Waugh's ugly Australians - Roebuck's poison pen

[knuckles]

I've said this for several years. The most unlikeable team Australia has ever produced. A marketing nightmare.

Waugh's ugly Australians

May 14 2003


From a distance it must seem that this Test match has been a glorious occasion. Unfortunately it has been nothing of the sort and even a rousing finale will not save it from the acrimony that has been its main feature.

Regardless of the result, the Australians have done nothing to enhance their reputations as sportsmen. If victory cannot be achieved without recourse to the sort of antagonism seen in Antigua, then it is not worth bothering about.

Cricket searched for a champion team and found only an unscrupulous aggressor.

This match has been spoiled by numerous ugly confrontations, setting a mood to which the crowd responded by jeering and throwing bottles when a poor decision was given against the local man. Throughout, the Australians have appeared in a poor light.

Admittedly the visitors were not solely responsible for the incidents seen upon the field but they cannot keep provoking opponents and then recoil whenever someone reacts as Brian Lara did in the first innings and Ramnaresh Sarwan in the second, on day four.


Opponents are allowed to have their say.

Sarwan clashed with Glenn McGrath whose mood was not helped by the punishment he was taking. Words were exchanged as the batsman completed a run, the young Guyanese reacting to some perceived insult issued as the bowler turned away from the direction of the ball and the following cameras.

Inevitably the situation swiftly deteriorated with McGrath pointing fingers, calling names and marching across to the batsman, who was not himself behaving like little Lord Fauntleroy.

As usual the Australians hunted as a pack with others joining the fray.

Not for the first time, Steve Waugh failed comprehensively to pour cold water on these fraying tempers, a reluctance that must put his position in doubt. Far from intervening, he let matters run along and left it to the umpires to settle things down.

In the laws of cricket, it states that captains are responsible for ensuring that their players maintain the spirit of the game.

Patently, the Australians had decided to turn up the heat after the tea interval, directing their attentions at Sarwan in an attempt to rattle an opponent inclined to let his emotions run away with him.

Waugh has done many fine things but he does not protect the game that has been his living.

Nor did these nasty moments improve Australia's performance. Patently the Australians lost their focus on the first day and did not recover it. Normally, the battle between the ears belongs to them. Instead Waugh's players became carried away in a manner not seen for years.

On this fourth day they lacked the control expected from professionals performing in public. After bowling with commendable control in the morning they allowed themselves to be distracted from their plan. Controlled aggression has been their strong point. A wilder variety of the same genus was their undoing.

These outbursts spoilt a day full of compelling cricket. It has not all been bad from the Australians. Over the past couple of days there have been two moments of sporting beauty - Adam Gilchrist's walk after touching the ball in the second innings and the piece of bowling that ended Lara's innings.

Gilchrist is emerging as a remarkable sportsman, unselfish, entertaining and concerned enough about his fellow man to consider making a protest during the World Cup match in Bulawayo.

MacGill's removal of Lara deserves a longer description. Suffice to say that he kept his field up, tossed the ball wider and fooled a batsman slow to sense danger.

Otherwise the last two days have belonged to the West Indies.

Sarwan played brilliantly and bravely only to throw his wicket away after reaching three figures.

Shivnarine Chanderpaul has many faults, misses numerous matches, repeatedly leaves the field and sometimes sulks - but when the force is with him his batting is a joy to behold.

Alongside his youthful partner he took the West Indies to the brink of an extraordinary victory.

When the Australian openers were motoring along at 0-242 the previous morning, it hardly seemed possible that within 30 hours the same tourists would be fighting to save the match.

And so the Australians were left to reflect upon the mistakes and self-indulgences that had allowed their opponents back into the match.

[Squeak]

Can't help but agree with all of that.

Having James Sutherland as a guest lecturer in a couple of weeks. Will be interesting to find out if the sponsors have spoken up about the on-field demeanour.

[Black Thunder]

Can't see how this is not a marketable team giving how much sponsorship Australian Cricket currently gets.

[Dogwatcher]

Funny isn't it that Mr Roebuck forgets the extremely aggressive nature of the previous team to rule world cricket in this way - the West Indies themselves.
It's the nature of the game as it has evolved.
The West Indies were the master of the art of 'mental disintegration' as it is being played by the Aussies now.
I'm not saying it's right - but the Aussies are no orphans. Does Mr Roebuck think Viv Richards had any respect or concern about the feelings of opponents? No, way Richards was an arrogant cricketer and an arrogant man AND he led his team in the same way and allowed them to act in the same way. It's all about confidence and controlling the psychology of the game.
A champion team exploits its dominance because it can.
Apparently Mr Roebuck wants a team of champions which handles its opponents with kiddy gloves.
I certainly wont be complaining when West Indies, Pakistan or India gain the upper hand and treat Australian playerws the same way. If they are on top they deserve to be there and give whatever they can while they can.

