. Pommy cretin.
That picture of Freddie Flintoff and Brett Lee: ever wonder what Flintoff said to Lee. True story. Still, I suppose it makes for a nice photo.
Posted by Tony.T.Teacher on 2008 01 11 at 08:54 AM • permalinkUPDATE. It’s John Howard’s fault.
Oh dear! It’s going to be tragic for these idiots, once the opportunities to blame their old bête noir start drying up!
He’s gone, folks! Get over him, already!
Posted by AlburyShifton on 2008 01 11 at 08:56 AM • permalinkRegarding one Sydney Test furphy in particular: I give you The Plastic Spanky.
Posted by Tony.T.Teacher on 2008 01 11 at 09:08 AM • permalinkHow to make Americans interested in cricket. Get to work on this toot sweet!
Posted by Col. Milquetoast on 2008 01 11 at 09:21 AM • permalinkPoor old Katich, with Roebuck behind him he’s screwed.
That column is actually is a clever attempt to backpedal and to repair the bridges he burnt, because on the second page Roebuck is full of praise for Ponting. He just doesn’t want to be seen crawling and admitting he was wrong, so he dresses it up as “Katich is the sort of captain I’d prefer”, even though that’s not even remotely a possibility.
Posted by Blithering Bunny on 2008 01 11 at 12:30 PM • permalinkRoebuck used to be a decent cricket writer, but too many years of hanging around Fairfax has turned him moonbat.
And all the Fairfax sports ‘colour’ writers end up with outsized egos because they can’t help noticing how intellectually and morally superior they are to the sportsmen who inhabit their universe, most of whom don’t even know how to say “Doubtless”.
Posted by Blithering Bunny on 2008 01 11 at 12:33 PM • permalink#80 Col.
Now you got me, I’m a cricket fan!!!
As an aside, let me take a SWAG here…..Australia must have a dominant cricket team, that’s why they’re taking all this heat right?
Posted by Old Tanker on 2008 01 11 at 01:16 PM • permalinkNot looking good for the Indian sooking case.
‘B#stard’ is not on the list of words defined by the ICC as racially offensive.
Then again, it wasn’t on the any list in India until the BCCI decided to engage in a game of childish tit-for-tat.
However, I’m sure the ICC can continue its form of debasing itself by introducing a retrospective entry onto the list.
I think Spanky has been reading Tim’s column.
“It’s the nature of whingers never to propose a solution, so Roebuck doesn’t identify who should take over from Ponting as Australian leader; possibly the intellectual/sporting/diplomatic polymath ethicist who’d qualify under Roebuck’s criteria is yet to be born.”
By Tim Blair
January 11, 2008 12:00am‘But let’s indulge a little conspiracy theory here. So he gets Symonds to rile the thin-skinned Sikh with some charmless humour…’ yadda, yadda
I don’t know if you know AFL football John A, another man’s game. Every few weeks a player is rubbed out for abusive language, and his fans always claim that he was only reacting to something said to him by an opponent that was not heard.
Makes no difference of course - incitement is no excuse and it is even less so with Harbhajan, given his form and preference for lying in self-defence..Above all is the absurd Indian elite culture that even can’t accept that any of them can be racist against ‘blacks’.
Even Geoff Boycott can’t see the obvious truth here about the meaning of ‘monkey’..Cricket is one of those subjects I generally avoid in conversation - following Oscar Wilde’s very sensible advice that it it better to be silent, etc etc.
Get back to me when the argument begins over who’s the best James Bond.Posted by SwinishCapitalist on 2008 01 11 at 05:14 PM • permalinkQuote: The Indians deny Harbhajan has done anything wrong.
“I don’t think that word [monkey] was used on the ground but it’s not a derogatory word in India,” [Team Manager] Chauhan said.
“Of course we are very serious about cracking down on racism.”So here are the Indian position[s]:
1. Symonds should not have cared that 1000s of Indians repeatedly shouted ‘Monkey!’ at him with signs there, based solely on his appearance, or that it was said on the field too, apparently by Harbhajan.
That is, it was all an Aussie beat-up in India. The BCCI were right to initially ignore it, despite being ‘serious about cracking down on racism’.
2. Captain Kumble says he offered to apologise to Ponting for Harbhajan’s new insults to avoid the current issue going further -though he also says that he had nothing to apologise for. So his apology to us is only a diplomatic lie, and means nothing - especially to Symonds in this case.
3. The Indians reject Procter’s official process and decision, based on him relying on the past events in India, plus the words of several Aussies.
