"A team second to none, on and off the field. The Australian team plays the game hard but fair", writes Paul Marsh, CEO of the Australian Cricketers' Association, in the Sydney Morning Herald: http://www.smh.com.au/news/cricket/a-team-second-to-none-on-and-off-the-field/2008/01/10/1199554831780.html
Marsh uses the following facts to back his claim. And I have offered my cross-examination on each.
Fact 1: The Australian team was one of four nominees for the ICC's own Spirit of Cricket Awards at the September 2007 awards ceremony. With Ireland being one of the other nominees, the Australian team was considered to play the game in a better spirit than at least seven other full ICC members.
Runiboy's opinion: A fair comment
Fact 2: The Australian team is the only team in international cricket that has taken it upon itself to introduce and live by its own Spirit of Cricket pledge.
Runiboy's opinion: Aah, but note that it's their own definition of "Spirit of Cricket". Which includes not walking, appealing for non-snicks, mentally degrading the opposition (Steve Waugh's nomenclature), intimidating the umpires and throwing bats around.
Fact 3: Brad Hogg's report in the Sydney Test is the first time an Australian player has been charged under the ICC Code of Conduct in 13 months.
Runiboy's opinion: Wow! Meanwhile Sri Lanka without their own pledge of spirit have not had any players charged for more than 18 months.
Fact 4: Ricky Ponting has actively sought to introduce a practice among all international teams where the word of the fielder is accepted in instances of close catches. This has been largely rejected by other international teams, though it must be noted that the Indian team has accepted it for this series.
Runiboy's opinion: Ponting has taken it upon himself to create a holier-than-thou image for his team where convenient. If the word of the fielder is good enough for close catches, then how come the same fielder's word is not good enough for blatants snicks?
Marsh goes on to talk about the philanthropic efforts of Ponting and his mates. Please Paul, keep the arguments to the pitch. There's been enough of off-the-pitch antics that have clouded the issues. Sachin Tendulkar and others in the Indian team (as I imagine other cricketers around the world) each give back in their own way. What they don't do is tom-tom it to justify their performance on the cricket pitch.
Cricket Australia's Chief Executive, James Sutherland stood up for his team saying, "Test cricket is what is being played here. It's not tiddlywinks. The Australian cricket team plays the game tough, tough and uncompromising. It's the way Australian cricket teams have played the game since 1877 under all sorts of different captains. That is the way Australians have expected their teams to play." So, tell us James, where does your Spirit of Cricket fit within this?
And finally, Ricky himself had this to say: "What I want is for the Australian cricket team to be the most loved and the most respected sporting side in this country. That's always been one of my aims and it will continue to be." Well, Ricky, based on the media frenzy, fan hysteria and frowns from past Australian cricket and sporting heroes, in the aftermath of the Sydney test, your current actions are not working. Looking forward to seeing something different soon.
Thursday 10 January 2008
Tuesday 8 January 2008
The Impotent Cricket Council
There is a view in cricketing circles that India and the rest of the Asian bloc (Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh) holds the rest of the cricketing world to ransom. Aided by their financial clout (estimated at 70% of the cricket economy) and the other non-white nations (West Indies, South Africa and Zimbabwe) it pits them against the so-called “white” nations (England, Australia and New Zealand). In a way, it’s a kind of reverse colonialism. Allegedly exercised by the former colonies on their erstwhile masters. Never mind the fact that Australia and New Zealand had a not entirely dissimilar relationship with England. But I digress.
This is about the ICC. Originally standing for Imperial Cricket Conference (note the connotation in the first word) and subsequently amended to International Cricket Council. But more aptly the Inept, Incompetent, Ill-advised, Injudicious (take your pick) Cricket Council.
This morning, Malcolm Speed, ICC Chief Executive announced at the MCG: “What we've seen over the last week is a lot of criticism of umpiring decisions, a lot of ill feeling. It's not unlike the situation the cricket world faced at The Oval in 2006. What we need to do is to alleviate some of the tension that is focused on this match and one way of doing that is to bring in a new umpiring team."
Speed clarified, though, that this will not be the end of the road for Bucknor as an international umpire. "I expect that Steve will continue as an ICC Elite Panel umpire. He is coming to the end of his career. What we are seeking to do is take some tension out of the situation. Steve accepts that in the interests of the game and this Test match it is better that another umpire substitute for him ... where the presence of one umpire becomes an issue that causes further aggravation we need to be sufficiently flexible."
