Ricky Ponting

[RoyalBlue]

While a few people are going to come out and say 'who the **** is Peter Roebuck??? w***er OMG ROFL'.

How about something in Crikey from our man, Charles Happel?

2. Another hollow victory for Australian cricket

Charles Happell writes:


Can there have been a more hollow win in Australian sport? From day one to day five, the second Test match at the SCG was rotten to the core, tainted by appalling umpiring, bad sportsmanship, sledging and, finally, a suspension for racism.

The chain of events that led to Australia’s ‘’triumph’’ over India, starting with the howlers afforded Australian captain Ricky Ponting and Andrew Symonds on the first day, was so embarrassing, it was cringe-making.

Indeed, the Australian victory was so fortunate that it, and the team’s much-trumpeted 16-match winning streak, should forever carry a giant asterisk alongside it in the record books: (*achieved with the help of incompetent umpires and the Australian players’ own double-standards.)

Our reputation for sportsmanship and fair play has taken a battering in the process. Around the world, we are seen as overbearing bullies who happily dish it out on the field but squeal when other teams, such as India, find the gumption to give it back.

If you think that’s an exaggeration, take a look at international cricket websites, such as Cricket365.com and cricinfo.com, and gauge the reaction of the world cricket community to the Australian win. There will be one or two Indian supporters among that lot, to be sure, but just dip your toe in the water there and get a feeling for how the Australian team is viewed out there in the real world, beyond the Channel 9 commentary box, beyond the Cricket Australia offices and beyond the Fanatics’ watermelon helmets.

Even, I suspect, a significant measure of the Australian sporting public will be sitting back today and thinking: fair crack of the whip, did those Indians cop the rough end of the pineapple yesterday or what?

For Anil Kumble and his men, the injustices kept piling higher. Consider a few of them:

- Ricky Ponting stood his ground after gloving a catch down the legside in the first innings. Thirty or so runs later, he had the temerity to glare at the umpire and mutter under his breath when he was on the wrong end of an equally incompetent decision. Sorry, Ricky, old mate, but you can’t have it both ways. Cop it sweet and p-ss off back to the pavilion.

- Andrew Symonds was gifted 131 runs after being given a reprieve by Steve Bucknor’s well-documented shocker in the first innings. Bucknor added to his Aussie run tally in the second innings when a Kumble skidder thudded into Mike Hussey’s pad, just above the ankle while the left-hander was trapped on the crease, and replays clearly showed the ball would have hit leg stump, and probably middle and leg. Mr Cricket went on to add another 120 or more to his tally. Ponting’s first innings bonus included, that’s close to 300 runs gifted the Australians.

- Wonderboy, and future Australian captain, Michael Clarke cuts his first ball in the second innings straight to slip off Anil Kumble and stood his ground, the peroxide-blond punk challenging the umpire to raise his finger - which, thankfully, he did. This enraged Kumble, the Indian skipper, who in complaining after the match about the Australians’ poor sportsmanship, said: "That said it all.’’ Then, at a crucial moment on the last day, Clarke claims a catch at third slip off India’s Sourav Ganguly. Ganguly, mindful of the Australians’ very rubbery morals at times like this, rightly stays in his crease. Umpire Mark Benson does not appear to consult his square-leg colleague, the embattled Bucknor, but accepts the word of Clarke and Ponting, who helpfully indicates with a raised finger his verdict. Benson gives Ganguly out, although TV replays are inconclusive. How the hell are Clarke and Ponting to be trusted in such circumstances? Another nail in the Indian coffin.

- Then, when things get really tense in the middle session, the Australians went up as one in appealing for a caught-behind decision against Rahul Dravid, India’s most obdurate batsman, even though his bat was tucked behind his front leg and the ball clearly flicked his pad. Even goody two-shoes Adam Gilchrist gets caught up in the moment and leads the appeal from behind the stumps. Bucknor raises his finger and the Indians are once more dealt a blow, this one mortal.

So the sense of injustice in the visitors’ dressing room was acute, and understandably so.