[shiva25]

Mcgrath would have to be the biggest d1ckhead in world cricket as he has embarassed himself and the whole Australian side with his outbursts in the last test match.Surely if he is going to dish it out he should be able to cope with getting it back and i applaude the Windies for standing up to this arrogant *****.

[Black Thunder]

I posted this on cricketweb.net's cricket forum, on a similar topic.


Who really cares?? People will point anything and everything to try and cut this team back down.

They win on the field, and thats all that matters for mine. Things get a bit out of hand as they do in every sport. The McGrath/Sarwan incident is one of the only thing that I've found to be a bit over the top.

The other one being the Slater incident on the Indian tour a few years back when he absolutely went hell for leather on Dravid.

Not to many others which have bothered me all that much.

But people don't seem to bothered to get on the backs of other teams and if they do, they are quickly forgotten - the Arjuna I need a runnertunga incident when he walked his blokes off the field cause he didn't agree with the ump.

Or what about the intimidation the Windies would use as part of the armoury during their great hey day years of the 70's and 80's.

"Brett Lee soured the Ashes win with bouncers at the tailenders"

BOOOO FRIGGITY HOOOO what a load of crap.

Off the field they seem like pretty good guys and appear to be easy going, but on the field they go hard and teams just simply have to give it back, instead of whinging and complaining.


The Brett Lee quote was taken from an article someone posted in the threat state that the Ashes win was soured due to Brett Lee's bowling bouncer at the tailenders, and all in honestly, who can seriously even recall that now??

It was forgotten within a month basically.

[goaldrush]

Peter Roebuck, who's he?

Not meaning to be rude here, but wtf did he decide to criticise the Australian Cricket team for?

He is really harsh on the aussies. He is a South African by birth. So maybe he might be a little jealous of us.:mad: :mad:

[DaveW]

Roebuck is rather fickle on this subject. I've heard him laud the dominant Australian side in the past. I don't take much notice of what he says.

Nor will I take much notice of yet another troll from that ignoramus Suzi. :rolleyes:

[Holycrap]

Whatever Roebuck says, the Australian cricket teams biggest weakness is and always when they are given back what they have dished out.

[Booze Hound]

Originally posted by goaldrush
He is really harsh on the aussies. He is a South African by birth. So maybe he might be a little jealous of us.:mad: :mad:

Pardon.

Born in Oxford, England to British parents methinks........

Holycrap has it right IMO

[Slax]

Originally posted by Dogwatcher
Funny isn't it that Mr Roebuck forgets the extremely aggressive nature of the previous team to rule world cricket in this way - the West Indies themselves.
It's the nature of the game as it has evolved.
The West Indies were the master of the art of 'mental disintegration' as it is being played by the Aussies now.
I'm not saying it's right - but the Aussies are no orphans. Does Mr Roebuck think Viv Richards had any respect or concern about the feelings of opponents? No, way Richards was an arrogant cricketer and an arrogant man AND he led his team in the same way and allowed them to act in the same way. It's all about confidence and controlling the psychology of the game.
A champion team exploits its dominance because it can.
Apparently Mr Roebuck wants a team of champions which handles its opponents with kiddy gloves.
I certainly wont be complaining when West Indies, Pakistan or India gain the upper hand and treat Australian playerws the same way. If they are on top they deserve to be there and give whatever they can while they can.

Dogwatcher you're full of shlt.

The West Indies in their period of dominance never ever degraded the game of cricket in the way in which this Australian team has.

The WI fast bowlers never came in with the idea in their head that they would try and cause physical injury to tail-enders like Brett Lee has.

The great WI batsmen never showed disrespect for umpiring descision like Langer and Waugh have so many times.

None of them carried on berrating an oppossition player off the pitch or hold the same grudge for years like McGrath does.

None of them pretended to be sportsmen because they all were true sportsmen.

In the current Australian team there are 4 sportsmen only:
Adam Gilchrist, Andy Bichel, Darren Leahman, Jason Gillespie.

Mathew Hayden and Martin Love are borderline

The other 5:
Steve Waugh, Justin Langer, Brett Lee, Stuart MacGill, Glen McGrath don't even get close to being sportsmen or gentlemen. I wouldn't **** on any of them if they were on fire (unless I ****ing an excelarent).

[Squeak]

The worst thing is they are happy to dish it out, but think no-one else has the right to.

