Most hated team in world
Atul
Based on responses on rsc, I guess Australia.
Any ideas Why?
Cheers
AM
alvey
"Atul" <at...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:329616fa.0210...@posting.google.com...
> Which is the most hated team in cricket world today.
> Based on responses on rsc, I guess Australia.
> Any ideas Why?
Easiest question of all-time.
Because we're # 1. It's the tall gum tree syndrome mate.
Alvey
Augustus Fink-Nottle
I'd guess the Aussies are the most disliked team today, but I don't agree
with Alvey about it being because of their ranking in the incomplete Test
Champs table. The Windies of the 80s were far more formidable than the
Aussies in recent years and far from being disliked the Windies were
admired by one and all despite their failings. The dislike for the Aussie
team, I believe, stems from their behaviour. All the mental disintegration
nonsense, leaking stupid dossiers on the opposition, unrestrained and
unacceptable on-field behaviour, stupid comments in the press, etc.
- Gussie
HSaurav
2.Australia is the master of sledging.
3. When Australia loses fair and square they claim they were robbed by the
umpires
4. When Australia is up against it,they start start questioning opposing
bowlers' techniques e.g, scurrilous attempts to destroy Shaoib and Murali
5. If Australia loses, the groundstaff schemed mercilessly against them to set
up the pitch for the opposition
6. If the opposition stands up to Aussie mind games they're being both childish
and unsporting
7. Every news organisation is supposed to be biased against Australia bar the
illiterate Aussie gutter press(the only form of Aussie press)
8. Only Aussies are allowed to complain(which they do constantly),any
legitimate complaints by opponents is branded 'whingeing Poms' etc.....
david
Shishir Pathak
news:anr58d$grms3$1...@ID-155113.news.dfncis.de...
The all-conquering WI team of the 80s wasn't anywhere near the most hated at
that time. In 1983-4, they came to India and destoyed us. But we didn't
hate them. In 2000-01, Aus came to India, and *lost*, so there is no real
reason to hate them. And we don't really hate them.
Most Indians would sooner watch and support the Aussies, than Grumpy Hussain
and his team of losers.
Shishir
HSaurav
If Nasser and his team are such a bunch of losers and India were incredibly
lucky to draw a Test series with them recently then what does that say about
India?
There is no evidence that Nasser is grumpy;on the contrary he's patient and
diplomatic.This grumpy thing is tiring;remember Mike Atherton was branded
Captain Grumpy too.
Having beaten Pakistan and Sri Lanka + drawn with India in Test series Team
England deserve respect.
All the Test teams are decent sides and deserve respect. Ganguly and Hussain
are both good captains. I feel Fleming and Nasser are the best 2 captains out
there when one considers resources available but you I'm sure will
disagree.India and England are both good teams.
A more nasty person might comment that England has confidently won Test Series
abroad in recent years;can the same be said for India away from home????So does
that make Dada and his team a bunch of losers?-I don't think so but a more
critical person might......
We England supporters have huge respect for SCG and Team India so you should
grow up and give Nasser and his super team a break.
regards,
david
David Simpson
"HSaurav" <hsa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021007021336...@mb-mj.aol.com...
Ian Galbraith
[snip]
:I'd guess the Aussies are the most disliked team today, but I don't agree
:with Alvey about it being because of their ranking in the incomplete Test
:Champs table. The Windies of the 80s were far more formidable than the
:Aussies in recent years and far from being disliked the Windies were
:admired by one and all despite their failings.
If that WI team was around today and behaved and played the way did
back then they would be hated as much as the Aust. team of today.
:The dislike for the Aussie
:team, I believe, stems from their behaviour. All the mental disintegration
:nonsense, leaking stupid dossiers on the opposition, unrestrained and
:unacceptable on-field behaviour, stupid comments in the press, etc.
You've got rose coloured glasses on, the WI were every bit as arrogant
and behaved just as badly as this Aust. team, and they had another
fault that this Aust. team doesn't, they made cricket boring.
--
Ian Galbraith
Email: igalb...@removeozonline.com.au
'I'm not an adult!'' he says, shaking his head. ''I don't want
to create responsible shows with lawyers in them. I want to invade
people's dreams.'' -Joss Whedon
Will Sutton
> Based on responses on rsc, I guess Australia.
> Any ideas Why?
Winners are grinners
Will Sutton
so you havem't seen any victory speechs ist hand but just relied on youe press ?
>
> 2.Australia is the master of sledging.
>
> 3. When Australia loses fair and square they claim they were robbed by the
> umpires
roflmao
Its people like you that gives me such added enjoyment when Australia wins
Shishir Pathak
> Shishir-
>
> If Nasser and his team are such a bunch of losers and India were
incredibly
> lucky to draw a Test series with them recently then what does that say
about
> India?
But was I talking about India at all? If you hadn't snipped my earlier post
in this thread, you'd realize that I was talking about the relative
popularity of the Australians vis-a-vis Grumpy's grumpy team, amongst the
Indians. The Indian team might be most hated in the world for all I care,
but how's that germane to the point I was making?
> There is no evidence that Nasser is grumpy;on the contrary he's patient
and
> diplomatic.This grumpy thing is tiring;remember Mike Atherton was branded
> Captain Grumpy too.
Actually, it's too tiresome for me to go through this all over again. Pls
read my earlier posts on this topic from a couple of weeks back.
> Having beaten Pakistan and Sri Lanka + drawn with India in Test series
Team
> England deserve respect.
Ah, the same bogey again. It's alway Pakistan and Srilanka, when someone
mentions Grumpy. As if Grumpy and his grumpy men stopped playing after
winning in Lanka a couple of years ago.
<snip>
> We England supporters have huge respect for SCG and Team India so you
should
> grow up and give Nasser and his super team a break.
Just because you England supporters have huge respect for SCG and Team India
(let's say I'll take your word for it), how does it follow that I should
have respect for 'Nasser and his super team'? Are we trying to form some
kind of a Mutual Admiration Society here?
Cheers,
Shishir
HSaurav
ground.....
Bob Dubery
They're not really hated, but a congenital deformity and
foreshortening by the TV cameras makes it look that way.
Seriously I don't think they're hated, but they are the best right
now, and so everybody wants to beat them or at least devalue their
acheivements.
Sledging has only become a big issue since the Australians started
winning a lot. Nobody cared about it at all when Australia were just
another team.
It's a bit like bouncers - they weren't that big a deal until the West
Indies started winning a lot. Then suddenly bouncers were the evil
that was ruining the game.
Yuk Tang
Bob Dubery <mega...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3da14598....@10.100.2.1...
> On 6 Oct 2002 21:33:18 -0700, at...@hotmail.com (Atul) wrote:
>
> >Which is the most hated team in cricket world today.
> >Based on responses on rsc, I guess Australia.
> >Any ideas Why?
>
> They're not really hated, but a congenital deformity and
> foreshortening by the TV cameras makes it look that way.
>
> Seriously I don't think they're hated, but they are the best right
> now, and so everybody wants to beat them or at least devalue their
> acheivements.
This being the main reason for the heat.
> Sledging has only become a big issue since the Australians started
> winning a lot. Nobody cared about it at all when Australia were just
> another team.
>
> It's a bit like bouncers - they weren't that big a deal until the West
> Indies started winning a lot. Then suddenly bouncers were the evil
> that was ruining the game.
Actually, objectively speaking, Australia are by no means the worst bunch of
cheats in international cricket. I'd reserve that title for England. Not
only do we have our own verbals specialists (Hussain, Stewart), we also have
bowlers who'll appeal for absolutely anything (Caddick, Giles) and the only
captain at this level who'll dream up and stick to a manifestly unpopular
and unfair plan to the series' end. Even the Australians have their own
idea of what sporting cricket is, and remain faithful to it. Not so the
poms. Our only rule seems to be the dictum that, if the opposition think
it's OK, then it must be OK, and some more.
Cheers, ymt.
Paul Galvin
"Will Sutton" <muta...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Ogbo9.12488$vg.3...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Which brings us back to 1 :-)
--
Paul.
(who has no opinion on the matter except I don't have much time for SL
anymore, but that's only because of the rantings of a particular poster
here)
Lord Guha
Australian supporters the finger after winning the Kolkata Test. I dread to
think what the reaction would have been had Steve Waugh done the same to
Indian fans in Sydney ...
>
> 2.Australia is the master of sledging.
- What a load of bull crap - every country sledges just as much - you just
choose to ignore the others.
>
> 3. When Australia loses fair and square they claim they were robbed by the
> umpires
- Australia doesn't need the umpires to win - otherwise they wouldn't have
won more of their away series in the past 7 years than any other country.
>
> 4. When Australia is up against it,they start start questioning opposing
> bowlers' techniques e.g, scurrilous attempts to destroy Shaoib and Murali
- What about Brett Lee being questioned as well - and reforming his action
>
> 5. If Australia loses, the groundstaff schemed mercilessly against them to
set
> up the pitch for the opposition
- What Proof - or is this more bull crap
>
> 6. If the opposition stands up to Aussie mind games they're being both
childish
> and unsporting
- see above comment
>
> 7. Every news organisation is supposed to be biased against Australia bar
the
> illiterate Aussie gutter press(the only form of Aussie press)
- this is getting boring now - see above comment
>
> 8. Only Aussies are allowed to complain(which they do constantly),any
> legitimate complaints by opponents is branded 'whingeing Poms' etc.....
