<< POORSCHE ~ MAIN ~ CLIMATE, GEARS CHANGED >>
YESTERDAY’S COLUMN ...
... linked a day late. More about that Roebuck fellow.
UPDATE. Great line from The Serve:
Roebuck single is a hit but the album is a flop
UPDATE II. Menza:
Peter Roebuck is calling for the sacking of Ricky Ponting as he doesn’t play the game in the right spirit.
Well let’s sack Peter Roebuck for writing crap.
UPDATE III. Best comment thus far at the Telegraph:
Stripping your shtick back to its foundations you are an unashamed supporter of economics over society. So its no surprise to see you support the win at all costs mentality of Ponting and Co, as cricket is all about money according to you. So is everything else. The notion of fair play or doing something that is not do with making money is a foreign and indeed contemptible concept to your way of thinking. I know your form. To presume to equate yourself with Roebuck on cricket is just another example of your patrician arrogance. I know Nov 24 is hard to accept but stick to fear mongering and reinforcing pre existing prejudices. That’s your line of work. I look forward to your views on nuclear fusion in the near future.
UPDATE IV. From a free-wheeling Pakistan-hosted thread, here’s Dhonifan:
Does anyone see Ponting resembles Bush? one more reason to dislike him.
UPDATE V. The Age’s Rohan Connolly:
The Australians did shake Indian hands last Sunday, including those of Anil Kumble and the feisty and the equally demonstrative Harbhajan Singh, as they congregated at the boundary minutes after notching up their 16th straight win.
Sadly, the “time limit” imposed by the self-appointed guardians of acts of sporting chivalry had apparently been exceeded. And unfortunately those all-important cameras were by then trained elsewhere.
If they had caught those gestures, given the tendency to turn a momentary graphic image into a philosophical argument, things might have panned out differently.
We might have been spared some of the gratuitous sermonising about sportsmanship. Spared the stream of “Outraged from Beaumaris” letters to the editor. And spared the hysterical calls for the head of one of our finest Test captains and the further denigration of one of our finest Test teams.
I don’t know much about cricket (the commentariat utters a gasp of surprise in unison, sounding like the very bellows of Vulcan), but I know good writing, and that column is chock full of it. I especially liked the introduction describing the special chemistry of “mateship”. Almost makes me wish I were an Aussie, myself.
I shudder to think what this Peter Roebuck would make of American football players.
Ah, but RebeccaH, I smile to think of what American football players would make out of Peter Roebuck…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2008 01 12 at 04:52 PM • permalinkActually, Roebuck withdrew nothing in his second piece. In fact he made the ridiculous statement that it was ‘possible’ there would ‘not be a spill of the leadership’ in the near future.
The prig is in full denial of his own idiocy - perhaps as much as all the BCC of India is..As to spontaneous team celebration after an unexpected result, compare the West Indies in Brisbane at the tied Test in 1961. Not a handshake in view.
#8: Why, thank you, Barrie; that’s the nicest compliment I’ve had in quite a while.
Paco Investments has been entertaining the possibility of making a bid for Australia, but we figure the market value will probably go down after a year or two of Labor governance, so we’re biding our time. After the acquisition, we’ll most likely spin off Rudd, Garrett and Gillard as separate non-operating shell companies.
I would not call Peter Roebuck a snob but a knob, with knobs on.
Posted by stackja1945 on 2008 01 12 at 06:20 PM • permalinkTim Blair attacks fellow journo for expressing his journalist opinion on a game he once played - stop the press!
Well done Timmy! Another blow for Ocker journalism! *clap* *clap* *clap*
Let’s see if Timmy can turn his attentions to other more worthy subjects of scorn:
Jonathan Agnew expressed his opinion. What does he know, the Pommy ponce?
Dennis Lawson referred to the current Australia team as “disgracing the baggy green with their arrogance” - there’s got to be some dirt in Lawson’s past to negate his Test record - come on Timsters, get to it!