Huh? Just yesterday, an ICC "spokesman" invoked the playing conditions both teams signed up to before the series, saying: "Neither team has a right to object to an umpire's appointment." To remove Bucknor, the issue would have to be discussed and voted on by the ICC's executive board, with a majority of members voting in favour of removing him.
Steve Bucknor’s performance as an umpire has been rapidly declining for a few years now. If the ICC had any wits about them, he would long ago have been removed from its “Elite Panel”. But by removing him from the Perth Test for the reasons Speed has given just fans the flames of those that feel that India holds the rest of the cricketing world to ransom.
The crux of the problem of course, is the awkward position the ICC is in. It is not so much a governing body (like FIFA or The IOC) as it is a loose collection of member states (think the UN). So while it can have all its laws, rules, regulations and even playing conditions, apparently they are not actually binding on those who have signed up to it.
Let’s take the above argument to ridiculous levels. Wed 16th Jan, 2008, Perth.
Scenario 1: The umpires examine the ball. They believe it has been tampered with. They fine the fielding team five runs. The match continues. In the next break, the fielding captain watches the TV replays and commentary and realises there is no visual evidence to back up the umpires. He refuses to lead his team back out. The umpire awards the game to the opposition. It’s a situation filled with tension.
Scenario 2: A batsman is ruled out. He believes he’s not. The umpire says go. He says no. He walks off the pitch. He leads his batting partner off with him. It’s a situation filled with tension.
Will the ICC seek to alleviate some of the tension?
This is about the ICC. Originally standing for Imperial Cricket Conference (note the connotation in the first word) and subsequently amended to International Cricket Council. But more aptly the Inept, Incompetent, Ill-advised, Injudicious (take your pick) Cricket Council.
This morning, Malcolm Speed, ICC Chief Executive announced at the MCG: “What we've seen over the last week is a lot of criticism of umpiring decisions, a lot of ill feeling. It's not unlike the situation the cricket world faced at The Oval in 2006. What we need to do is to alleviate some of the tension that is focused on this match and one way of doing that is to bring in a new umpiring team."
Speed clarified, though, that this will not be the end of the road for Bucknor as an international umpire. "I expect that Steve will continue as an ICC Elite Panel umpire. He is coming to the end of his career. What we are seeking to do is take some tension out of the situation. Steve accepts that in the interests of the game and this Test match it is better that another umpire substitute for him ... where the presence of one umpire becomes an issue that causes further aggravation we need to be sufficiently flexible."
Huh? Just yesterday, an ICC "spokesman" invoked the playing conditions both teams signed up to before the series, saying: "Neither team has a right to object to an umpire's appointment." To remove Bucknor, the issue would have to be discussed and voted on by the ICC's executive board, with a majority of members voting in favour of removing him.
Steve Bucknor’s performance as an umpire has been rapidly declining for a few years now. If the ICC had any wits about them, he would long ago have been removed from its “Elite Panel”. But by removing him from the Perth Test for the reasons Speed has given just fans the flames of those that feel that India holds the rest of the cricketing world to ransom.
The crux of the problem of course, is the awkward position the ICC is in. It is not so much a governing body (like FIFA or The IOC) as it is a loose collection of member states (think the UN). So while it can have all its laws, rules, regulations and even playing conditions, apparently they are not actually binding on those who have signed up to it.
Let’s take the above argument to ridiculous levels. Wed 16th Jan, 2008, Perth.
Scenario 1: The umpires examine the ball. They believe it has been tampered with. They fine the fielding team five runs. The match continues. In the next break, the fielding captain watches the TV replays and commentary and realises there is no visual evidence to back up the umpires. He refuses to lead his team back out. The umpire awards the game to the opposition. It’s a situation filled with tension.
Scenario 2: A batsman is ruled out. He believes he’s not. The umpire says go. He says no. He walks off the pitch. He leads his batting partner off with him. It’s a situation filled with tension.
Will the ICC seek to alleviate some of the tension?
You Monkey Bastard
Stop the world. I want to get off. Watching NDTV this evening and bringing the wife up to speed with cricket's latest controversy, she responded: Has the world gone mad?
Monkey, a racist term? Bastard, a racist term? Insults the various people over the world who've suffered genuine racism through history. Segregation. Isolation. Slavery. That was racism.
Name-calling on a cricket pitch used to have another term: sledging. And while not all teams were comfortable with it or indeed good at it, 21st century cricket had come to embrace it.