>
- blah blah blah - maybe you should get more proof next time.
LG
Lord Guha
during the WI period as it is now. We could never hear what was going on in
the field. The Windies were just as agressive as Australia is now. They
bowled bouncers, were intimidating - remember the picture of Holding kicking
all three stumps out of the ground after an lbw decision was turned down.
LG
"Shishir Pathak" <shishir_p...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:anr96q$foaig$1...@ID-134415.news.dfncis.de...
alvey
"Augustus Fink-Nottle" <thick_as_a_brick@gerald_bostock.com> wrote in
message news:anr84h$2840$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu...
Okey dokey, perhaps you should consider that all this 'dirt' comes out on
the Australians because they *are* #1? You know, chickens & eggs. Didn't you
yourself made some comment elsewhere about how "droves" of Aussies started
whinging about Shoaib's action soon as he started doing well. See a parallel
there?
ALvey
alvey
> Fine be cantankerous but we England supporters will retain the moral high
> ground.....
Quite the funniest thing I've read in here for some time.
Alvey
Mad Hamish
Remind me again which team had a fast bowler shoulder charge an
umpire, kick the stumps over etc...
Read up on Viv's behaviour
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
h_l...@aardvark.net.au
Mad Hamish
>1.It's because Australia is arrogant and shows no grace in victory.
Based on?
>
>2.Australia is the master of sledging.
Well Australia sledge, so do other teams.
>
>3. When Australia loses fair and square they claim they were robbed by the
>umpires
>
Bah.
>4. When Australia is up against it,they start start questioning opposing
>bowlers' techniques e.g, scurrilous attempts to destroy Shaoib and Murali
a) the press on Akhtar started before the last world cup, it wasn't
the australians.
b) he was reported _after_ a test series that Australia won 3-0 and a
non-Australian umpire and match referee were involved
c) The initial investigation by the throwing panel found without a
dissenting vote (note that the Pakistani representative couldn't vote)
that he threw some deliveries (his yorker and bouncer)
d) The medical report on him from the last time that he was reported
(I don't recall who reported him) found that his elbow does
straighten.
As for Muralidharan I fail to see how anybody could look at his action
and be certain that the elbow didn't straighten. Under the pre-2000
code that was the requirement that the umpire had to consider. If he
wasn't sure it was a noball.
The tests that were done after that make it likely that most of his
deliveries are entirely legal, they aren't _absolute_proof_ because
a) the report specifically mentioned what deliveries were tested, it
didn't include his top-spinner which is a ball that has had quite a
lot of doubts expressed
b) there is a chance that at times his action changes, late in the day
if he's carrying a slight injury, when he's trying for utter-maximum
spin and slightly tired. That might mean that he bowls differently
from when tested _some_times_
In addition considering Australia had walloped Sri Lanka in the first
test and Muralidharan was averaging over 100 for the series when he
was called I fail to see how you can describe it as 'Australia being
up against it'
>
>5. If Australia loses, the groundstaff schemed mercilessly against them to set
>up the pitch for the opposition
Please provide evidence of that from the team.
If you consider "the pitch wasn't ideal for one day cricket" as
blaming a loss on the pitch or saying that the pitch was doctored then
provide a line of reasoning justifying it.
>
>6. If the opposition stands up to Aussie mind games they're being both childish
>and unsporting
Depends what they do doesn't it?
If it involves not meeting their obligations as captain then it's a
fair cop.
>
>7. Every news organisation is supposed to be biased against Australia bar the
>illiterate Aussie gutter press(the only form of Aussie press)
No, all the press is writing stories to sell to their market.
"We were wiped because Australia was better" isn't going to do that.
>
>8. Only Aussies are allowed to complain(which they do constantly),any
>legitimate complaints by opponents is branded 'whingeing Poms' etc.....
Provide examples of legitimate complaints that have been branded as
whinging and I'll consider them.
Samantha26no
>
>Because we're # 1. It's the tall gum tree syndrome mate.
>
>
>
>Alvey
sure sure...
you know everything...
there was a team called 'mighty west indies'.
they concured the world in 1980s.
at that time, it was,
'you go east .. you go west.. west indies are the best'
clive lloyd's men were never hated.
fear was there .. jealousy was there .. never hate.
wake up man ;-]
Samantha26no
>back then they would be hated as much as the Aust. team of today.
ian,
would you mind telling us how you deduced this/
Roshan Diwakar
> with Alvey about it being because of their ranking in the incomplete Test
> Champs table. The Windies of the 80s were far more formidable than the
> Aussies in recent years and far from being disliked the Windies were
> admired by one and all despite their failings.
What a load of baloney!!! I'm pretty sure it is the #1 syndrome. Because
nobody hated the Australian team of 86-87, although they were the same
obnoxious sledgers. Remember the calcutta final in 87 when 87,000 cheered
for Australia? And please, Windies were more arrogant than what the Aussies
were today.
Atleast I would give Aussies some credit for reviving test cricket, the
Windies almost killed it off in the 80's
Cheers,
Roshan
Will Sutton
"Paul Galvin" <p.k.g...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:Vtco9.4532$Os6.5...@news.xtra.co.nz...
>
> "Will Sutton" <muta...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Ogbo9.12488$vg.3...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > "HSaurav" <hsa...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20021007021336...@mb-mj.aol.com...
> > > 1.It's because Australia is arrogant and shows no grace in victory.
> >
> > so you havem't seen any victory speechs ist hand but just relied on youe
> press ?
> >
> > >
> > > 2.Australia is the master of sledging.
> > >
> > > 3. When Australia loses fair and square they claim they were robbed by
> the
> > > umpires
> >
> > roflmao
> >
> >
> >
> > Its people like you that gives me such added enjoyment when Australia wins
> >
>
>
> Which brings us back to 1 :-)
> --
> Paul.
LOL
Only <1> with people like HSaurav & Kiwis
Pakistan did a brilliant job after a bad start and just fell apart at the finish
This young team is only going to get better and all they now need is a good captain that can mould this team
Madhusudan Singh
rec.sport.cricket (<20021007024446...@mb-mj.aol.com>):
> Shishir-
>
> If Nasser and his team are such a bunch of losers and India were incredibly
> lucky to draw a Test series with them recently then what does that say about
> India?
What do someone's off-field antics have to do with on-field performance ?
>
> There is no evidence that Nasser is grumpy;on the contrary he's patient and
> diplomatic.This grumpy thing is tiring;remember Mike Atherton was branded
> Captain Grumpy too.
Or maybe it just runs amongst English captains.
>
> Having beaten Pakistan and Sri Lanka + drawn with India in Test series Team
> England deserve respect.
They beat Pak and SL away. Managed to draw with India at *home*. In a series
that even some Indian supporters (myself included) were billing them to win
3-0.
> A more nasty person might comment that England has confidently won Test Series
> abroad in recent years;can the same be said for India away from home????So
> does that make Dada and his team a bunch of losers?-I don't think so but a
> more critical person might......
What is the relation with being grumpy here ? I haven't seen the Indian captain
make excuses for the bad Indian performance away. Neither have I seen him
asking Kumble and Harbhajan bowl a foot outside the leg stump and then back
them up in the media as if there was nothing wrong with doing that. Or for that
matter, whining in the media about a handled-the-ball incident for which he had
only his own player's stupidity to blame.
Madhusudan Singh
forth in rec.sport.cricket (<anrmc8$gnm7o$1...@ID-155113.news.dfncis.de>):
Agreed. Coming from a country that gave us bodyline and yet-to-be-named
Giles-a-foot-outside-the-legstump tactics.
Bob Dubery
wrote:
>Remind me again which team had a fast bowler shoulder charge an
>umpire, kick the stumps over etc...
>Read up on Viv's behaviour
And you didn't even mention throwing a brick into the crowd.
It's a fact that when a team reaches the top their will be jealousy
and the "tall poppy" syndrome and people will find fault with the
side.
But teams at the top can become arrogant.
The two things are a dangerous combination. People might not have had
such a go at the West Indies if they weren't beating all-comers. But
the way the West Indies responded suggests that they took their own
status as world champs a bit too seriously.
I always thought it was a black mark against first Lloyd and then
Richards that they didn't seem to worry about the spirit of the game,
that they didn't reign their players in at times.
And I think the same about Australia now. Sometimes they do go to
lengths that are unacceptable, and I find the reactions of Waugh and
Ponting a bit hard to take.
I thought they were better behaved and no less competitive under Mark
Taylor.
I thought they were probably worse behaved and had slightly less
reason to be so arrogant under Border.
That said, this is always going to be a problem with competitive and
succesful sides - the factors that make them competitive and
successful are the same factors that will occasionally make them act
poorly.
And I think that all cricket-playing nations have a blot on their
escutcheon at some point during their history. It just depends on how
far back you want to go.
Caligula
> 3. When Australia loses fair and square they claim they were robbed by the
> umpires
BS! The Indians/Pakis/Sri Lankans pull this out of the hat as much as
anyone, although "blaming the ref" is becoming endemic here in Aus. When our
Queensland Premier is quoted in the paper as saying the "ref got it wrong"
in an interstate rugby league match he wonders why parents beat up the
linesmen at Under 7 matches next week.