Geoffrey Boycott - another Pommy wanker with no Test experience. What does he know? He hit his girlfriend once - something no Aussie would ever stoop to - so what he says about cricket isn’t worth a spit in the Simpson is it?
Justin Langer - never played a decent match for Australia or anywhere ever - implores Australia to not go too far. Yeah he probably wears girls dresses and likes sniffing shoes now that he’s away from his miserable cricket career.
The possibilities are endless! Don’t you see? Tim Blair has spoken, and what wise words they are:
Roebuck isn’t rating Ponting’s captaincy; he’s rating his application to study at prestigious St Tossingtons College, Wankfordshire.
Wow! That must have had Oscar Wilde guffawing in his grave! What a card this Blair fellow is! He should lead Australia, because his credentials for the job are impeccable.
Timmy for PM!
Error check: That’s Geoff Lawson, not Dennis Lawson (whoever he is)
Here’s another Pommy whinger on Australia’s behaviour. Doesn’t realise that its all about winning?
Of all the extraordinary achievements of Australia’s cricketers, which include victories in the past three World Cups and in every Test of the past two years, managing to turn their own public against them must rank high on the list.
The Australian people, conscious of their country’s geographical isolation, know their best chance of making a good impression on the wider world is through sport, and in terms of results their team had been doing them proud. But last week’s antics in Sydney awakened the nation to the win-at-all-costs mentality that governs the Australian dressing room. The team has never been as popular as it ought to be, and it is no coincidence that attendances are in decline, but rarely had an Australian victory owed so much to the refusal of their batsmen to walk or to the fraudulent catches of their fielders.
The response was devastating. An opinion poll in the Sydney Daily Telegraph showed 82% of Australians believed Ricky Ponting was not a great ambassador for the country, and 79% felt the national team did not play within the spirit of cricket. Abusive phone calls were made to Ponting’s parents. The country has its jingoists – three years ago, spectators at Perth, the venue for this week’s third Test, racially abused the South African team – but in the main it is a conservative nation embarrassed by the sharp practice of its representatives.
Geoff Lawson, the Australian fast bowler turned Pakistan coach, accused Australia of arrogance and disrespecting the baggy green cap, while John Ber-trand, the America’s Cup-win-ning yachtsman, called on Cricket Australia to tell its players to show the game more respect.
and Ponting’s behaviour under pressure?
What sticks in the craw is Australia’s double-standards. On the final day in Sydney – two days after the Harbhajan-Symonds flashpoint – Brad Hogg allegedly said to Anil Kumble and Mahendra Singh Dhoni: “I’m looking forward to running through you bastards.” But in the baggy green world, bastards is okay.
And what about this? When South Africa’s Graeme Smith went public with a graphic account of the abuse he received from Warne and Matthew Hayden on his Test debut, Ponting’s reaction was: “I could never imagine an Australian saying he was abused on a cricket field.” That’s the trouble with Ponting. No imagination.
One of the most potent images of last winter’s Ashes was Warne halting play to protest to the umpires at the back-chat from England fielders. Really, how was he supposed to concentrate? Maybe by doing what Australia’s opponents have to do. Deal with it. Then there’s the issue of not walking. Australians invented this form of cheating and whenever they are criticised they trundle out the swings-and-rounda-bouts argument: for every one you get away with, you’ll be wrongly nailed with another, so it all evens itself out.
Except Ponting finds it difficult to take the rough after the smooth. This was what really did for his credibility in Sydney. Having been given an early let-off by the umpire, he threw the toys out of the pram when given out leg-before off an inside edge. It is worth remembering that when Adam Gilchrist made it known at the 2003 World Cup that he intended to walk – and did so– he incurred Ponting’s wrath.