So the Indians believe the Aussies falsely created an offence that did not occur at all, but which their Captain had offered to apologise for anyway.
4. That is, the Aussies and Procter are at fault, and may be racist themselves.
The Indians at not, proven by the fact that they got the black umpire banned, but not the white ones, who also made some terrible errors of judgment.Go figure.
Gold:
“Poor old Katich, with Roebuck behind him he’s screwed.”
~~ B. Bunny.
Posted by Tony.T.Teacher on 2008 01 11 at 06:56 PM • permalink‘Ashwell Prince and AB de Villiers’ scintillating fifth-wicket stand of 182 came from 38.2 overs of unabashed mayhem’
Will Luke’s on Cricinfo describes a partnership at 4.7 runs an over against a demoralised attack.Over to Peter Roebuck, to describe the next very common Aussie Test partnership at a similar speed.
Okay, I couldn’t resist.
I clicked Update II and discovered that John Howard is to blame for this as well. Hey, there’s a dead cat at the end of the street! Kitty, it’s HoWARd’s fault you’re a mangled blob of fur on the asphalt!This quote at the bottom of that twit’s page caught my eye:
“If you had any idea what democracy means and what your country has done, you’d be down on your knees begging God to forgive you every day for the rest of your life.”
- Qetesh the Shaved AbyssinianAm I missing a joke here?
Posted by SwinishCapitalist on 2008 01 11 at 08:37 PM • permalinkFrom Mike Coward in The Australian:
Most irrational and damaging of all was the call for the axing of Ponting as captain at a time when it is widely acknowledged that he is maturing into a leader of some stature who can be compared favourably with renowned predecessors. Certainly, he had an unfortunate lapse into old and less worldly ways at the end of the Test match, but to suggest his dismissal was as insulting as it was dangerous. Indeed, it was seized upon by those intent on driving deeper the divisions between the two teams and the two countries.
Roebuck has gone plain nuts.
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2008 01 11 at 09:08 PM • permalinkRoebuck needs the Australian team to be incompetent so that even he might be in a position to give advice. At present he has nothing to offer.
Posted by Toiling Mass on 2008 01 11 at 10:02 PM • permalinkThis from Jonathan Agnew:
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.
He continues:
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.
Now flame Agnew for being English, or me for quoting him. Anything but deal with what happened as an offence against the honour of cricket.
Tim Blair has implied in his Update II that I support Roebuck, and have defended Roebuck’s call for Ponting’s sacking. For the record, I have not done this and do not think Ponting should be sacked.
In general, I think that the on-field behaviour of the Australians is better than it was 20 years ago, though still leaving a lot to be desired.
My earlier comment was directed at the behaviour of Australians (as opposed to Flintoff) specifically at the moment of victory. This still stands.
Jonathon Agnew - another true legend to be quoting John A. Agnew conveniently forgets the disgusting racial abuse against Symonds in India and the agreement between the teams before this series and the direction that any such abuse is reported. When he says about the Aussies; ‘They can give it, but they can’t take it’, I’d have thought that winning just about everything since 2005 is a pretty good indication that they can ‘take it’ and take it pretty damn well.
Posted by AlphaMikeFoxtrot on 2008 01 11 at 11:33 PM • permalinkOh and the latest in the Blair line of “we’re reqally the victims here”,
viz:
...but neither mention the First Test in that series, when Ponting required eight stitches to his face after being struck by Steve Harmison - and no England fielder asked the skipper if he was all right.
this is the comment in 2005 from the BBC on that first day regarding Ponting’s hit on the head from Harmison:
Aussie skipper Ricky Ponting’s brief innings was also full of incident.
He was dropped second ball by Pietersen fielding at a close gully position and was then hit on the helmet when missing an attempted pull against Harmison.
The metal grille jammed against his right cheek, cutting the skin, and the team physio had to staunch the flow of blood with a plaster.
So the stitches were only applied by the doctor when Ponting was out. As far as anyone on the field was concerned, he got a small cut from his helmet which required a plaster.
What were the England fielders supposed to do for a regulation bump on the helmet by a bouncer that happens nearly every match in county cricket? Kiss it better?
AlphaMikeFoxtrot:
When he says about the Aussies; ‘They can give it, but they can’t take it’, I’d have thought that winning just about everything since 2005 is a pretty good indication that they can ‘take it’ and take it pretty damn well.
Bravo! You’ve completely missed the point made, oh, 90 posts ago that cricket is about honour and if Ponting wants to play a game with bat and ball and without honour, then play American baseball, where winning isn’t the main thing - its the only thing.