> 4. When Australia is up against it,they start start questioning opposing
> bowlers' techniques e.g, scurrilous attempts to destroy Shaoib and Murali
True, although I think they are pretty accepting of their actions these
days - in so much as they think they're crap but it is too difficult to weed
it out of the game through official channels so they just have to accept it.
DK
Joe Black
> 1.It's because Australia is arrogant and shows no grace in victory.
>
>
> umpires
>
> bowlers' techniques e.g, scurrilous attempts to destroy Shaoib and Murali
>
> up the pitch for the opposition
>
> and unsporting
>
> illiterate Aussie gutter press(the only form of Aussie press)
>
> legitimate complaints by opponents is branded 'whingeing Poms' etc.....
>
>
Jeez, youve applied the 'De Silva' philosophy to your English cricket
team.
I can see it now: "Aussie gutter press nobble Caddick". Hahaha. Blame
everything else and everyone else for your inept performances. Lack of
cricket academy, sub-standard first class cricket scene? No, Steve
Waugh kept calling me dirty names!
Jeez, you hate Australians, but who is running your cricket
development program, huh? If we are so bad why'd you hire Rod Marsh in
the first fucking place? Why are most of the large scores in your
domestic leagues scored by Australian and other internationals?
Because your players arent fucking good enough!
Stop trundling out the same sad sack of shit excuses, play decent
fucking cricket for once, and maybe you will get a bit of respect from
the current test champions.
samarth harish shah
> "alvey" <alveyunders...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >"Atul" <at...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:329616fa.0210...@posting.google.com...
> >> Which is the most hated team in cricket world today.
> >> Based on responses on rsc, I guess Australia.
> >> Any ideas Why?
> >
> >Easiest question of all-time.
> >
> >Because we're # 1. It's the tall gum tree syndrome mate.
> >Alvey
>
>
> I'd guess the Aussies are the most disliked team today, but I don't agree
> with Alvey about it being because of their ranking in the incomplete Test
> Champs table. The Windies of the 80s were far more formidable than the
> Aussies in recent years and far from being disliked the Windies were
> admired by one and all despite their failings. The dislike for the Aussie
> team, I believe, stems from their behaviour. All the mental disintegration
> nonsense, leaking stupid dossiers on the opposition, unrestrained and
> unacceptable on-field behaviour, stupid comments in the press, etc.
Seconded. Especially the WI example from the 80s.
-Samarth.
>
> - Gussie
>
>
linus
"Augustus Fink-Nottle" <thick_as_a_brick@gerald_bostock.com> wrote in
message news:anr84h$2840$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu...
> >"Atul" <at...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:329616fa.0210...@posting.google.com...
> >> Which is the most hated team in cricket world today.
> >> Based on responses on rsc, I guess Australia.
> >> Any ideas Why?
> >
> >Easiest question of all-time.
> >
> >Because we're # 1. It's the tall gum tree syndrome mate.
> >Alvey
>
>
> I'd guess the Aussies are the most disliked team today, but I don't agree
> with Alvey about it being because of their ranking in the incomplete Test
> Champs table. The Windies of the 80s were far more formidable than the
> Aussies in recent years and far from being disliked the Windies were
> admired by one and all despite their failings. The dislike for the Aussie
> team, I believe, stems from their behaviour. All the mental disintegration
> nonsense, leaking stupid dossiers on the opposition, unrestrained and
> unacceptable on-field behaviour, stupid comments in the press, etc.
>
>
You are right-on. Couldn't have said any better.
sudeep
> news:329616fa.0210...@posting.google.com...
> > Which is the most hated team in cricket world today.
> > Based on responses on rsc, I guess Australia.
> > Any ideas Why?
>
> Easiest question of all-time.
>
> Because we're # 1. It's the tall gum tree syndrome mate.
>
>
>
> Alvey
i dont think the windies side of the 80s was hated. Aussies are
disliked for much of their on field behaviour...but they are also
admired for the way they fight and their mental toughness. Maybe its
not possible to be mentally tough and aggressive without being
disliked.
Mrs. Anjali Tendulkar
> Which is the most hated team in cricket world today.
Easy. That would be India.
> Based on responses on rsc, I guess Australia.
No. I think Australia is a fine team.
> Any ideas Why?
I think a more appropriate question would be which fans are the worst
fans (sore losers) in this universe? My answer: Indian fans.
I also think a team like India that includes Sachin Tendulkar, not on
the basis of his performance, but on the basis of his stature, is not
a good team.
Saurav Ganguly is a spoiled brat, who doesn't do much on field, but
makes stupid insulting replies to Steve Waugh's press conferences. He
must hold a world record for the number of times he has been run out
and the number of runouts he has caused at international level. LOL.
Now if only the stupid Indian fans (Note: not all Indian fans are
stupid, mind you)would shut up and drop Tendulkar from the team, I
will be the happiest housewife on this planet. :-)
~Mrs. Anjali
Tendulkar
Ken Higgs
Ian Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 06:06:43 GMT, Augustus Fink-Nottle wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> :I'd guess the Aussies are the most disliked team today, but I don't agree
> :with Alvey about it being because of their ranking in the incomplete Test
> :Champs table. The Windies of the 80s were far more formidable than the
> :Aussies in recent years and far from being disliked the Windies were
> :admired by one and all despite their failings.
>
> If that WI team was around today and behaved and played the way did
> back then they would be hated as much as the Aust. team of today.
>
crud.
It's been attempted before.
The only incidence of bad behaviour found was WI in NZ about 20 years ago.
The Australian team has been accused of bad behaviour here, the fact that every
single instance has been denied by sundry Australian posters on rsc does not
make it true.
>
> :The dislike for the Aussie
> :team, I believe, stems from their behaviour. All the mental disintegration
> :nonsense, leaking stupid dossiers on the opposition, unrestrained and
> :unacceptable on-field behaviour, stupid comments in the press, etc.
>
> You've got rose coloured glasses on, the WI were every bit as arrogant
> and behaved just as badly as this Aust. team, and they had another
> fault that this Aust. team doesn't, they made cricket boring.
IYNSHO.
I found the WIndies a very exciting team.
If you didn't get off watching Viv at his peak, yet enjoy BLeet bouncing
tailenders, we have differing opinions on excitement
Higgsy
>
>
> --
> Ian Galbraith
> Email: igalb...@removeozonline.com.au
>
> 'I'm not an adult!'' he says, shaking his head. ''I don't want
> to create responsible shows with lawyers in them. I want to invade
> people's dreams.'' -Joss Whedon
Mike Holmans
<alveyunders...@yahoo.com> tapped the keyboard and brought
forth:
>Okey dokey, perhaps you should consider that all this 'dirt' comes out on
>the Australians because they *are* #1? You know, chickens & eggs. Didn't you
>yourself made some comment elsewhere about how "droves" of Aussies started
>whinging about Shoaib's action soon as he started doing well. See a parallel
>there?
I note that nobody seems to have felt it worth saying that Australia
played pretty well to win this match. Is this because they didn't, or
because no-one feels like acknowledging it?
Cheers,
Mike
Raghu Jetley
"Mike Holmans" <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4p84qug90q3ook54q...@4ax.com...
Or maybe because they haven't played as well as they usually do.
i.e. In the last Ashes series, in the 4 matches, which the Australians
won, they totally outplayed England. During the Ind-Aus 99 series,
they totally outplayed India.
This match was different, till the time Pak lost those quick wickets in the
end, Pak stood a strong chance of winning the match.
The 127 score is probably the lowest Australia has scored in a long
time.
Ken Higgs
Mike Holmans wrote:
I don't doubt they played pretty well, in fact it would appear that it was, all
up, a pretty good Test match.
The way I see it, the match itself, from an rsc point of view, has been almost
forgotten in a welter of accustions of chucking, poor umpiring and insinuations
that the pitch was doctored.
Added to that, there's been a rather pathetic whinge about top/bottom posting
from those residing in the bozo bin
Higgsy
Andrew Dunford
"Ken Higgs" <kenh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3DA23403...@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Ian Galbraith wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 06:06:43 GMT, Augustus Fink-Nottle wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > :I'd guess the Aussies are the most disliked team today, but I don't
agree
> > :with Alvey about it being because of their ranking in the incomplete
Test
> > :Champs table. The Windies of the 80s were far more formidable than the
> > :Aussies in recent years and far from being disliked the Windies were
> > :admired by one and all despite their failings.
> >
> > If that WI team was around today and behaved and played the way did
> > back then they would be hated as much as the Aust. team of today.
> >
>
> crud.
> It's been attempted before.
> The only incidence of bad behaviour found was WI in NZ about 20 years ago.
I have no idea whether that's an accurate summation or not, but the level of
behaviour on that trip (even with allowance for provocation) was so bad as
to leave a larger-than-average stain.
> The Australian team has been accused of bad behaviour here, the fact that
every
> single instance has been denied by sundry Australian posters on rsc does
not
> make it true.
Ian wrote "behaved and played".
Going back to Gussie's comment, "admired" and "disliked" are not mutually
exclusive. I had great admiration for much of what the West Indies sides of
that era achieved, and on many occasions enjoyed watching them. There were
other occasions, such as when their bowlers spent an entire session aiming
at the bodies of the NZ batsmen during the 1984/85 tour, when I strongly
disliked the way they played.