For all this, the Australians don’t like to be accused of not playing by the rules. In their eyes, gamesmanship is one thing, cheating another. That is why Ponting and Symonds, who admitted to not walking when caught behind 30 runs into his innings of 162 in the second Test, rushed to give their versions to the media once the backlash started. They insisted the exchanges with the Indians had been light-hearted. Kumble didn’t agree, saying that “only one team was playing within the spirit of the game”. For Perth, he will probably pull out of his deal with Ponting to accept the other’s word on catches.
It is no coincidence that things got out of hand when Australia had a fight on their hands. Ponting has never whinged better than when Australia were losing in England in 2005. Remember how beastly England were over the use of substitute fielders? Remember how nobody came to ask how Ponting was after being hit by Steve Harmison at Lord’s?
That’s the problem with these has-beens and never-was’s when they’re talking about Australian cricket - they don’t have the great insight of a master tactician and diplomat like Tim Blair.
John A - In how many of those linked articles above called for Ricky Ponting to be sacked as captain? Which was of course entirely the point of Tim’s article.
So how about a round of applause for you, for providing a bunch of links that provide absolutely no counter argument to Tim and for just generally showing yourself to be as big a wanker as Roebuck.
Fuck it, you deserve a standing ovation. *CLAP* *CLAP* *CLAP*
John A - In how many of those linked articles above called for Ricky Ponting to be sacked as captain? Which was of course entirely the point of Tim’s article.
None. The point of Timmy’s article wasn’t to oppose Roebuck’s call for Ponting to be sacked, but to ridicule Roebuck for being a) a Pom b) a former cricketer who never made the Test side and c) a journalist expressing an opinion that Timmy doesn’t like.
Now granted Tim Blair is a journalist of no great repute, exactly where does Blair explain his own cricketing credentials on the finer points of cricket etiquette? Nowhere.
So how about a round of applause for you, for providing a bunch of links that provide absolutely no counter argument to Tim and for just generally showing yourself to be as big a wanker as Roebuck.
No of course not. There’s no counterargument to be had to the Blur cricketing genius at the Daily Telegraph. That’s why I pointed out Geoff Lawson for speaking that Ponting’s Australia was disgracing the baggy green. Not a call for Ponting’s head, but not exactly a ringing endorsement is it?
I have written that had India conducted itself better Ponting would have been more exposed than he was.
If I was the Aussie Cricketing Board I would have:
a) publicly congratulated Australia on the win.
b) publicly backed Australian tactics and sportsmanship in general.
c) privately brought Ponting in and told him in no uncertain terms that if there’s a repeat of the Sydney shenanigans then his days as an Aussie cricketer could be over faster than you can shout “Another KFC Backyard Bucket, please!”
Stands at the bar in Paco’s Cantina, moodily nursing a glass of tequila as two patrons argue with each other over his head.
Juan A: Oye, cricket es un juego de honor. Roebuck tiene razón.
Antonio: Tonto! Tú no sabes nada! Y estás diciendo que Ponting no es un hombre del honor?
Juan A: Todo que estoy diciendo es que nuestro equipo debe compartarse con dignidad.
Antonio: Mientras todos los otros nos tratan como mierda? Que wanker tú eres!
Me ( Knocks back drink and slams glass on bar): Camarero! La cuenta, por favor! Voy a la biblioteca . . .
John A, there are a lot of experienced Oz sports journalists that think Roebuck’s views stink, just as there are many experienced watchers too. I for one will never again have my previous estimate of his intelligence and good sesne.
Ponting’s ‘shenanigans’? Funny how so many saw none at all, only a defence of his serially-abused colleague, according to agreed rules - which Kumble and the BCCI are very confused about right now.
“Justin Langer - - implores Australia to not go too far.”
I fear they will go too far - by winning the next two games, John A, for 18 straight.
By the way, ARE you British?John A: “An opinion poll in the Sydney Daily Telegraph showed 82% of Australians believed Ricky Ponting was not a great ambassador for the country, and 79% felt the national team did not play within the spirit of cricket..”
If you believe these online figures are accurate and not stacked by foreign hits [from India and Indians, say] you’re welcome to your naive opinion.