[Booze Hound]

Originally posted by Slax
Dogwatcher you're full of shlt.

The WI fast bowlers never came in with the idea in their head that they would try and cause physical injury to tail-enders like Brett Lee has.



I would disagree a little with that. I recall them 'going after' Pat Po****, a true rabbit at the Oval in one Test match. It wasn't pleasant (I spoke to Pat's mother the following morning and she said she was very scared). There were other instances - always excepting Holding and Roberts who were true gents.

For a couple of years around 1983 I was convinced that Malcolm Marshall was deliberately trying to hit and hurt batsmen, tailenders included. He did so a few times.

I would also agree about Viv Richards arrogance. I knew someone who was in direct contact with all the players (he was a dressing room attendant at the Oval) for years. He would speak very highly of most - the likes of Clive Lloyd, Greenidge, Haynes and Botham in particular - but if you mentioned Viv's name ..........

[Holycrap]

Originally posted by Booze Hound
For a couple of years around 1983 I was convinced that Malcolm Marshall was deliberately trying to hit and hurt batsmen, tailenders included. He did so a few times.

I suppose it's the fast bowlers mentality - if you hit me, l'll hit you - every fast bowler has this inside them - as the Poms of 77 when Thommo was unleashed?!

As for Viv, he learnt at an early age that to beat the Australian teams, you had to play like them in terms of talent and verbally as well.

[GhostofJimJess]

Originally posted by Slax
Dogwatcher you're full of shlt.

The West Indies in their period of dominance never ever degraded the game of cricket in the way in which this Australian team has.

The WI fast bowlers never came in with the idea in their head that they would try and cause physical injury to tail-enders like Brett Lee has.

The great WI batsmen never showed disrespect for umpiring descision like Langer and Waugh have so many times.

None of them carried on berrating an oppossition player off the pitch or hold the same grudge for years like McGrath does.

None of them pretended to be sportsmen because they all were true sportsmen.

In the current Australian team there are 4 sportsmen only:
Adam Gilchrist, Andy Bichel, Darren Leahman, Jason Gillespie.

Mathew Hayden and Martin Love are borderline

The other 5:
Steve Waugh, Justin Langer, Brett Lee, Stuart MacGill, Glen McGrath don't even get close to being sportsmen or gentlemen. I wouldn't **** on any of them if they were on fire (unless I ****ing an excelarent).

I have to agree on most of that, slax.

I also think that some folks are trying to re-write history - the Windies of the 70's and 80's did not ever make a habit of intimidating opposition teams based on personal attacks, whether they be racial, sexual or whatever.

They intimidated the opposition because they were such great cricketers. They were simply relentless with their batting, bowling and fielding from go to whoa ... (as are the current Aussies by the way, but they've added that extra abusive ingredient into their recipe for success)

There was very, very rarely mid-pitch conflict, or face-to-face verbalisations between fielders and batsmen when the Windies were at their peak ... just plenty of swagger and mid-pitch high-fives.

The closest they ever got to such conflict was probably Haynes and Healy, though that was arguably well after the Windies were a real major power anyway, AND there was some hint in a couple of the books that were published after that series that Desmond was simply responding to racial taunting. Questionable, but possible.

[skilts]

IMO, the antics of a previous West Indies teams has as much relevance to this debate as the performance of the Australian team under Ian Chappell. Yep, this is where it all started. Chappell has a lot to answer for.

It was reported on 3AW by Dwayne Russell that the conversation went something like this:

MCGRATH: "How's your sleeping with Brian Lara going?"

SARWAN: "Why don't you ask your wife?"

McGrath gets upset. What an idiot.

For too long Aussies have excused the behaviour of the Test team, because they were winning, and that's all that matters. The problem I have with sledging is that it can cut both ways. The Australian buffoons do it to try to gain an edge over their opponents. Is it not just possible that the reverse will happen, and as happened in this case, an inglorious loss occurs? Make no mistake this WAS an inglorious loss.

Personally, if somebody sledged me while I was batting it meant three things. Firstly, I'd been out there long enough. Secondly, it meant they were worried enough about me to mouth off. Thirdly, it made me more determined that the mothers wouldn't get me out. I truly think the Austraian team are too dumb to have ever thought about these outcomes.

I'll tell you how the doctrine of Chappell has affected cricket at lower levels. Every appeal turned down by an umpire is now seen by the players as an invitation to debate. Accordingly, rather than accepting decisions the players get themselves in a knot, the tension mounts and you end up with a situation.