<snip>
Andrew
Ken Higgs
Andrew Dunford wrote:
> "Ken Higgs" <kenh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3DA23403...@hotmail.com...
> >
> >
> > Ian Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 06:06:43 GMT, Augustus Fink-Nottle wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > :I'd guess the Aussies are the most disliked team today, but I don't
> agree
> > > :with Alvey about it being because of their ranking in the incomplete
> Test
> > > :Champs table. The Windies of the 80s were far more formidable than the
> > > :Aussies in recent years and far from being disliked the Windies were
> > > :admired by one and all despite their failings.
> > >
> > > If that WI team was around today and behaved and played the way did
> > > back then they would be hated as much as the Aust. team of today.
> > >
> >
> > crud.
> > It's been attempted before.
> > The only incidence of bad behaviour found was WI in NZ about 20 years ago.
>
> I have no idea whether that's an accurate summation or not, but the level of
> behaviour on that trip (even with allowance for provocation) was so bad as
> to leave a larger-than-average stain.
>
I'd say it's fairly accurate.
There's been several references to it on this thread already.
It was a poor display from the WIndies, but not without some provocation, the
umpiring was pretty abysmal on that tour, which I think you, amongst others,
have acknowledged.
It doesn't excuse it, but perhaps in some way explains it.
>
> > The Australian team has been accused of bad behaviour here, the fact that
> every
> > single instance has been denied by sundry Australian posters on rsc does
> not
> > make it true.
>
> Ian wrote "behaved and played".
indeed he did.
My cat is fond of fish.
>
>
> Going back to Gussie's comment, "admired" and "disliked" are not mutually
> exclusive. I had great admiration for much of what the West Indies sides of
> that era achieved, and on many occasions enjoyed watching them. There were
> other occasions, such as when their bowlers spent an entire session aiming
> at the bodies of the NZ batsmen during the 1984/85 tour, when I strongly
> disliked the way they played.
yet Ian specifically said that the WIndies made cricket boring (yes, I know you
snipped that bit, but he did say it and that was what I was addressing).
I didn't find the WIndies boring, I thought their batsmen were pretty flamboyant
and the bowling was pretty electrifying. I'm sure there were times when matches
involving them were not the most exciting things around, but I'd say you can
level that at any team.
Test cricket does not have to be non-stop excitement all day long for 5 days to
keep my attention.
Perhaps you & Ian should consider watching more odos?
Higgsy
>
>
> <snip>
>
> Andrew
Ian Galbraith
:>If that WI team was around today and behaved and played the way did
:>back then they would be hated as much as the Aust. team of today.
:ian,
:would you mind telling us how you deduced this/
As I said they behaved at least as badly as this Aust. team plus they
made the matches boring.
Andrew Dunford
To clarify, I meant that I don't know whether 1979/80 in NZ was the only
time WI behaved badly during the 1980s.
I do take the general point (I can't remember who made it) that one could
find fault with any team's behaviour if one wishes to look hard enough.
> > > The Australian team has been accused of bad behaviour here, the fact
that
> > every
> > > single instance has been denied by sundry Australian posters on rsc
does
> > not
> > > make it true.
> >
> > Ian wrote "behaved and played".
>
> indeed he did.
> My cat is fond of fish.
>
> >
> >
> > Going back to Gussie's comment, "admired" and "disliked" are not
mutually
> > exclusive. I had great admiration for much of what the West Indies
sides of
> > that era achieved, and on many occasions enjoyed watching them. There
were
> > other occasions, such as when their bowlers spent an entire session
aiming
> > at the bodies of the NZ batsmen during the 1984/85 tour, when I strongly
> > disliked the way they played.
>
> yet Ian specifically said that the WIndies made cricket boring (yes, I
know you
> snipped that bit, but he did say it and that was what I was addressing).
Fair enough.
> I didn't find the WIndies boring, I thought their batsmen were pretty
flamboyant
> and the bowling was pretty electrifying. I'm sure there were times when
matches
> involving them were not the most exciting things around, but I'd say you
can
> level that at any team.
> Test cricket does not have to be non-stop excitement all day long for 5
days to
> keep my attention.
Wouldn't disagree about the batting.
The bowling was often "electrifying". On other occasions I have to admit
(and you must promise you won't tell anyone this) that I found being able to
read War and Peace from cover to cover between balls a trifle boring.
For all I know, Ian might have found WI boring because they won so often.
> Perhaps you & Ian should consider watching more odos?
I would, but there aren't enough of them about.
Andrew
Ken Higgs
Ian Galbraith wrote:
> On 07 Oct 2002 12:09:23 GMT, Samantha26no wrote:
>
> :>If that WI team was around today and behaved and played the way did
> :>back then they would be hated as much as the Aust. team of today.
>
> :ian,
>
> :would you mind telling us how you deduced this/
>
> As I said they behaved at least as badly as this Aust. team plus they
> made the matches boring.
>
What makes you think they behaved as least as bad as this Aussie team?
Because of some incidents on a tour to NZ?
What makes you think they made the game boring?
Because they used fast bowlers?
Higgsy
Ken Higgs
Andrew Dunford wrote:
I kind of doubt it, I'm sure if you look hard enough, you'd find something.
But the incidents in 1979 get trotted out pretty regularly.
And of course, it depends upon your definition of bad.
Perhaps Viv and the boys got on the wakky baccy a few times, I really couldn't
say.
Does that make them bad boys?
>
> I do take the general point (I can't remember who made it) that one could
> find fault with any team's behaviour if one wishes to look hard enough.
I agree.
Even with this present day Australian team.
Couple of things, I did specifically say that sometimes it wasn't the most
exciting thing around, but Test cricket just happens to be like that sometimes.
Yes, the over rates were slow at times, but Test cricket is hardly a 100m sprint
(except when Holding took his long run up).
>
> For all I know, Ian might have found WI boring because they won so often.
Perhaps, he didn't clarify, even in his follow up.
He simply stated that they made cricket boring, but the Australians didn't.
Perhaps he found WI winning boring, but finds it arousing when Australia win?
>
>
> > Perhaps you & Ian should consider watching more odos?
>
> I would, but there aren't enough of them about.
>
> Andrew
the pointless ones or the ones that really count?
Higgsy
Augustus Fink-Nottle
>Okey dokey, perhaps you should consider that all this 'dirt' comes out on
>the Australians because they *are* #1? You know, chickens & eggs.
Let me put it this way - before SA toured Aus there wasn't any clear 'victor'
and SA and Aus were considered by almost everyone to be equally talented
teams. In fact that series was widely advertised as the fight for #1. If your
theory was true, then till Dec '01, SA would also have had the same amount
of bad press that the Aussies had. That SA lost badly to the Aussies is of no
consequence since the Aussies have had the 'arrogant/spoilt brat' image for
a few years now and long before the SA series. It has to do with their
behaviour.
How many captains do you know who've called their counterparts 'pricks' in
public? The answer to this question will give you some idea of why they are
disliked. I wouldn't call it 'hate' as the subject title says, but 'dislike'.
There is an element of goodwill which the Aussie team lacks. Whether it is
Slater making an ass of himself in the middle or Brett Lee trying to
intimidate hapless tailenders or threaten to rip someone's "bloody head off"
or the ultra-pathetic, childish slipping of dossiers under hotel doors - it
all goes into the debit column in terms of goodwill. And if you don't have
any goodwill towards people, you tend to dislike them. It is as simple as
that.
- Gussie
Augustus Fink-Nottle
Mike,
I didn't see you say that Australia played pretty well to win this match
either. So perhaps you are in a position to answer your own question -
Did you think they didn't play well or did you just not feel like
acknowledging it?
- Gussie (in a Mephistopheles costume)
Paul Robson
> Let me put it this way - before SA toured Aus there wasn't any clear
> 'victor' and SA and Aus were considered by almost everyone to be equally
> talented teams. In fact that series was widely advertised as the fight for
> #1
I don't think this is true. I remember saying Australia would win the series
pair 6-0.
At the time it was obvious to me anyway that RSA were in the middle of a
huge transition - which they haven't completed yet. Australia were and are
still at the peak.
The "hit" comes for Australia when McGrath, and to a lesser extent, Warne,
retires. I still think they'll be a good side, but not as "invincible".
RSA (who never had as good a batting line up anyway) were heavily reliant on
Pollock and Donald - the third bowler was always iffy, Klusener can't bowl
any more, and the spinners never really got there. Pollock can't bowl both
ends - and he's now a strangling type bowler, not a quickie.
Shishir Pathak
If at all it was possible, the English posters would have loved to attribute
the Aussie win over Pak to Grumpy Hussain's great captaincy. What possibly
stopped them in their tracks was that the Second Avatar of Mike Brearley was
seen playing, (and losing - but then what's new?) a game in a football
stadium in which 8, 10, and 12 runs are aloud. Explaining the 6000 miles
difference between the two venues presented a rather ticklish problem, even
for people who occupy the high moral ground.
Cheers,
Shishir
Ken Higgs
Shishir Pathak wrote:
I thought it was the Indian posters attributing St. Steve's new-found mental
strength down to the lessons served up to him by St. Gangs (aka the greatest
captain ever, anywhwere), either that or the Aussie posters will attribute it
to the Sobers-esque bowling perormance by one of the Waugh twins......