Nothing in Agnew’s comments or mine would suggest that racism is purely an Australian problem, or something that only concerns Australians. Nothin at all.
By the way, I talked to some Aussies yesterday about the Sydney test and their response was - once the cheering had stopped for the win, they sat there in near silence in the pub until someone said: That match was completely fucked”
Dead right.
Justin Langer writing a diary for the BBC about that first day:
Leading up to the first day of this eagerly awaited Lord’s Test match I have been like a kid on Christmas Eve.
Tonight, after one of the most incredible days of Ashes contests, I feel like the same kid on Christmas night.
Physically, mentally and emotionally I feel exhausted and, considering this is only the first of 25 days of this Ashes campaign, we could be in for an arm wrestle that is likely to leave both teams shattered by the end of the summer.
From ball one of the game, Steve Harmison was right on the money. His first ball was almost the text-book delivery as it hit a good length and whizzed just over the top of my off stump.
His second ball set the scene for what was one of the most adrenaline induced sessions of cricket that we have experienced.
Shooting off a good length, I didn’t have time to get out of the way of the new ball as it rocketed into my right elbow.
Poor judgement perhaps on my behalf, but more likely a sign of the intensity England brought with them out onto the field.
Our camp looked more like an emergency room than a cricket changing room
Within an hour Harmison had bruised my arm, thundered a bouncer into Matty Hayden’s helmet and then split open the cheek of our captain Ricky Ponting.
For a few moments it felt like we were playing the first half of a rugby match rather than the first session at the home of cricket.
The action was exhilarating and by lunch our camp looked more like an emergency room than a cricket changing room.
With bodies and egos bruised and cut to shreds, we had to face more of the same fire after lunch.
Harmison was more like Jonah Lomu as he ran through our batting with the aggression and radar of a world-class bowler.
And after the series was over, this is what Langer said of the Ashes series:
Body weary and mentally exhausted, I am digging deep into my mind to find a way to best describe my true feeling about the Ashes series.
In what has been the pinnacle of my career, I have enjoyed the cricket in this battle more than any I have been fortunate enough to play in before.
It was brilliant, old fashioned, hard, tough cricket that was as enjoyable as it was taxing.
Langer and Lee look on as England celebrate
There was hardly a minute throughout where the intensity wasn’t at a level that has exceeded most contests I have been a part of in the past.Regardless of the final result, I am immensely proud to have been one of the players involved in this series, which has brought this wonderful game into the forefront of people’s minds both in England and in Australia.
I am also proud to have been a part of a series that was played in such great spirit.
There was a sense of humility between both teams; a reflection of the enormous respect developed over 10 weeks of cut-throat, nail-biting cricket that was as much a test of nerve and temperament as it was a game between bat and ball.
Cricket has a way of uncovering character in people and over the course of this series many heroes have emerged.
It has also been very interesting for me to see how people have reacted under this extra pressure.
More can be learned about character when times are tough than when the atmosphere is one of comfort and cotton wool.
Having won almost everything in the last five years, there have been times when we have hardly been tested.
Now that we have, it could turn out to be the best thing that has happened to Australian cricket for a long time.
So Langer himself compliments both sides on playing hard cricket with the best of spirit from both sides.
As Agnew points out, its not the win in Sydney that bothers, its the spirit of the game that has collapsed with it.
Sorry, still can’t see where they ‘can’t take it’ or where there is any dishonour in:
a. following the rules;
b. standing up for one of your blokes when you know it is going to raise a storm; and
c. winning against the run of play.Posted by AlphaMikeFoxtrot on 2008 01 12 at 12:26 AM • permalinkBoth Roebuck in his initial piece and reader zscore recall England bowler Andrew Flintoff consoling Australia’s Brett Lee after the Second Test in 2005. Very well; but neither mention the First Test in that series, when Ponting required eight stitches to his face after being struck by Steve Harmison - and no England fielder asked the skipper if he was all right.
They don’t mention bodyline either. Why on earth would they? They’re talking about a higher standard that cricket could aspire to.
Posted by Jefferson Skates on 2008 01 12 at 12:26 AM • permalinkI realise no one’s reading this thread any more but John A you have nailed it.
I am a proud Australian who used to love test cricket. I found the sub-continetal shenanigans (changing rules to allow chuckers etc) of the last decade or so disprirting and decided (in my mind at least) that the only test cricket that now mattered was beween those nations that actually follwed the rules.
So the Australian teams behaviour of the last few years, and in this the captain bears great responsibility, has been even more dispiriting.