Now we're discovering that there are different types of sledging. And racist sledging is not acceptable. Fair enough. Sport can indeed do without it. But let's cross over to Sydney, which is where it's all been happening (sorry Bill Lawry).
Mike Proctor, the match referee declared this past Sunday after a 10-hour hearing: "I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Harbhajan Singh directed that word at Andrew Symonds and also that he meant it to offend on the basis of Symonds' race or ethnic origin."
Excuse me, Mr Proctor, based on what evidence are you convinced beyond reasonable doubt? The word of 3 Australians against 2 Indians? Based on what is reported to have transpired at the hearing, neither umpire nor Ponting, the Australian captain, nor Tendulkar, Harbhajan's batting partner at the time heard Harbhajan use the word monkey. Neither did Gilchrist, who was also at the hearing. And most pertinently, Channel 9's stump microphones failed to pick up anything.
Rewind to the centre of where the whole incident began: "This is what happened before our confrontation," Symonds said in the Herald Sun. "Brett Lee had just sent down a delivery and Harbhajan took off down the wicket. When he was returning to his crease, he decided to hit Brett on the backside. I have no idea why he did it.
"I was standing nearby and when I saw what happened, I thought, 'Hold on, that's not on'. I'm a firm believer in sticking up for your team-mate so I stepped in and had a bit of a crack at Harbhajan, telling him exactly what I thought of his antics. He then had a shot back, which brings us to the situation we're facing."
Dear, dear. Harbhajan is the instigator it seems. He was after Lee's arse. And poor, meek Lee. Couldn't defend himself, dear boy. So chivalrous Symonds had to step in. And look what he got from Harbhajan in return.
Back to Proctor's verdict. The Indian team decide that is monkey is a racist term in Australia, then Bastard is as offensive in India (cultural thing, old chap) and that chinaman (how come that's not a "racist" term) bowler, Hogg, called our captains (Kumble - tests, and Dhoni - limited overs) bastards. So it's off to King Solomon aka Proctor to be sorted out.
See what I mean about the world going mad
Monkey, a racist term? Bastard, a racist term? Insults the various people over the world who've suffered genuine racism through history. Segregation. Isolation. Slavery. That was racism.
Name-calling on a cricket pitch used to have another term: sledging. And while not all teams were comfortable with it or indeed good at it, 21st century cricket had come to embrace it.
Now we're discovering that there are different types of sledging. And racist sledging is not acceptable. Fair enough. Sport can indeed do without it. But let's cross over to Sydney, which is where it's all been happening (sorry Bill Lawry).
Mike Proctor, the match referee declared this past Sunday after a 10-hour hearing: "I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Harbhajan Singh directed that word at Andrew Symonds and also that he meant it to offend on the basis of Symonds' race or ethnic origin."
Excuse me, Mr Proctor, based on what evidence are you convinced beyond reasonable doubt? The word of 3 Australians against 2 Indians? Based on what is reported to have transpired at the hearing, neither umpire nor Ponting, the Australian captain, nor Tendulkar, Harbhajan's batting partner at the time heard Harbhajan use the word monkey. Neither did Gilchrist, who was also at the hearing. And most pertinently, Channel 9's stump microphones failed to pick up anything.
Rewind to the centre of where the whole incident began: "This is what happened before our confrontation," Symonds said in the Herald Sun. "Brett Lee had just sent down a delivery and Harbhajan took off down the wicket. When he was returning to his crease, he decided to hit Brett on the backside. I have no idea why he did it.
"I was standing nearby and when I saw what happened, I thought, 'Hold on, that's not on'. I'm a firm believer in sticking up for your team-mate so I stepped in and had a bit of a crack at Harbhajan, telling him exactly what I thought of his antics. He then had a shot back, which brings us to the situation we're facing."
Dear, dear. Harbhajan is the instigator it seems. He was after Lee's arse. And poor, meek Lee. Couldn't defend himself, dear boy. So chivalrous Symonds had to step in. And look what he got from Harbhajan in return.
Back to Proctor's verdict. The Indian team decide that is monkey is a racist term in Australia, then Bastard is as offensive in India (cultural thing, old chap) and that chinaman (how come that's not a "racist" term) bowler, Hogg, called our captains (Kumble - tests, and Dhoni - limited overs) bastards. So it's off to King Solomon aka Proctor to be sorted out.
See what I mean about the world going mad
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