Higgsy
Ian Galbraith
(Augustus Fink-Nottle) wrote:
[snip]
>Let me put it this way - before SA toured Aus there wasn't any clear 'victor'
Aust. have been the no. 1 test nation since 1995. The fact that it was
argued about was only because Aust. haven't been as dominant as the WI
were, but that has never been a requirement of being No. 1.
[snip]
Mike Holmans
thick_as_a_brick@gerald_bostock.com (Augustus Fink-Nottle) tapped the
keyboard and brought forth:
>Mike Holmans <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>On Mon, 7 Oct 2002 19:52:33 +1000, "alvey"
>><alveyunders...@yahoo.com> tapped the keyboard and brought
>>forth:
>>
>>
>>>Okey dokey, perhaps you should consider that all this 'dirt' comes out on
>>>the Australians because they *are* #1? You know, chickens & eggs. Didn't you
>>>yourself made some comment elsewhere about how "droves" of Aussies started
>>>whinging about Shoaib's action soon as he started doing well. See a parallel
>>>there?
>>
>>I note that nobody seems to have felt it worth saying that Australia
>>played pretty well to win this match. Is this because they didn't, or
>>because no-one feels like acknowledging it?
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Mike
>
>Mike,
>I didn't see you say that Australia played pretty well to win this match
>either. So perhaps you are in a position to answer your own question -
>Did you think they didn't play well or did you just not feel like
>acknowledging it?
I have little way of knowing either way, since I wasn't going to
subscribe to a Pakistani TV channel purely for the purposes of
watching the match. I would have thought that Aus's performance to
deny Pakistan what must have looked like a pretty good chance of
victory suggested that they did play well, but there hasn't been any
discussion in this group which would give any evidence for that, since
post-match discussion has focussed either on "Why people hate
Australia" or rather silly blackguarding of the Australian posters who
have reiterated their long-held opinions of Shoaib's chucking -
opinions which several of them have held consistently at least since
the publication of the UofWA's report which said "He chucks, but he
doesn't mean to".
Nobody, though, as far as I can see, has extended Aus the courtesy of
a "well played".
Cheers,
Mike
Shishir Pathak
<snip>
> > > Mike,
> > > I didn't see you say that Australia played pretty well to win this
match
> > > either. So perhaps you are in a position to answer your own question -
> > > Did you think they didn't play well or did you just not feel like
> > > acknowledging it?
> > >
> > > - Gussie (in a Mephistopheles costume)
> >
> > If at all it was possible, the English posters would have loved to
attribute
> > the Aussie win over Pak to Grumpy Hussain's great captaincy. What
possibly
> > stopped them in their tracks was that the Second Avatar of Mike Brearley
was
> > seen playing, (and losing - but then what's new?) a game in a football
> > stadium in which 8, 10, and 12 runs are aloud. Explaining the 6000
miles
> > difference between the two venues presented a rather ticklish problem,
even
> > for people who occupy the high moral ground.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Shishir
True to your posting history, you've confused the issues completely. See
below.
> I thought it was the Indian posters attributing St. Steve's new-found
mental
New-found mental strength, eh? St. Steve, the original Rock of Gibralter,
was born with mental strength, we are told. As it is, there is a concerted
campaign by the Aussie posters to get rid of St. Steve's early years in Test
cricket. Now you are telling us that his mental strength is new found! St.
Steve, and his fans here, won't be too impressed by your efforts to put the
man down.
> strength down to the lessons served up to him by St. Gangs
Indian posters have always been claiming that Pt. Gangs (note the Pt. in
place of St. Do not try to give Christian prefixes to Hindu Maharajas)
*destroyed* St. Steve's tough mental makeup, by getting under his skin. I
haven't read any posts by the Indian posters where they claim that Pt. Gangs
served up any lessons in mental toughness to St. Steve. You'll, of course,
be able to point us to the posts, in case I have missed those.
(aka the greatest
> captain ever, anywhwere),
Since you are usually very hung-up about Google links, can you point us to
posts where the Indian posters (or anyone else for that matter) have called
Pt. Gangs the 'greatest captain ever, anywhere'?
<snip>
Shishir
Andrew Dunford
> "alvey" <alveyunders...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Okey dokey, perhaps you should consider that all this 'dirt' comes out on
> >the Australians because they *are* #1? You know, chickens & eggs.
> >ALvey
>
>
> Let me put it this way - before SA toured Aus there wasn't any clear
'victor'
> and SA and Aus were considered by almost everyone to be equally talented
> teams.
You must be joking. Maybe some people thought that, but I can't imagine
"almost everyone" did. I'd say that South Africa was acknowledged as having
an excellent record against all nations other than Australia (their loss in
England in 1998 notwithstanding), but nothing like "equally talented".
> In fact that series was widely advertised as the fight for #1.
Yes, it was. Largely because in terms of the ICC ratings, it *was* the
fight for the top spot.
BTW, I like the Jethro Tull reference.
Andrew
alvey
> <alveyunders...@yahoo.com> tapped the keyboard and brought
snip
>
> I note that nobody seems to have felt it worth saying that Australia
> played pretty well to win this match. Is this because they didn't, or
> because no-one feels like acknowledging it?
Bob Cunis.
Alvey
alvey
"Shishir Pathak" <shishir_p...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:anu09u$guqij$1...@ID-134415.news.dfncis.de...
snippo
>
> If at all it was possible, the English posters would have loved to
attribute
> the Aussie win over Pak to Grumpy Hussain's great captaincy. What
possibly
> stopped them in their tracks was that the Second Avatar of Mike Brearley
was
> seen playing, (and losing - but then what's new?) a game in a football
> stadium in which 8, 10, and 12 runs are aloud. Explaining the 6000 miles
> difference between the two venues presented a rather ticklish problem,
even
> for people who occupy the high moral ground.
They must be slipping then. I would've thought it bleedin' obvious that
SRW's recent drove of games in county made the crucial difference in SL...
Alvey
Bob Dubery
(Augustus Fink-Nottle) wrote:
>"alvey" <alveyunders...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Okey dokey, perhaps you should consider that all this 'dirt' comes out on
>>the Australians because they *are* #1? You know, chickens & eggs.
>>ALvey
>
>
>Let me put it this way - before SA toured Aus there wasn't any clear 'victor'
>and SA and Aus were considered by almost everyone to be equally talented
>teams. In fact that series was widely advertised as the fight for #1. If your
>theory was true, then till Dec '01, SA would also have had the same amount
>of bad press that the Aussies had.
Certainly that was the case on RSC.
The SA team were repeatedly portrayed as racist, foul-mouthed,
arrogant and cheats.
They were frequently accused of cheating by claiming catches that they
knew they had grassed.
Maybe we deserved some criticism - after all we had a captain who'd
been caught treading on the ball and had bullied an umpire into
changing a decision - but a lot of it was unsubstantiated and
predicated on the assumption that BECAUSE the team was a South African
team ipso facto they were unrepentent racists to a man.
Peter van der Merwe copped huge flack after checking the bats of the
Indian team at a pre-match net session - but of course that was just
more proof that SAns had it in for non-whites.
There was no end to the outrage and the condemnation when news broke
of what turned out to be trumped-up charges of racial insults made by
the Proteas to children. But even that seemed to just be confirmation
of what most of RSC "knew" already.
All of this before Cronje's dealings with bookies were exposed.
alvey
"Augustus Fink-Nottle" <thick_as_a_brick@gerald_bostock.com> wrote in
message news:anttt3$18fl$3...@msunews.cl.msu.edu...
> >Okey dokey, perhaps you should consider that all this 'dirt' comes out on
> >the Australians because they *are* #1? You know, chickens & eggs.
> >ALvey
>
>
> Let me put it this way - before SA toured Aus there wasn't any clear
'victor'
> and SA and Aus were considered by almost everyone to be equally talented
> teams. In fact that series was widely advertised as the fight for #1. If
your
> theory was true, then till Dec '01, SA would also have had the same amount
> of bad press that the Aussies had. That SA lost badly to the Aussies is of
no
> consequence since the Aussies have had the 'arrogant/spoilt brat' image
for
> a few years now and long before the SA series. It has to do with their
> behaviour.
Funny you should mention the RSA series. Before they landed in Aust they
were fairly bombastic and made columns worth of poking fingers in chest
genre statements about how they were going to wipe Aust off the pitch. Sound
familiar?
>
> How many captains do you know who've called their counterparts 'pricks' in
> public? The answer to this question will give you some idea of why they
are
> disliked. I wouldn't call it 'hate' as the subject title says, but
'dislike'.
> There is an element of goodwill which the Aussie team lacks. Whether it is
> Slater making an ass of himself in the middle or Brett Lee trying to
> intimidate hapless tailenders or threaten to rip someone's "bloody head
off"
> or the ultra-pathetic, childish slipping of dossiers under hotel doors -
it
> all goes into the debit column in terms of goodwill. And if you don't have
> any goodwill towards people, you tend to dislike them. It is as simple as
> that.