I agree strongly that the fall out from the last test is the inevitable boilover that has been brewing for years.
But the greatest nausea I have experienced in the last few days was in hearing otherwise sensible Autralians in the media, talk back etc, including those who’s opinion I respect such as Tim Blair excusing the Australian team’s, frankly disgraceful, behaviour with the school yard excuse that “it wasn’t our fault because they started it by hitting back.”
To the Australian Test Team and their apologists: grow up and start behaving like men.
Posted by Dean McAskil on 2008 01 12 at 12:35 AM • permalink“As Agnew points out, its not the win in Sydney that bothers, its the spirit of the game that has collapsed with it.”
Nonsense. It is sour grapes. What exactly is “the spirit of the game”?
People keep using the term but nobody, certainly not the ICC, has defined it.
Even Ganguly freely admits that he doesn’t know what it means.
Murph
What exactly is “the spirit of the game”?
And that is the problem in a nutshell Murph. If you have to ask such a question the answer doesn’t really matter.
Posted by Dean McAskil on 2008 01 12 at 01:21 AM • permalinkLittle 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.
JohnA
How was Harbhajan supposed to be punished if to report him was to “Give it but can’t take it”?
What is completely forgotten in all this is that the Indians were going to be under the hammer from their own fans for losing a game that they should have saved. The Indians were engaging in a massive diversion to avoid the wrath that would inevitably descend upon them. Quite wrongly, I might add.
It should also not be forgotten than in trying to save that game they resorted to deliberate time wasting by the last batsman coming out with 2 right gloves!!
Can you imaging the furore if Ponting had claimed the batsman was timed out having not reached the crease in the required 3 minutes under the rules?
The Indians were engaging in clearly unsportsman like behaviour with that ruse yet little or nothing has been said from these scribes who have been so quick to slag off at Ponting.
As was pointed out in an article in the Australian (I forget who by) if India hadn’t bottled it in the last ten minutes and had, instead, held out for a draw, none of this would be happening. The media would have been acclaiming Kumble’s brave innings and India would have been confidently preparing for the next Test. Which all means one simple thing - it’s all sour grapes.
Okay John A, ask yourself this question. If that twirp Sreesanth was here, showing us “how he can dish it out” - he’s far nastier than any Australian I’ve ever seen, but so bad at it it makes me laugh - and an Australian called him a monkey, or another phrase specifically designed to racially vilify him, what would you say? What would the whole world say? Would anyone say, oh, it should be kept on the ground? Of course not. What’s happening here is the most blatant example of reverse racism I’ve ever seen. It’s simple; a mainly white team is not allowed to be offended by anything a mainly black team says, but a mainly black team has always been allowed to say and do what it wants. (Including refusing to play a test - as India did recently in South Africa - or to finish one, as Pakistan did in England.
BB77
Are we all 10 years old and in the quadrangle at school? Constant harping about what they did to us is childish.
For adults it is compeletly irrelevant what the other team, in this case the Indians, do, did or dish out.
Again what matters for adults is how we behave, because that is what an adult can control, and our behaviour was disgraceful.
Posted by Dean McAskil on 2008 01 12 at 03:55 AM • permalink#115. We must have different values. What was disgraceful?
The batsmen not walking when they knew they were out? That’s every batsman’s right to remain until the umpire’s decision and if the decision goes their way then good luck for them.
Have you played much cricket?? Did you walk under such circumstances? I doubt it.
I don’t think Clarke or any other Australian would willingly lie about taking a catch if they believed it was a valid catch.
Pontings’ exuberant display upon winning the Test? I saw nothing wrong with his display.
But I did see a lot of petulance and arrogance from the Indian players, their administrators and their supporters.
The Invincibles were so named because ...?
Interesting article in The Australian.All the claims by Roebuck, JohnA and Dean have disintegrated and they’ve just retreated into vague, subjective assertions about the “spirit of the game”. I believe in the spirit of the game too, but I just don’t see that Australia undermined it. I just don’t see that they behaved badly. I just don’t see what justified picking on them. There just is nothing specific that these people can put their finger on that justifies saying that Australia is so bad, and worse than in previous years. Anyone who follows the game without an agenda, or without a need to prostrate themselves before the latest PC pieties, knows that they’re actually much better behaved now than they have been for a long time.
Nor did I hear any of the Australians say that bad behaviour is ever justified by them being “hard”.