The way decisions are now dissected on TV has a lot to do with this too. I just love it when they show a decision twelve times and finally, they are able to conclusively 'prove' that the umpire got it wrong. They were unsure after the first eleven replays, but thereafter the last replay is shown over and over as an example of incompetence of umpires. Of course the camera doesn't lie.

IMO, McGrath copped his right whack from Sarwan and I laugh uproariously when I see him offended by something said to him. What a clown. Still, he's in good company. The loss by Australia is a bonus to come out of this, but it will be a cold day in hell before any of them learn anything from it.

As someone said on ABC radio yesterday, "In what other workplace would this sort of abusive behaviour not bring legal censure?" They are professionals, aren't they? It's about time they acted like ones.

[The_Flying_Egg]

If what Dwayne Russell says is true, McGrath's even more of a sook than I thought he was. Sarwan has a right to feel ****ed off, as its been made to look as though he was sledging about her cancer or something, when he said nothing wrong at all

The Aussie cricket team has a fair few ********s in my opinion (Lee, McGrath, Waugh and sometimes Ponting)

Luckily guys like Bichel, Hogg, Gillespie and Maher give the team a better look :)

[Holycrap]

Originally posted by skilts
I'll tell you how the doctrine of Chappell has affected cricket at lower levels. Every appeal turned down by an umpire is now seen by the players as an invitation to debate. Accordingly, rather than accepting decisions the players get themselves in a knot, the tension mounts and you end up with a situation.


You may be right Skilts but I listened to Chappell in references to Aussie bowlers firing the ball directly at the batter with the so callede intentions being the stumps..."If l was the batter, l'd swat that ball away to the boundary....l'd bet that will shut him up."

.

[kretchy]

Originally posted by Holycrap
If l was the batter, l'd swat that ball away to the boundary....l'd bet that will shut him up."
Would you get four for that or what?

[red+black]

Originally posted by Holycrap
You may be right Skilts but I listened to Chappell in references to Aussie bowlers firing the ball directly at the batter with the so callede intentions being the stumps..."If l was the batter, l'd swat that ball away to the boundary....l'd bet that will shut him up."

.

I think this needs to be outlawed. Far too often the Aussies throw the ball back at the batsmen (not the stumps). If it happens once, it should be a first warning. A second time, expelled from the bowling attack for the rest of the match.

If the batsman is simply out of his crease, that is not justification for a bowler to aggressively throw the ball at them.

It's ugly unsportsmanlike cricket.

[Holycrap]

Originally posted by kretchy
Would you get four for that or what?

I believe you would as the ball is still in play and you could have every right to defend yourself *wink*

[Dogwatcher]

Ive been told I'm full of **** - so I might have to come back.
Yes McGrath went overboard, def agree there.
However, lax you said the West Indies weren't like that:

Ambrose - Geoffrey Lawson, broken jaw. It wasnt deliberate but it was still a short ball at a tail ender.
McDErmott called a white coward.
Michael Holding kicking over a set of stumps because a decision went against him.
Greenidge was always very arrogant.
Richards even went so far as to call Healy a cheat when he (richards) wasnt even playing but was involved as a WI official - that sort of comment from an Australian wouldve been censured but because it was Viv it was ok.
Ambrose and the arm band incident with Dean Jones - sure Jones was stupid to take the big man on but he had a right.

TV coverage has upped the ante since those days -which aren't that long ago. hence we are seeing more of it than we were then.
I'm not saying its how the game should be played...but thats how it is played now. We want profesional sportsmen playing as if their life depends on it providing more and more highlights playing mroe games - well we got it.

[fitzmantle]

I love my cricket & I always make it too a few games at the WACA. But I always make sure these games I go to, dont involve Aust. Ive noticed a few people have become aware the Aust Team are %$^er's
1. Run down the pitch every ball & tell the batter to ##$% off
2. Appeal for catches that landed 3ft in front
3. Complain about supporters booing you
4. Acting like Wan?ers against countries like Namibia

And Austrailia Cricket Team vs
NZ = 3 Millionn Pop.
WI = Soccer / Basketball
Eng = Private Schools
SA /Zim= White Upperclass
Ind/Pak/SL/Ban = Underveloped

Where the only god dammned country that plays the bloody game?

[Nige_Bix]

Originally posted by skilts


MCGRATH: "How's your sleeping with Brian Lara going?"

SARWAN: "Why don't you ask your wife?"

I've heard the language used was bit more explicit and colourful than that - but then I have had more than one version.

[skilts]

Originally posted by dezzmo
I've heard the language used was bit more explicit and colourful than that - but then I have had more than one version.

No reason to doubt what you say. Dwayno probably cleaned it up for radio, and for BF.