I don't think that listing a few incidents is such a good idea. For one
thing it just leads to endless tit for tat. Like; isn't India's captain the
most featured player in the ICC's Bad Boy list? And isn't he the same
captain who once gave the finger to a group of opposition spectators? And
who also deliberately and arrogantly kept the opposing captain waiting at
the toss. Then there's that famous sheep-rooter Venkatesh Prasad who's
performance on his last tour here made him a celebrity in NZ. Then there's
convicted ball-tamperer S. Tendulkar. Then there's half the team being fined
for umpire intimidation. Then there's...
So we don't want to go down that road do we? It's far too simple.
Alvey
Shishir Pathak
Huh??
I was talking about Grumpy Hussain here, not SRW.
Hussain = Grumpy = Brearley's Second Avatar = Someone on the 'high moral
ground' = Captain of the 'Power Cricket' team = yada yada yada
Shishir
Moby
"Andrew Dunford" <adun...@artifaxsoftware.com> wrote in message
news:blqo9.8730$b5.8...@news02.tsnz.net...
> > The Australian team has been accused of bad behaviour here, the fact
that
> every
> > single instance has been denied by sundry Australian posters on rsc does
> not
> > make it true.
>
> Ian wrote "behaved and played".
I think it's fairly important to note that by far and away the most
"denying" that goes on is in response to the more ridiculous of claims.
Ken and his ilk never seem to be satisfied with a basic "they did wrong" and
need to pile accusation upon accusation to get the worst possible verdict
against Australian players.
When players don't do anything wrong, it's "they did something wrong."
When players do do something wrong it's "they did something worse."
There'd be a lot less defense if there wasn't so much stupid and
insufferable attack for no just reason.
Moby
Colin Kynoch
Augustus Fink-Nottle wrote:
> "alvey" <alveyunders...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>"Atul" <at...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:329616fa.0210...@posting.google.com...
>>
>>>Which is the most hated team in cricket world today.
>>>Based on responses on rsc, I guess Australia.
>>>Any ideas Why?
>>>
>>Easiest question of all-time.
>>
>>Because we're # 1. It's the tall gum tree syndrome mate.
>>Alvey
>>
>
>
> I'd guess the Aussies are the most disliked team today, but I don't agree
> with Alvey about it being because of their ranking in the incomplete Test
> Champs table. The Windies of the 80s were far more formidable than the
> Aussies in recent years and far from being disliked the Windies were
> admired by one and all despite their failings. The dislike for the Aussie
> team, I believe, stems from their behaviour. All the mental disintegration
> nonsense, leaking stupid dossiers on the opposition, unrestrained and
> unacceptable on-field behaviour, stupid comments in the press, etc.
Just wondering how this is so different from the Windies of the 80's
Colin Kynoch
Colin Kynoch
Mike Holmans wrote:
The latter Mike. Anything even close to praise for Australia is
grudging at the absolute best from most posters on this groiup.
Colin Kynoch
Colin Kynoch
Colin Kynoch
HSaurav wrote:
> 1.It's because Australia is arrogant and shows no grace in victory.
Bullshit
> 2.Australia is the master of sledging.
Pro
> 3. When Australia loses fair and square they claim they were robbed by the
> umpires
Can you name the last time? Didn't think so.
> 4. When Australia is up against it,they start start questioning opposing
> bowlers' techniques e.g, scurrilous attempts to destroy Shaoib and Murali
Shaoib has been shown to be a chucker in the past and as his action
hasn't changed why is it hard to belive that he has chucked and will
chuck again?
Murali also throws some balls.Just checked my Roget's and couldn't find
the word scurrilous as synonymous to legalistic.
> 5. If Australia loses, the groundstaff schemed mercilessly against them to set
> up the pitch for the opposition
Horseshit
> 6. If the opposition stands up to Aussie mind games they're being both childish
> and unsporting
Examples?
> 7. Every news organisation is supposed to be biased against Australia bar the
> illiterate Aussie gutter press(the only form of Aussie press)
Most countries news organsiations are naturally biased towards their own
teams.
Interestingly there was some negative press for the Aussies in the
Melbourne dailies.
> 8. Only Aussies are allowed to complain(which they do constantly),any
> legitimate complaints by opponents is branded 'whingeing Poms' etc.....
Whereas whinging from the other teams is justified complaints I guess.
And of course you are an unbiased observer, still pissed off at your
teams behaviour in RSA. Sorry the fact they were caught.
Colin Kynoch
Bob Dubery
<mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I have little way of knowing either way, since I wasn't going to
>subscribe to a Pakistani TV channel purely for the purposes of
>watching the match. I would have thought that Aus's performance to
>deny Pakistan what must have looked like a pretty good chance of
>victory suggested that they did play well,
Chasing 300 to win a test is always a tallish order - even if you have
time in hand.
Where Australia won the match was in Pakistan's first innings where
Warne bowled them out cheaply. If they'd had got 60 or 70 runs more in
that innings and the rest of the match proceeded as it actually did
then Pakistan would have been chasing a more gettable score - albeit
with a little less time.
Whatever... it seems to have been a good match and hardly a cakewalk
for Australia.
I didn't see the game - but I'd think that both sides deserve a
"well-played"
samarth harish shah
> On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 06:06:43 GMT, Augustus Fink-Nottle wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> :I'd guess the Aussies are the most disliked team today, but I don't agree
> :with Alvey about it being because of their ranking in the incomplete Test
> :Champs table. The Windies of the 80s were far more formidable than the
> :Aussies in recent years and far from being disliked the Windies were
> :admired by one and all despite their failings.
>
> If that WI team was around today and behaved and played the way did
> back then they would be hated as much as the Aust. team of today.
Assertion, provide proof.
> :The dislike for the Aussie
> :team, I believe, stems from their behaviour. All the mental disintegration
> :nonsense, leaking stupid dossiers on the opposition, unrestrained and
> :unacceptable on-field behaviour, stupid comments in the press, etc.
>
> You've got rose coloured glasses on, the WI were every bit as arrogant
> and behaved just as badly as this Aust. team,
Assertion, provide proof.
and they had another
> fault that this Aust. team doesn't, they made cricket boring.
Yet another assertion without proof. What's interesting and what's boring
depends on the p.o.v. of the observer, of course. If you're saying
Australia have more variety in their bowling attack, I agree completely.
If you're saying WI bowlers bowled short a lot of the time, I'd have to
disagree. They may have on occasion, but I don't think you'll convince
Indians who saw Marshall in 1983-4 that their bowling was 'boring'. I
doubt you'll convince them it was anything but beautiful, even if it was
the Indian batsmen at the receiving end. Similarly, I doubt you'll
convince Boycott that Holding's bowling was 'boring' in 1981.
As respects batting, I think it is impossible for a batting line-up that
includes Greenidge, Haynes, Kallicharan, Richards, Lloyd, etc. to be
boring. Even Dujon had a silken touch to his batting.
And as respects fielding, I think some of the slip catches to the fast
bowlers were phenomenally athletic. In India in 1987-8, the slips would be
few in number (relatively) but cover a large area. Richardson in
particular would leave huge gaps on either side of him and dive full
length, parallel to the ground, and take catches that way off the pacers.
It was amazing to watch. I think Gus Logie and Roger Harper were widely
regarded as being among the best fielders in the world during their
playing days.
-Samarth [ who regrets that WI didn't play his favorite team of the 80s,
NZ, often enough in the 80s ].
samarth harish shah
> On Mon, 7 Oct 2002 19:52:33 +1000, "alvey"
> <alveyunders...@yahoo.com> tapped the keyboard and brought
> forth:
>
>
> >Okey dokey, perhaps you should consider that all this 'dirt' comes out on
> >the Australians because they *are* #1? You know, chickens & eggs. Didn't you
> >yourself made some comment elsewhere about how "droves" of Aussies started
> >whinging about Shoaib's action soon as he started doing well. See a parallel
> >there?
>
> I note that nobody seems to have felt it worth saying that Australia
> played pretty well to win this match. Is this because they didn't, or
> because no-one feels like acknowledging it?
Australia played extremely well to win this match. For the record, before
I am accused of being anti- the respective teams, let me add also that
Northern Districts (Adelaide) played very well to beat Southern Districts
(Adelaide), Adelaide played very well to beat Port Adelaide, Prospect
played very well to beat Adelaide University, Border played very well to
beat Griqualand West, Free State played very well to beat Natal and
Western Province played very well to beat Boland.
And, before I forget, Tirunelveli U-8 girls played very well to beat Salem
U-8 girls, too.
-Samarth.
Jan Buxton
> Which is the most hated team in cricket world today.
> Based on responses on rsc, I guess Australia.
> Any ideas Why?
I wouldn't say Australia. I have nothing but admiration for them.
I don't hate any teams, some of the overappealing/squealing antics the
subcontinental teams indulge in sometimes turns the stomach but its
irritation rather than hatred.
--
Jan
Ken Higgs
Mike Holmans wrote:
Some posters have, in the past, opined that Shoaib chucks. Some appear to jump on
the bandwagon. Still others seem to label anyone who bowls well against Australia
as a chucker (I presume you missed the flurry of 'Murali chucks' posts after Aus
went down to SL in the recent odo?).
Couple that with some whingeing about umpiring decisions, accusations that Younis
is a cheat and the earlier spat about pitch doctoring and you get to some idea as
to why the discussion veered somewhere else.
>
> Nobody, though, as far as I can see, has extended Aus the courtesy of
> a "well played".