Most Australian players believe luck evens itself out over a career, but that philosophy is not shared by all visiting teams. Every summer, the complaint is the same. The touring team leaves these shores feeling dudded - from the English last season to South Africa the year before to Pakistan three summers ago when their coach, the late Bob Woolmer, reckoned Australia received almost six times more line-ball decisions than Pakistan during the 2004-05 series.

Yes, the Australians have got their 16 straight wins, and congratulations to them for that. But who can really take any joy from what transpired at the SCG over the past five days?

 

[roobear]

an intemperate Sikh warrior overreacts, and his rudeness is seized upon.

Fcuk. Off. Being a highly respected journalist permits you to get away with "Mills & Boon" crap like this?

And whatever else happened, the game was still heading for a draw before Clarke came on and took 3 wickets in a few minutes. Anybody denying the Aussies the right to celebrate joyfully at pulling off a last-minute win surely can't be fair dinkum?

Australia itself has been embarrassed.

That's what it all comes down to. People who can't disassociate their perceptions of themselves from those of the team "representing" their country. Does some guy in Rawalpindi think I am a w***er because Brett Lee celebrates too hard when he flukes the wicket of a lower-order batsman? Well if he does, he's a dikchead and I don't care.

 

[Manbearpig]

I have no problem with people calling it a hollow victory, but the Aussie players don't need to be criticised for winning.

If Clarke didn't take those wickets, it would only be a small issue.

 

[roobear]

That Happell piece is more cultural cringe. I think he even uses the word cringe. He also bases most of his argument on the poor umpiring, something nobody denies, and the Aussies can not seriously be blamed for. Again, he asks us to read about what people in other countries are saying about us. As though that should be proof of why we all need to be ashamed. No thanks.

 

[RoyalBlue]

I have no problem with people calling it a hollow victory, but the Aussie players don't need to be criticised for winning.

If Clarke didn't take those wickets, it would only be a small issue.

Criticised for winning?

They're being criticised for being *****.

There is a distinction.

 

[Kangalicious]

Fcuk. Off. Being a highly respected journalist permits you to get away with "Mills & Boon" crap like this?

And whatever else happened, the game was still heading for a draw before Clarke came on and took 3 wickets in a few minutes. Anybody denying the Aussies the right to celebrate joyfully by pulling off a last-minute win surely can't be fair dinkum?



That's what it all comes down to. People who can't disassociate their perceptions of themselves from those of the team "representing" their country. Does some guy in Rawalpindi think I am a w***er because Brett Lee celebrates too hard when he flukes the wicket of a lower-order batsman? Well if he does, he's a dikchead and I don't care.

Completely agree.

Blown out of all proportion.

Absolutely bloody ridiculous article by Roebuck.

 

[RoyalBlue]

That Happell piece is more cultural cringe. I think he even uses the word cringe. He also bases most of his argument on the poor umpiring, something nobody denies, and the Aussies can not seriously be blamed for. Again, he asks us to read about what people in other countries are saying about us. As though that should be proof of why we all need to be ashamed. No thanks.

That bastard, that Charles Happell is pretty dishonest wouldn't you agree roobear?

 

[roobear]

That bastard, that Charles Happell is pretty dishonest wouldn't you agree roobear?

He doesn't strike me as dishonest. In much the same way you don't strike me as an unreasonable or unintelligent person. But I disagree with both of you on this issue.

 

[RoyalBlue]

He doesn't strike me as dishonest. In much the same way you don't strike me as an unreasonable or unintelligent person. But I disagree with both of you on this issue.

Damnit roobear, take the bait

 

[Kangalicious]

He doesn't strike me as dishonest. In much the same way you don't strike me as an unreasonable or unintelligent person. But I disagree with both of you on this issue.

I was with you til then.

 

[giantroo]

Could you be more of a hypocrite?

Nope.

 

[Rick18]

Australian fieldsmen fire insults from the corners of their mouths, an intemperate Sikh warrior overreacts, and his rudeness is seized upon.

There's a difference between 'normal' sledging and racism, and I don't think Roebuck has picked up on that.

 

[DarwinRoo]

Nope.

So its not ok for Kumble to complain about umpiring in a controlled and articulate manner in a press conference but its ok for Ponting to act like a two year old and throw his bat?