[Portmagpies]

Blaming Ian Chappell for the current behaviour of the Australian side is patently wrong. Admittedly, his side was full of first class sledgers, but they also had respect for the traditions of the game and were sportsmanlike. Witness Rod Marsh's call back of Derek Randall in the '77 Centenary Test (Yes I know Ian Chappell had retired then, but the team largely consisted of players he had led). Perhaps if Steve Waugh had admitted he grassed that catch in the West Indies back in '95, or Ian Healy had admitted he muffed the stumping of Brian Lara back in '92/93, the current criticism of Australian cricketers would not be so vehement or universal. And to reinforce the low standards to which they have sunk, one only has to go back to the last test and the disgraceful dismissal of Ridley Jacobs. No skipper worth their grain of salt would have taken that wicket.

[Wicked Lester]

I suspect the subtle difference many of us feel regarding the Australian team of the 70's was that while they dished it out, they copped plenty back and seemed to be able to take it.

This current mob appear to be classic bullies. They dish it out - but the moment someone takes the fight up to them in they carry on like sooks.

[Dogwatcher]

Originally posted by Wicked Lester
I suspect the subtle difference many of us feel regarding the Australian team of the 70's was that while they dished it out, they copped plenty back and seemed to be able to take it.

This current mob appear to be classic bullies. They dish it out - but the moment someone takes the fight up to them in they carry on like sooks.

Fair call.

[Dipper]

Originally posted by GhostofJimJess
ingredient into their recipe for success)

There was very, very rarely mid-pitch conflict, or face-to-face verbalisations between fielders and batsmen when the Windies were at their peak ... just plenty of swagger and mid-pitch high-fives.

The closest they ever got to such conflict was probably Haynes and Healy, though that was arguably well after the Windies were a real major power anyway, AND there was some hint in a couple of the books that were published after that series that Desmond was simply responding to racial taunting. Questionable, but possible.


I got particualry turned off of the West Indies by an episode with Desmond Haynes, England of course copped the biggest hidings at the hands of the 80s Windies sides, two 5-0s & a 4-0 in 84,86 & 88 tell's the story pretty clearly & I'm sure that for a man such as Viv Richards as well as a few others there was a sense of putting the white colonialists to the sword & I can't blame them for that, I'm sure that down the years there's been a similar thoguh not as accute feeling amongst Aussie cricketers when facing England.

What got my goat after taking all these beatings was that we went on tour there in 89 with what many considered to be the worst England side to leave these shores, most of our bolwers had signed up for South Africa & were banned, we'd just been thumped by Australia, Gooch was the new captain & no one here gave us a hope in hell in a 5 match series in the West Indies.

Well bugger me if we didn't win the 1st Test & unearth 2 new bowlers in Malcolm & Fraser, I think the next Test was drawn & then in the 3rd we were in aposition to win, Haynes was captain in Richards absense & he slowed the whole game down to a ridiculous level, & there were breaks for rain at one of these breaks Stewart was walking off the pitch with Haynes right in his face absuing him all the way back to the pavillion, Stewart just did a very good impression of having a stiff upper lip & in the end due to the disagrceful over rate we couldn't get the win we deserved.

At some point Gooch had his hand broken, he was out, we lost the 4th Test with a good rear guard effort & then were destroyed in the last which was played straight after & the wheels had fallen off.

What upset me was that after years of beating everyone & being particularly brutal on England that when the time came that they looked like losing to perhaps the pluckiest England side that I've ever seen Desmond Haynes resorted the lowest level of gamesmanship that I've ever witnessed.

So when Windies cricket collapsed & they plummeted to new depths there was nobody happier than me.

As for Windies bowlers trying to hurt people, check out the whole 84 5-0 series & you'll see it's true plus Patrick Patterson in the 1st Test at Sabina Park in 86 was pretty scary on a 2 paced pitched.

I think Patterson definitely wanted to hurt people, has anyone on here heard the story of when he met Don Bradman?very funny.:D

[sandeano]

http://sport.guardian.co.uk/cricket/comment/0,10070,955368,00.html

Aussies win matches but lose friends

Waugh's team is under fire, even at home.

Chris Ryan reports in Sydney
Wednesday May 14, 2003
The Guardian

There will be no tickertape parades for Australia's cricketers when they start drifting home from the Caribbean today, just as there were none two months ago when they retained the game's most glittering prize.

Steve Waugh's World Cup-winning team of 1999 was met with street parades in three cities and a glitzy reception at the national parliament. All Ricky Ponting's men got, four years later, was a crummy lunchtime meet-and-greet in faraway Perth.