>
Then you missed my post saying as much yesterday morning.
But Hamish tells me that you think I misrepresent everything anyway
Higgsy
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
Ken Higgs
Shishir Pathak wrote:
True to your posting history, you're exhibiting an unbelievably thin skin.
I had thought that this part of the thread was a bit of a gentle spoof, but I
guess I missed the FAQ that informed us that it was a spoof about teams other
than India.
>
> > I thought it was the Indian posters attributing St. Steve's new-found
> mental
>
> New-found mental strength, eh? St. Steve, the original Rock of Gibralter,
> was born with mental strength, we are told. As it is, there is a concerted
> campaign by the Aussie posters to get rid of St. Steve's early years in Test
> cricket. Now you are telling us that his mental strength is new found! St.
> Steve, and his fans here, won't be too impressed by your efforts to put the
> man down.
>
It was a playful reference to recent discussions over mental disintegration
involving St Steve and St Gangs the Perfect
>
> > strength down to the lessons served up to him by St. Gangs
>
> Indian posters have always been claiming that Pt. Gangs (note the Pt. in
> place of St. Do not try to give Christian prefixes to Hindu Maharajas)
> *destroyed* St. Steve's tough mental makeup, by getting under his skin. I
> haven't read any posts by the Indian posters where they claim that Pt. Gangs
> served up any lessons in mental toughness to St. Steve. You'll, of course,
> be able to point us to the posts, in case I have missed those.
>
Of course I will, they'd be on exactly the same link as to the ones where
English posters attribute the Aus win over Pak to Hussein. I notice that in your
original reference to that post, you ommitted the link. I'm unable to find it,
but I'm sure you'll be providing it in your reply.
>
> (aka the greatest
> > captain ever, anywhwere),
>
> Since you are usually very hung-up about Google links, can you point us to
> posts where the Indian posters (or anyone else for that matter) have called
> Pt. Gangs the 'greatest captain ever, anywhere'?
>
See above, it was on the same link as the one where English posters claim
Hussein was the architect of the Aus victory.
>
> <snip>
>
> Shishir
Sheesh!
Higgsy
Ken Higgs
alvey wrote:
> "Augustus Fink-Nottle" <thick_as_a_brick@gerald_bostock.com> wrote in
> message news:anttt3$18fl$3...@msunews.cl.msu.edu...
> > "alvey" <alveyunders...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >Okey dokey, perhaps you should consider that all this 'dirt' comes out on
> > >the Australians because they *are* #1? You know, chickens & eggs.
> > >ALvey
> >
> >
> > Let me put it this way - before SA toured Aus there wasn't any clear
> 'victor'
> > and SA and Aus were considered by almost everyone to be equally talented
> > teams. In fact that series was widely advertised as the fight for #1. If
> your
> > theory was true, then till Dec '01, SA would also have had the same amount
> > of bad press that the Aussies had. That SA lost badly to the Aussies is of
> no
> > consequence since the Aussies have had the 'arrogant/spoilt brat' image
> for
> > a few years now and long before the SA series. It has to do with their
> > behaviour.
>
> Funny you should mention the RSA series. Before they landed in Aust they
> were fairly bombastic and made columns worth of poking fingers in chest
> genre statements about how they were going to wipe Aust off the pitch. Sound
> familiar?
Not really.
Perhaps you'd be so good as to provide some proof?
Is it?
Surely just a blanket denial that any Indian cricketer anywhere has ever done
anything wrong would suffice.
I mean, it seems to work ok for you Aussies.....
Higgsy
Ken Higgs
Moby wrote:
> "Andrew Dunford" <adun...@artifaxsoftware.com> wrote in message
> news:blqo9.8730$b5.8...@news02.tsnz.net...
> >
> > "Ken Higgs" <kenh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3DA23403...@hotmail.com...
>
> > > The Australian team has been accused of bad behaviour here, the fact
> that
> > every
> > > single instance has been denied by sundry Australian posters on rsc does
> > not
> > > make it true.
> >
> > Ian wrote "behaved and played".
>
> I think it's fairly important to note that by far and away the most
> "denying" that goes on is in response to the more ridiculous of claims.
>
Do you?
I don't.
I think the denying is in response to virtually every claim.
>
> Ken and his ilk never seem to be satisfied with a basic "they did wrong" and
> need to pile accusation upon accusation to get the worst possible verdict
> against Australian players.
>
Yet Moby and his ilk seem outraged that anyone anywhere can ever criticise
Australian behaviour.
I still remember the claims from Moby that Healy had never been out of order on
a cricket pitch, despite me supplying numerous examples.....
>
> When players don't do anything wrong, it's "they did something wrong."
> When players do do something wrong it's "they did something worse."
>
Not at all, I'm quite happy to believe that most players are not angels and
somewhere along the line, they step over the mark on occasions. I just find it
hypocritical that many Australians somehow see themselves as above criticism.
>
> There'd be a lot less defense if there wasn't so much stupid and
> insufferable attack for no just reason.
>
> Moby
OK, you were a staunch defender of Slater and his set too with Dravid.
What was so stupid and unsufferable and lacking in reason about the condemnation
of Slater?
Reply via Andrew if you wish
Higgsy
sudeep
> You've got rose coloured glasses on, the WI were every bit as arrogant
> and behaved just as badly as this Aust. team,
Please provide proof.
sudeep
aussies bowled very well. Fielders were awful...they dont deserve a "well played".
sudeep
> thing it just leads to endless tit for tat. Like; isn't India's captain the
> most featured player in the ICC's Bad Boy list?
And isn't he the same
> captain who once gave the finger to a group of opposition spectators?
Did he? please provide proof?
And who also deliberately and arrogantly kept the opposing captain
waiting at
> the toss. Then there's that famous sheep-rooter Venkatesh Prasad who's
> performance on his last tour here made him a celebrity in NZ.
Isnt Prasad a vegetarian? oh i guess thats not harming animals...well
maybe it is!! my mistake
Then there's
> convicted ball-tamperer S. Tendulkar.
He was never convicted of ball tampering.
Then there's half the team being fined for umpire intimidation.
For doing something that other teams routinely do.
The fact that Ganguly was fined for doing NOTHING (something Steve
Waugh routinely does)...should answer your point about Ganguly always
appearing in the bad boy books of the illustrious ICC.
Then there's...
keep going...
Michael Banner
news:23f06ba4.02100...@posting.google.com...
> > I don't think that listing a few incidents is such a good idea. For one
> > thing it just leads to endless tit for tat. Like; isn't India's captain
the
> > most featured player in the ICC's Bad Boy list?
>
> And isn't he the same
> > captain who once gave the finger to a group of opposition spectators?
>
> Did he? please provide proof?
The first article my search provided:
http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2001/mar/22fais.htm
Slightly biased towards the Indians, but it conveys all the relevant
information.
And yes, it was also on tape.
> > Then there's that famous sheep-rooter Venkatesh Prasad who's
> > performance on his last tour here made him a celebrity in NZ.
>
> Isnt Prasad a vegetarian? oh i guess thats not harming animals...well
> maybe it is!! my mistake
You recall the incident, though don't you? If not, it is strange you recall
Australian misdemeanors but not Indian. If you need help remembering
though - it involved Slater, and I'd say BLee was watching, to judge by his
boorish behaviour when he is lucky enough to get wickets.
<snip Sudeep doing what Australians do when the shoe is on the other foot>
I think Alvey has made his point (to Gussie) though, don't you Sudeep?
Ian Galbraith
<shs...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Ian Galbraith wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 06:06:43 GMT, Augustus Fink-Nottle wrote:
>> :I'd guess the Aussies are the most disliked team today, but I don't agree
>> :with Alvey about it being because of their ranking in the incomplete Test
>> :Champs table. The Windies of the 80s were far more formidable than the
>> :Aussies in recent years and far from being disliked the Windies were
>> :admired by one and all despite their failings.
>> If that WI team was around today and behaved and played the way did
>> back then they would be hated as much as the Aust. team of today.
>Assertion, provide proof.
Its clearly an opinion, but I hold that opinion because the WI were
arrogant and behaved badly on a number of occasions. In todays climate
with teh increase in scrutiny this is clearly not acceptable from any
team.
>> :The dislike for the Aussie
>> :team, I believe, stems from their behaviour. All the mental disintegration
>> :nonsense, leaking stupid dossiers on the opposition, unrestrained and
>> :unacceptable on-field behaviour, stupid comments in the press, etc.
>> You've got rose coloured glasses on, the WI were every bit as arrogant
>> and behaved just as badly as this Aust. team,
>Assertion, provide proof.
Already answered in this thread.
>> and they had another
>> fault that this Aust. team doesn't, they made cricket boring.
>Yet another assertion without proof.
Again its clearly another opinion not fact. What you really mean is
that you would like further explanation. OK I'll give it to you. The
WI were boring because they didn't provide a contest, without a
contest the game is not exciting. WI tours only livened up in Sydney
and by the time that test rolled around the tour was already won and
the WI didn't appear to even try much of the time. Yes it was exciting
to watch them bat, but when it came time for them to bowl we got slow
overrates and bouncer after bouncer, it was boring cricket.
[snip]
xss
> > Based on responses on rsc, I guess Australia.
> > Any ideas Why?