John A in an earlier, related post:
‘I’m done with this subject. I’ve made my points as well as I can.
Enough’.Got a lot to say for someone done with this subject.
Posted by AlphaMikeFoxtrot on 2008 01 12 at 11:45 PM • permalinkGreat column, Tim, as always.
So
My Liverpool mate summed things up more concisely. “Peter Roebuck”, he said, “is a snob”.
Well, having watched all the test match, viewed the ‘action’, listened to the commentary, read Roebuck and others there’s only one word to summarise Roebuck’s story
... bollocks!
#27 spot on.
Rohan Connolly writes sensibly about hysteria. The Indian players celebrated with the same bouncing, happy huddle after beating Australia by 14 runs after following on - no problems. A team should be able to celebrate a win for a while.
I also think I am done with this subject because we have reached the a fundamental point of difference that is insoluble. It can be demonstrated by the a simple test, handy for media polls and bars:
If you snick the ball and are caught yet the umpire gives you not out, would you walk?
If you answer no, or maybe depending on the stakes, then we have nothing more to discuss. Because only you have to live with yourself and most of the time only you will know.
The problem for people like John A and me is that this is our Australian Cricket Team. It’s played in the spotlight. And having played, (never at any significant level due lack of talent, so I suppose by the logic of some commenters here my opinion is worthless) and used to watching a lot of test cricket, we all have to live with it. And frankly I find Ponting’s behaviour excruciatingly embarrassing, to the point of anger. It is his patronage that gives licence to Symonds actions and the other nonsense this team goes on with.
The walking issue alone is a symptom of a wider malaise in the side. It is not just the odd doubtful appeal or claimed catch. What I view as cheating is virtually team policy.
I reiterate I don’t care what the Indians did or said. They don’t represent my country. Ponting Does.
Sanctimonious? Probably. I certainly didn’t follow the same principles when I played football (the proper football, oval balls and grounds.) And I think the reason for that is the rules of that game are far more subjective. It is rare in football that you will have a better view, or interpretation than the umpire. More so if you are in the thick of the action.
Posted by Dean McAskil on 2008 01 13 at 03:24 AM • permalink#32 That little bleat reeks of so much supercilious smugness, it’s about up there with failing to not gloat over the demise of the last government. Hot tip, it’s not YOUR fucking cricket team. It’s a team of professional sportsmen, engaging in a form of sporting entertainment for money. Nothing more, nothing less. Get over yourself, you wanker. It’s not war, they don’t represent a political point of view, they don’t represent Australia at trade negotiations.
The Australian Test cricket team won a close game of cricket after it appeared that the most favourable result was possibly a draw. If India’s vaunted batsmen had performed better than the Upper Thargomindah State School U/11’s, then this conversation would not be happening.
As it is, they are going to get their asses handed to them on a plate in Perth. With Ricky Ponting as captain. Suck it up princess.#33 Please CB. That kind of response will stir his preppy legal mind and give him a sleepless night and then….another ‘last’ tome tomorrow.
His holier than thou approach has me trying to imagine him playing cricket. I keep seeing a nappy label sticking out the back of his pristine never been muddied whites.
>And frankly I find Ponting’s behaviour excruciatingly embarrassing, to the point of anger.
You still haven’t said what exactly Ponting did that gave you such an “anger hard-on”. I didn’t see anything, so I’m guessing your mental state says a lot more about you than about Ponting.
Posted by Blithering Bunny on 2008 01 13 at 07:06 AM • permalinkNone. The point of Timmy’s article wasn’t to oppose Roebuck’s call for Ponting to be sacked, but to ridicule Roebuck for being a) a Pom…
What utter bullshit. Blair did not have a go at Roebuck for being a Pom. he had a go at Roebuck for being a snob, a sook, a whinger and a sore loser.
He clearly made the point that he has another English friend (from Liverpool), so I cannot see how he holds a prejudice against people for being English. Neither could you, John A, but that didn’t stop you making a total cunt of yourself in making such an accusation.