Posted by Blithering Bunny on 2008 01 12 at 06:05 AM • permalinkJohn A said:
>So the stitches were only applied by the doctor when Ponting was out. As far as anyone on the field was concerned, he got a small cut from his helmet which required a plaster.I remember that blow. It was a nasty one, not just a regulation bump on the head, and the English deliberately made a point of appearing unconcerned in order to seem hard. Fair enough, but don’t apply double standards. (I should also point out that many Englishmen admired them for doing that).
As for Agnew, he’s even more of a twit than Roebuck, and unlistenable. When in the UK I find even the buffoons on Sky and the commercials preferable to listening to him on the BBC. At least Roebuck carefully chooses the crap he says, whereas Agnew just constantly dribbles out whatever inane comment is in his head at the time.
Posted by Blithering Bunny on 2008 01 12 at 06:20 AM • permalink#115, why are you being so obtuse?
What I am saying, and so many others are saying, is that Australia’s behavior was not and has never been nearly as bad as it is being painted.
The simple fact is, if you’re talking Spirit of the Game, which is very much about Accepting The Umpire’s Decision, Australia has - in this series, and every other series - always played the game as it should be played.
We HAVE accepted the umpire’s decision, sometimes very bad decisions, and never threatened to take our bat and go home, never burnt anyone in effigy, never demanded a change of umpire, never demanded a referee’s decision be reversed. We have ALWAYS taken it on the chin - wrong decisions that cost Alan Border a series win against the Windies back when we hadn’t beaten them in a decade; decisions that lost the Ashes; especially appalling decisions in India and Pakistan before two neutral umpires were brought in. All of it, we just took on the chin and worked harder to win the next time - and did.
We’ve put up with blatant chuckers from Sri Lanka and India. The one from India has now inflamed relations by a second racist comment, and again, our captain has been true to the laws of the series and the spirit of the game - and of basic morality - by reporting it.
And yet, who do you attack?
You are an absolute mug.
It should also not be forgotten than in trying to save that game they resorted to deliberate time wasting by the last batsman coming out with 2 right gloves!!
Can you imaging the furore if Ponting had claimed the batsman was timed out having not reached the crease in the required 3 minutes under the rules?
The Indians were engaging in clearly unsportsman like behaviour with that ruse yet little or nothing has been said from these scribes who have been so quick to slag off at Ponting.
Thanks Morty.
Yes John A, Dean etc. Why don’t you get your tits in a twist about that one? Or is it because it doesn’t suit your agenda?
Received by email this morning:
MEDIA RELEASE - From the International Cricket Council for immediate release (especially in India).
The ICC has announced several changes to the playing conditions for the forthcoming 3rd test in Perth between Australia and India. These changes include:
* India must win.
* The umpires shall be nominated by the Indian team. It will be acceptable if reserve Indian players rotate as umpires.
* During the game all appeals shall be referred to the Indian management team and the Indian media contingent prior to any decision being made. (This includes where an Indian player may appear, to the naked eye, to have been bowled.)
* When the Indian team is batting the boundary rope shall be moved inwards 20 metres.
* Australian bowlers shall bowl under arm.
* India must win.
* Any time Ricky Ponting is on the field he shall be restrained in a full length strait jacket and muzzled.
* Any Australian spin bowler must advise the batsman in advance what type of delivery is going to be bowled.
* At any time Andrew Symons is on the field he must where a gorilla suit and accept any sledging in the light hearted manner that
this is intended.
* India must win.
* Harbhajan Singh will be cleared on appeal and be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.
* Indian batsman may be permitted to use larger bats.
* Australian batsmen may use a bat every fifth over.
* Australian fieldsman should praise every batting attempt by the Indians by saying “Good shot chaps.” Apart from this Australian players are not permitted to speak.
* During the lunch and tea break both teams shall get together and have a cup of tea.
* India must win. The ICC and the BCCI hope that all Australians will understand these minor changes are intended in the best interest of the game.
The ICC would also like to announce that Steve Bucknor has been appointed as the ICC’s new cricketing ambassador to Kazikstan. The ICC wishes Steve all the best in this important, newly created role.Posted by AlphaMikeFoxtrot on 2008 01 12 at 05:56 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Roebuck’s problem is that he needs the Australian cricket team more than they need him.
His very job depends on having the ear of key people at the ACB and in the team, and if they think he’s got a grudge against the Captain, well goodbye Pete.
What’s the point of a cricket journo who’s in Coventry with the cricket establishment?
Hence Pete sends up the white flag today.
I’d love to be a fly on the wall next time Ponting bumps into Roebuck - probably at the WACA.