Partly this was a result of the jam-packed itinerary. Partly it was to do with the suspicion that Australia's opponents, all a jumble, had presented them with the World Cup on a platter. But mostly it was because many Australians, much as they love their national side, do not actually like them.

According to a recent survey 52% of Australians believe the current team is the best in the nation's history. Far fewer would call it the greatest. There is a subtle distinction.

To be the best means scoring more runs more quickly and more regularly than anyone else. To be the greatest means doing all that but doing it with a certain charm and grace too. It means filling your boots with runs and your fans' hearts with pride.

It is the great paradox of Waugh's leadership: his team has reinvented the game with its clean-hitting approach yet repulsed many of its followers with its boorishness. Waugh has created a monster.

"When I played, captains took a more dominant role in ensuring the spirit of the game wasn't broken," says Brian Booth, an Australian captain of the 1960s.

"This sledging - I just think it's a cancer of the game. It's unnecessary. Our kids look up to our top players: they want to be like their heroes. That concerns me more than anything. I must confess I lose a bit of interest when they behave that way."

This week's final Test in Antigua, replete with much shouting and finger-wagging, was a typical five days in the office for the Australians. It caps a seven-month stretch of unprecedented success: they won an Ashes series, a World Cup and 10 out of 12 Tests. More often than not, however, those feats were upstaged by an equally unprecedented trail of smutty misdemeanours.

The Ashes wipeout was soured when Brett Lee headhunted England's tail-enders in the closing minutes at Perth. The World Cup triumph was overshadowed by Shane Warne popping banned pills to improve his appearance. Then there were the distractions of Darren Lehmann, who bellowed "black ****s" after an untimely dismissal against Sri Lanka.

Meanwhile the South African batsman Graeme Smith alleged that Lee threatened to "****ing kill me" and Warne "calls you a **** all day".

Still, it was the lack of contrition that bugged people most. "It's part of the game," declared Glenn McGrath. "As soon as he realises it, the better."

Lehmann's outburst was explained away as being "in the heat of the moment", as if that made it OK. "He calls a spade a spade," said his team-mate Jimmy Maher, "which is not necessarily a bad thing." This was the same Jimmy Maher who once called Aboriginal people "coons" when interviewed during a post-victory drinkathon in Brisbane eight years ago.

Put together, it all adds up to a team that is hard to like: a macho, blokey institution, out of step with community attitudes.

"I think Australians are torn," says Hugh Mackay, a veteran writer and social commentator. "There's enormous pride in a team that keeps winning but a lot of Australians are simultaneously uneasy. Waugh is a mystery to many cricket lovers because he is such an enthusiast for the game's traditions: the way he wears his ancient baggy green cap. He's regarded as a really decent bloke yet he's captain of the great sledging team."

The side's mostly white composition only adds to the impression of an XI that is unrepresentative of the wider population. Indians, Pakistanis and Sri Lankans have been migrating down under for decades, yet none has cracked the Test team since the Sri Lankan-born Dav Whatmore 25 years ago.

Australia have fielded no Asian internationals, and only one player - Jason Gillespie - with Aboriginal heritage. Aborigines make up 8% of AFL footballers but only 0.46% of first-class cricketers since 1998. Apart from alienating its existing audience, Australian cricket risks doing too little to win over a new one.

The team's poor image, says Gerard Henderson, director of the Sydney Institute, a political think-tank, has as much to do with the people as the players. Society has grown more conservative and pitch microphones more intrusive. Mums and dads balk at violence on TV. When Ian Chappell's Australians talked dirty in the mid-70s it was tempting to dismiss them as larrikins. Now players, with their high profiles and even higher wages, must be role models too.

"You've got to behave in such a way," says Henderson, "that parents will say: 'Shane Warne's a good bloke - you should be like him.' But if Shane Warne's busy cursing and bullying people it's hard to say that."

All fair points. But none of them answers a simple question. Why, when you are thrashing everyone, do you need to point and swear and carry on like boors?

"I know the guys," Tim May, head of the players' association, said recently. "And they're good blokes. They are good, good fellows."

He is probably right. But the reality does not match the perception and Australians are unwilling to take his word for it. Winning matches is one thing. Winning friends is altogether trickier.

-----------------------------------------------

Yes, this is pretty sadly the case as far as I am concerned. It is moreso the pity because, as world champs, I do believe that the Aussies are 'custodians' of the game, that they are taking it into the future and shaping it for each new team to come. Now perhaps it is just plain naive of me, but I do think that a little old fashioned decency and sportsmanship would not go astray.