 

[Rick18]

So its not ok for Kumble to complain about umpiring in a controlled and articulate manner in a press conference but its ok for Ponting to act like a two year old and throw his bat?

Obviously it's not ok for Ponting to throw his bat like a two year old, but at least he did that in the rooms (or near the rooms), not in public (ala Kumble)

 

[Manbearpig]

So its not ok for Kumble to complain about umpiring in a controlled and articulate manner in a press conference but its ok for Ponting to act like a two year old and throw his bat?

Kumble didn't criticise the umpires in his press conference, he said only one team was playing within the spirit of the game. Which pretty much says he thinks Australia won unfairly.

No matter what happened on the field, that is one of the worst pieces of sportsmanship I have ever heard.

 

[giantroo]

So its not ok for Kumble to complain about umpiring in a controlled and articulate manner in a press conference but its ok for Ponting to act like a two year old and throw his bat?

But did he make it public? Show me footage of it then?

 

[giantroo]

Kumble didn't criticise the umpires in his press conference, he said only one team was playing within the spirit of the game. Which pretty much says he thinks Australia won unfairly.

No matter what happened on the field, that is one of the worst pieces of sportsmanship I have ever heard.

Exactly spot on MBP.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

Rather damning article from arguably the most respected cricket writer in the game today.

Peter Roebuck, normally a fine fellow, needs to have a good lie down in a darkened room. This article is more preposterous than anything that happened on the field.

A few different things have got mixed up here.

1. The Australians are annoying and immodest when they are playing and when they win. The commentators are all banging on about this one, but it's mostly a matter of taste. Plenty of players from plenty of countries could be accused of the same thing. The Flintoff pat on the back for Lee at the moment of victory was praised for its rarity - showing lack of respect for opponents is not an Australian disease. They just show it more because they win more. The two gloves nonsense and other time wasting by India in the last 15 minutes of the game was as unsporting as anything else I saw at the SCG this week.

2. Singh has been banned by a neutral match referee for a racist remark. All countries agreed that racism was not just sledging and needed to be stamped out with automatic reports, hearings and suspensions. No player cold claim to not know that, or not to know what words would cause offence especially after the last series in India. India's argument is with the ICC and the rule, not with Australia - although I'd be surprised if they thought the rule should not exist.

3. The umpiring was ordinary. Not for the first or last time, umpiring had a big impact on a match. Australia took advantage of their lucky breaks and didn't suffer too badly from their unlucky ones - India the opposite. That's probably because they are a clearly better side - and their capacity to roll with umpiring decisions (as well as influence them) is part of what makes them so successful. Other sides do all the same things, just not as well. Again, the argument is with the ICC.

Only one thing - the Australians' manner - is Ponting's responsibility. No way should anyone suggest he be sacked for it.

 

[Manbearpig]

Peter Roebuck, normally a fine fellow, needs to have a good lie down in a darkened room. This article is more preposterous than anything that happened on the field.

A few different things have got mixed up here.

1. The Australians are annoying and immodest when they are playing and when they win. The commentators are all banging on about this one, but it's mostly a matter of taste. Plenty of players from plenty of countries could be accused of the same thing. The Flintoff pat on the back for Lee at the moment of victory was praised for its rarity - showing lack of respect for opponents is not an Australian disease. They just show it more because they win more. The two gloves nonsense and other time wasting by India in the last 15 minutes of the game was as unsporting as anything else I saw at the SCG this week.

2. Singh has been banned by a neutral match referee for a racist remark. All countries agreed that racism was not just sledging and needed to be stamped out with automatic reports, hearings and suspensions. No player cold claim to not know that, or not to know what words would cause offence especially after the last series in India. India's argument is with the ICC and the rule, not with Australia - although I'd be surprised if they thought the rule should not exist.

3. The umpiring was ordinary. Not for the first or last time, umpiring had a big impact on a match. Australia took advantage of their lucky breaks and didn't suffer too badly from their unlucky ones - India the opposite. That's probably because they are a clearly better side - and their capacity to roll with umpiring decisions (as well as influence them) is part of what makes them so successful. Other sides do all the same things, just not as well. Again, the argument is with the ICC.