The point of Blair’s article was to have a shot at Roebuck for Roebuck’s call for the sacking of Ponting, Gilchrist and Hayden.
...c) a journalist expressing an opinion that Timmy doesn’t like.
What? Since when has the opinion of anybody been sacred? People have the right to an opinion, but that does not mean that the opinion cannot be criticised.
The intellectually immaturity of that statement is breathtaking.
There is a simple solution to the problem of walking.
Ban it.
Rephrase the laws so that the batsman is not permitted to leave the crease until the umpire gives a decision, and if the umpire says not out, he stays, no options. This applies even if his stumps are knocked out of the ground. An appeal from the bowling side, and a decision from the umpire, would be required for all dismissals, even in the most obvious cases.
This would in a stroke eliminate any question of cheating, and transfer authority back to where it belongs, with the umpire. Walking is (or can be) a form of dissent, after all.
So the Indians call our blokes monkeys then threaten to take their bat and ball home because they don’t like the umpire’s decision and yet it is OUR blokes who are accuse or being arrogant??? and bad sportsmen, you’ve got to be shitting me JOHN A.. But wait we then learn being called a monkey isn’t racist but being a bastard is. Well tell that to the next african amercian you see, preferably a good old US marine and see how long you stand on your feet for.What really gets up JOHN A and co is that Australia with its pissy population of only twenty million can put a team together to whip the arse of India with its population of what a billion? Finally JOHN A, of course its about winning ,if it wasn’t then why bother keeping score you dickhead.
#32 ‘I find Ponting’s behaviour excruciatingly embarrassing, to the point of anger. It is his patronage that gives licence to Symonds actions and the other nonsense this team goes on with.’
Yes, ‘sanctimonious’ indeed. Have a look at the ICC offence sheet and ex-Captain Ganguly’s [top] and Harbie’s totals. Only McGrath appears in the first 6.
You are blaming the victims here - of Indian hypocrisy.
Evidence? They are taking Hogg to a tribunal to explain ‘bastard’, but some are also wanting to use the Hindi term ‘maa ki’ [motherf**] as an excuse for Harbie, who knows all the English equivalents anyway.. What if he had said ‘Motherf** Bast**’? Hmm.#37 Good points, zscore. Any batsman is within the laws to wait for a decision. If he walks and the umpire would not have given him out, technically he should be listed as ‘retired’; but umpires are too politic to enforce that rule which might reflect back on them - but they do change the WAY a batsman has been dismissed [eg LBW rather than caught with a bat-pad, or caught not stumped] so they can declare a player ‘retired’ too, which would make him look foolish to his team.
#37
This whole ‘he shoulda walked’ thing is a steaming crock of shite.In any code of any sport, have you ever seen a player contradict an umpire’s call admitting to their own penalty, EVER? Has any tennis player confessed to the umpire that the other players ball was in and to give the points to them? Have you ever seen a soccer player tell the ref, “Okay, I confess, I actually took a dive back there”. Or a rugby player advising the ref that the ball was actually held up and there is no need to go to the video ref.
Why is it suddenly an indictable offense in cricket to wait for the umpires call and for these players to now be branded as cheats?
Good to see the real John A appear. I suspected all along that the only encounter you’d had with a cricket bat involved a tub of KY and now I know it. Your appearance here was nothing more than an opportunity to stick it to Blair.
Dean McAskil - What does that rareified air in which you soar, taste like? And may I enquire as to what you paid for your ivory tower?
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2008 01 13 at 07:58 PM • permalinkGreat column, Tim. I have been shaking with fury since Roebuck’s initial waste of ink last week. You have given the man the sound buttock-thrashing he so badly needed.
Incidentally, I was there on the final day’s play at the SCG and I estimate the time it took for Ponting et al to shake the hands of Kumble et al at approximately 90 seconds.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
I shudder to think what this Peter Roebuck would make of American football players.