Funny, isn't it, that in footy when a couple of opposing players come to blows (either verbally or physically) we barely bat an eyelid, yet in cricket the merest pointing of fingers leaves us saddened and a little disillusioned with our team. Goes to show just how delicate the fabric of cricket is adn just how careful the Australian team really should be when on the field.

[Booze Hound]

Originally posted by DIPPER
Well bugger me if we didn't win the 1st Test & unearth 2 new bowlers in Malcolm & Fraser, I think the next Test was drawn & then in the 3rd we were in aposition to win, Haynes was captain in Richards absense & he slowed the whole game down to a ridiculous level, & there were breaks for rain at one of these breaks Stewart was walking off the pitch with Haynes right in his face absuing him all the way back to the pavillion, Stewart just did a very good impression of having a stiff upper lip & in the end due to the disagrceful over rate we couldn't get the win we deserved.


I recall, as the light faded and England wanted a few runs to win, Ian Bishop (normally a sportsman) taking about five minutes to 'tie a shoelace' which had suddenly come undone half way down his run up and well over 10 minutes (I think it was timed at 13) to bowl an over. Even Tony Cozier - normally a huge apologist for the Windies - was very critical of that.

In one of the Tests Rob Bailey was batting and an appeal down the leg side went up. Replays show the ball having missed the bat by at least a foot - in fact the bat didn't even go to the line of the ball. The umpire gave it not out. Viv Richards sprinted up the pitch from 2nd slip hand raised and screaming. After a few seconds of having Richards screaming into his face the umpire (understandably considering his long term safety) raised his finger.

The BBC Cricket Correspondent, Christopher Martin-Jenkins wrote an article for the following days paper accusing Richards of cheating and bringing the game to a low level.

Richards 'came after' Martin-Jenkins, who fled the ground (again wisely). The fact that the BBC radio commentary team were 'banned' from their box for that day and had to comentate from the stands should also be noted. There was a suggestion that Richards' influence went that far.

I wonder what would have happened if an England captain did something like that (or the Cronje 'stump through the door' incident in Australia the other year)?

[GOALden Hawk]

Originally posted by Booze Hound


In one of the Tests Rob Bailey was batting and an appeal down the leg side went up. Replays show the ball having missed the bat by at least a foot - in fact the bat didn't even go to the line of the ball. The umpire gave it not out. Viv Richards sprinted up the pitch from 2nd slip hand raised and screaming. After a few seconds of having Richards screaming into his face the umpire (understandably considering his long term safety) raised his finger.

The BBC Cricket Correspondent, Christopher Martin-Jenkins wrote an article for the following days paper accusing Richards of cheating and bringing the game to a low level.

Richards 'came after' Martin-Jenkins, who fled the ground (again wisely). The fact that the BBC radio commentary team were 'banned' from their box for that day and had to comentate from the stands should also be noted. There was a suggestion that Richards' influence went that far.


You beat me too it Booze Hound. I have that incident on tape, and believe me, anything an Australian cricketer has done in the past decade pales into comparison against this - easily the worst case of intimidation I've seen.

Add to that other incidents such as Holding kicking over the stumps, Colin Croft deliberately running into an umpire and others already mentioned - and it's plain to see the Windies weren't the high and mighty sportsman some people have said they are. I for one take great joy at their demise, just as other countries will when we hit the skids in coming years (which we will).

What McGrath did was unacceptable - but are Australia alone in bringing the game into disrepute in the past 10 years?

The actions of Ranatunga (racist remarks going unpunished, walking his team off the field), Cronje, Malik, Azharuddin and at times Ganguly and Atherton (ball tampering) have been just as bad, and in the cases of match fixing, far worse.

[Adrian Shelton]

Someones going to wear a bat one day if this stuff doesn't get pulled up. Slats is an angel compared to some of these clowns.

[Dipper]

Originally posted by Adrian Shelton
Someones going to wear a bat one day if this stuff doesn't get pulled up. Slats is an angel compared to some of these clowns.


You've just put the image of Javed Miandad trying to chop Lille in half with his bat after the Dennis has booted him up the arse, hehe that's still one of the funniest things I've seen on a cricket pitch however much it upset the purists.

I just read an interview with Botham this weekend & he said '..after Dennis Lillee I must be the second oldest teenager in the world':D

I just love Dennis Lillee I only wish this country could produce a few like that.(actually one would do)

[Slax]

There have always been incidents on the field that bring the game into disrepute.

W.G. Grace was that arrogant that he once told the umpire 'You can't give me out all these people came to see me not you.'

Douglas Jardine's bodyline series.

Bradman was a huge racist when playing. He didn't even like to have Indians sitting at the same table as him. Plus he would pick most of the side of religious background. If you were Roman Catholic you had to be twice as good to make the side. Only 1 went on the 1948 tour.