Only one thing - the Australians' manner - is Ponting's responsibility. No way should anyone suggest he be sacked for it.

Quality post H2H.

We are talking about the same Indian team here who come out to shake hands with their opponents with enthusiasm after they win, but are happy to accidentally forget on many occassions when they lose.

I saw this happen many times in the recent one day series.

Unfortunately the Aussie team are an easy target for criticism for anything they do, no matter the imprefections in many other under performing teams.

 

[Kangalicious]

Peter Roebuck, normally a fine fellow, needs to have a good lie down in a darkened room. This article is more preposterous than anything that happened on the field.

A few different things have got mixed up here.

1. The Australians are annoying and immodest when they are playing and when they win. The commentators are all banging on about this one, but it's mostly a matter of taste. Plenty of players from plenty of countries could be accused of the same thing. The Flintoff pat on the back for Lee at the moment of victory was praised for its rarity - showing lack of respect for opponents is not an Australian disease. They just show it more because they win more. The two gloves nonsense and other time wasting by India in the last 15 minutes of the game was as unsporting as anything else I saw at the SCG this week.

2. Singh has been banned by a neutral match referee for a racist remark. All countries agreed that racism was not just sledging and needed to be stamped out with automatic reports, hearings and suspensions. No player cold claim to not know that, or not to know what words would cause offence especially after the last series in India. India's argument is with the ICC and the rule, not with Australia - although I'd be surprised if they thought the rule should not exist.

3. The umpiring was ordinary. Not for the first or last time, umpiring had a big impact on a match. Australia took advantage of their lucky breaks and didn't suffer too badly from their unlucky ones - India the opposite. That's probably because they are a clearly better side - and their capacity to roll with umpiring decisions (as well as influence them) is part of what makes them so successful. Other sides do all the same things, just not as well. Again, the argument is with the ICC.

Only one thing - the Australians' manner - is Ponting's responsibility. No way should anyone suggest he be sacked for it.

Hands down the best post in this thread.

(I hope it is on it's way to the letters page of the Age H2H - someone needs to reply to the rubbish on their front page today)

 

[Kangalicious]

So its not ok for Kumble to complain about umpiring in a controlled and articulate manner in a press conference but its ok for Ponting to act like a two year old and throw his bat?

It's not OK for Kumble to refuse to shake hands with the umpire at the end of the game, either. Don't think anyone's got the moral highground, behaviour-wise here.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

Kumble didn't criticise the umpires in his press conference, he said only one team was playing within the spirit of the game. Which pretty much says he thinks Australia won unfairly.

No matter what happened on the field, that is one of the worst pieces of sportsmanship I have ever heard.

Everyone in cricket hears that as an echo of Bodyline. Depends on your point of view but I guess there are some similarities - a ruthless team playing on the edge of the rules to ensure its advantage.

But do other teams not do what Australia does because of their respect for the game, or just because they can't? I've seen enough players from other countries trying to do it to suggest it's not morality that stops them, but you need to play as wellas Australia does to carry it off.

 

[Rick18]

But do other teams not do what Australia does because of their respect for the game, or just because they can't? I've seen enough players from other countries trying to do it to suggest it's not morality that stops them, but you need to play as wellas Australia does to carry it off.

That's a good point, and I think it falls into the 'because they can't' category. Have a look at India before the one day series a couple of months ago, talking themselves up and trying to imitate the Aussie's on-field behaviour. They made themselves look like idiots and subsequently lost the series 4-2.

Look at most touring sides before they start their Test series. They're always talking themselves up, saying they can match Australia, in this, this and that, and they always get their a** handed to them.

 

[Manbearpig]

Everyone in cricket hears that as an echo of Bodyline. Depends on your point of view but I guess there are some similarities - a ruthless team playing on the edge of the rules to ensure its advantage.

Yes, very similar to Bill Woodfull's "There are two teams out there. One is playing cricket and the other is not".

That line was actually said in the change rooms to the English team manager, not in a public press conference.

 

[giantroo]

Spot on,H2H's post is quality!