Lillee/Javed Minand incedent.

Dean Jones was that arrogant it cost him his spot in the side because the rest of the team couldn't stand him. It's also why he was sacked as Victorian captain.

There will always be incident but this team has been carrying on this behaviour for at least 5 years. It has got worse under Steve Waugh than it was under Taylor and unfortunately Ponting is not a strong enough person to stop it.

The ACB need to appoint a chairman of selectors who will say behave like that and you'll be dropped and do it a few times early, and do it to the likes of McGrath and Lee and then they'll change, until then we've got the worst behaved (elite) team in sport.

[knuckles]

Originally posted by Slax

Bradman was a huge racist when playing. He didn't even like to have Indians sitting at the same table as him. Plus he would pick most of the side of religious background. If you were Roman Catholic you had to be twice as good to make the side. Only 1 went on the 1948 tour.


:eek: Fascinating. That means I would have had to have an average of near 200 to make the side:p And Mrs Knuckles would have to eat scones at another table.:D

[Dogwatcher]

Originally posted by Slax
Bradman was a huge racist when playing. He didn't even like to have Indians sitting at the same table as him. Plus he would pick most of the side of religious background. If you were Roman Catholic you had to be twice as good to make the side. Only 1 went on the 1948 tour.


I'm not saying its wrong - but where is the evidence that Bradman was a rascist?
That's like saying because I don't have a drink with aboriginals at the bar I'm rascist - when it might only be because I don't know them, they aren't in my social circle, or it might be they dont want me drinking with them.
As for the religious background, I've heard this many many times before - but who are the RCs who missed out on a game because of Bradman's supposed selective selection policies?

I'm not sticking up for Bradman because he's a legend of the game, I'm just curious where this information is actually documented.
I know it's rumoured that Tiger said these things - but I've only ever heard it confirmed as rumour, nothing else.

[thehardaway]

Originally posted by Slax
until then we've got the worst behaved (elite) team in sport.

If the Portland Trailblazers ever make the NBA Finals, I will dispute that :D

[Dipper]

Originally posted by Dogwatcher
I'm not saying its wrong - but where is the evidence that Bradman was a rascist?
That's like saying because I don't have a drink with aboriginals at the bar I'm rascist - when it might only be because I don't know them, they aren't in my social circle, or it might be they dont want me drinking with them.
As for the religious background, I've heard this many many times before - but who are the RCs who missed out on a game because of Bradman's supposed selective selection policies?

I'm not sticking up for Bradman because he's a legend of the game, I'm just curious where this information is actually documented.
I know it's rumoured that Tiger said these things - but I've only ever heard it confirmed as rumour, nothing else.


I'm with nyou I'm a bit wary of these sort of statements, also we're judging a man who found his fame in the 1930's by the social standards of the year 2003.

From my own experience many 'old' people, those in their 70s & above here in Britain hold views that the younger generation would hold as blatantly racist & offensive, but these aren't neccessarily nasty people they're just a product of their times.

[IceTemple]

I am just curious to find out where Lee has done such "terrible" things that he gets included in people's comments?

As far as intimidating tail-enders he only did once and suddenly he is labeled! As far as my memory serves me (I'm 36) I have seen this in most fast bowlers. They do it to each other. The Windies did it to the Aussies and the Aussies tried to do the same in the '70's & '80's.

The problem as to why it appears worse -- more media scrutiny. These guys have to write about something as they get paid big bucks to come up with some crap to sell papers. This is just like footy has changed due to the media.

[jozeph]

Originally posted by Slax
There have always been incidents on the field that bring the game into disrepute.



Dean Jones was that arrogant it cost him his spot in the side because the rest of the team couldn't stand him. It's also why he was sacked as Victorian captain.

Since when does arrogance mean bringing the game into disrepute.
The series that Jones got dropped he averaged 70 and the same series M Waugh made 4 ducks in a row against Sri Lanka I think it was.
AB told Jones before his last test 'they are going to drop you mate' and he promptly went out and made a ton, still got dropped though.
The rumour I heard was that Jones was sleeping with Bob Simpson's daughter, ( Selector) Andrew Hilditch's wife, not that that is bringing the game into disrepute.

[grinspoon]

Originally posted by Slax
Dogwatcher you're full of shlt.



In the current Australian team there are 4 sportsmen only:
Adam Gilchrist, Andy Bichel, Darren Leahman, Jason Gillespie.



darren leahman... hmmmmm anyone remember when he said black c@nt

[windyhill]

Why is everyone kicking up a fuss now ? They have been pricks for years these Australian cricketers.