>
>
> Because we're # 1. It's the tall gum tree syndrome mate.
>
Name three people who hate tall gum trees.
samir
sudeep
>
>
> Bullshit
You dont think they are arrogant?
>
> > 2.Australia is the master of sledging.
>
>
> Pro
Yes I would also call McGrath standing there screaming and swearing at
the batsmen everytime he gets hit for a 4, VERY PROFESSIONAL!!!
>
> > 3. When Australia loses fair and square they claim they were robbed by the
> > umpires
>
>
> > 6. If the opposition stands up to Aussie mind games they're being both childish
> > and unsporting
>
>
> Examples?
Some indian players gave Steve Waugh some of his own medicine in the
tour game in India. Langer came out and said the Indians were
unsporting and said the captain of Australia deserved better.
The paki batsmen who took a swipe at the ball basically said F*** YOU
to the aussies...dont throw the ball near me. Gilly had a good whinge.
IF he didnt want to get his the VC of Australia should tell his
bolwers not to throw the bloody ball.
>
>
> > 7. Every news organisation is supposed to be biased against Australia bar the
> > illiterate Aussie gutter press(the only form of Aussie press)
>
>
>
> Most countries news organsiations are naturally biased towards their own
> teams.
>
>
> Interestingly there was some negative press for the Aussies in the
> Melbourne dailies.
>
>
> > 8. Only Aussies are allowed to complain(which they do constantly),any
> > legitimate complaints by opponents is branded 'whingeing Poms' etc.....
>
>
> Whereas whinging from the other teams is justified complaints I guess.
>
> And of course you are an unbiased observer, still pissed off at your
> teams behaviour in RSA. Sorry the fact they were caught.
The excessive appealing from MY team bothers me. The liberal
punishments handed out to the Indians for things other teams routinely
do bothers me even more.
>
> Colin Kynoch
Bob Dubery
wrote:
>crud.
>It's been attempted before.
>The only incidence of bad behaviour found was WI in NZ about 20 years ago.
>The Australian team has been accused of bad behaviour here, the fact that every
>single instance has been denied by sundry Australian posters on rsc does not
>make it true.
Ken, what went on on that tour was not some kind of minor blemish on
the West Indies record. A fast bowler shoulder charging an umpire is
egregiously bad behaviour. Kicking the stumps out of the ground was
not anything for anybody to be proud of either. And neither Lloyd nor
the management moved to discipline the team.
You also don't mention the various shenanigans of 1990. Richards
making V-signs to the crowd, threatening a journalist, barging into
the press box to deliver a phillipic when he should have been leading
his team onto the field.
There is no doubt that they sometimes overdid the short ball. And as
for over rates...
It's hard to know about the motives in people's heads, but I should
imagine that if, say, Shoaib broke somebody's arm or , for argument's
sake, Lee bowled a ball that effectively removed somebody's nose from
their face there would be howls of protest and large scale
vilification in the media.
A lot of people were rightly alarmed at Ranatunga taking his side off
of the field. Let a bowler shoulder charge an umpire and see what the
world thinks about that.
And the contemporary reaction to a player bursting into the press box
to harangue a journalist is easily imagined.
>I found the WIndies a very exciting team.
>If you didn't get off watching Viv at his peak, yet enjoy BLeet bouncing
>tailenders, we have differing opinions on excitement
No doubt that Viv was a great batsman. But Brett Lee is hardly the
first fast bowler to bounce tail-enders - which doesn't make it any
better or any worse.
I recall that Greg Chappell once implored Willis to not play forward
to Lillee and Thompson. The thought of instructing his bowlers to
eschew the short stuff and finish the rabbit off with a yorker did not
seem to enter into his thinking.
Imran was fond of the short-ball.
Clive Rice sometimes gave tail-enders a fearful working over.
The West Indian pace attacks of the 1980s dished bouncers out to
tail-enders.
All test teams have blots on their record.
However it is also true that the spotlight shines brighter on teams
that are at the top.
Bob Dubery
<shs...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Ian Galbraith wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 06:06:43 GMT, Augustus Fink-Nottle wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> :I'd guess the Aussies are the most disliked team today, but I don't agree
>> :with Alvey about it being because of their ranking in the incomplete Test
>> :Champs table. The Windies of the 80s were far more formidable than the
>> :Aussies in recent years and far from being disliked the Windies were
>> :admired by one and all despite their failings.
>>
>> If that WI team was around today and behaved and played the way did
>> back then they would be hated as much as the Aust. team of today.
>
>Assertion, provide proof.
He can't and you know it. Because that WI team is not around today.
But I think it's reasonable to try and anticipate the reactions that
would occur now if...
1) A fast bowler shoulder-charged an umpire
2) The captain of a test side threatened a journalist with violence
3) A bowler chucked a brick into the crowd.
It would make Rantatunga leading his team off the field look retty
tame.
Bob Dubery
There's a whole load of them in Johannesburg :-)
They have apartments in blocks adjoining the wanderers and could get a
good view of the game for free if it weren't for some strategically
placed gum trees.
Ken Higgs
Bob Dubery wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Oct 2002 11:25:23 +1000, Ken Higgs <kenh...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >crud.
> >It's been attempted before.
> >The only incidence of bad behaviour found was WI in NZ about 20 years ago.
> >The Australian team has been accused of bad behaviour here, the fact that every
> >single instance has been denied by sundry Australian posters on rsc does not
> >make it true.
>
> Ken, what went on on that tour was not some kind of minor blemish on
> the West Indies record. A fast bowler shoulder charging an umpire is
> egregiously bad behaviour. Kicking the stumps out of the ground was
> not anything for anybody to be proud of either. And neither Lloyd nor
> the management moved to discipline the team.
>
I hadn't condoned it, I simply mentioned that it was the only incidence that was
brought up (and is, with regularity). I don't think anyone was particularly proud,
the NZers certainly weren't proud of the umpiring which, let's face it, was less
than perfect. That doesn't excuse anything, as I said.
>
> You also don't mention the various shenanigans of 1990. Richards
> making V-signs to the crowd, threatening a journalist, barging into
> the press box to deliver a phillipic when he should have been leading
> his team onto the field.
>
I don't mention them, because I'm not the one claiming the 1980s WIndies were far
worse behaved than the present Australians. I didn't mention Warne giving V signs to
the crowd, Merv attacking a spectator with a bat, numerous petulant screaming send
offs from BLeet, Slater abusing Dravid or St Steve questioning the umps decision,
but perhaps I should've. They've all been mentioned here before, and defended too.
>
> There is no doubt that they sometimes overdid the short ball. And as
> for over rates...
>
yes, they did. But the present Australian side doesn't?
OK, the WIndies were bigger offenders, but what EXACTLY is BLeets role in the side?
>
> It's hard to know about the motives in people's heads, but I should
> imagine that if, say, Shoaib broke somebody's arm or , for argument's
> sake, Lee bowled a ball that effectively removed somebody's nose from
> their face there would be howls of protest and large scale
> vilification in the media.
>
Jayasuriya had his arm broken in the odo series in Australia in 1997(?), I think it
was McGrath. The Aussies made a thing of putting in the short ball, warne was
skipper and he basically said SL were suspect against the short stuff, if his team
got occasionaly pinged for over shoulder height, he was prepared to wear it.
There was no outcry.
>
> A lot of people were rightly alarmed at Ranatunga taking his side off
> of the field. Let a bowler shoulder charge an umpire and see what the
> world thinks about that.
>
or another player?
>
> And the contemporary reaction to a player bursting into the press box
> to harangue a journalist is easily imagined.
>
go on, fill me in.
>
> >I found the WIndies a very exciting team.
> >If you didn't get off watching Viv at his peak, yet enjoy BLeet bouncing
> >tailenders, we have differing opinions on excitement
>
> No doubt that Viv was a great batsman. But Brett Lee is hardly the
> first fast bowler to bounce tail-enders - which doesn't make it any
> better or any worse.
>
indeed.
>
> I recall that Greg Chappell once implored Willis to not play forward
> to Lillee and Thompson. The thought of instructing his bowlers to
> eschew the short stuff and finish the rabbit off with a yorker did not
> seem to enter into his thinking.
>
I'm not arguing that bad behaviour is the sole preserve or was invented by this
Australian team.
>
> Imran was fond of the short-ball.
>
plenty of others in that boat
>
> Clive Rice sometimes gave tail-enders a fearful working over.
>
not so many in that boat
>
> The West Indian pace attacks of the 1980s dished bouncers out to
> tail-enders.
>
not as routinely as BLeet, IIRC
>
> All test teams have blots on their record.
>
indeed
>
> However it is also true that the spotlight shines brighter on teams
> that are at the top.
probably.
Higgsy
alvey
> > snippo
> > >
> > > If at all it was possible, the English posters would have loved to
> > attribute
> > > the Aussie win over Pak to Grumpy Hussain's great captaincy. What
> > possibly
> > > stopped them in their tracks was that the Second Avatar of Mike
Brearley
> > was
> > > seen playing, (and losing - but then what's new?) a game in a football
> > > stadium in which 8, 10, and 12 runs are aloud. Explaining the 6000
> miles
> > > difference between the two venues presented a rather ticklish problem,
> > even
> > > for people who occupy the high moral ground.
> >
> > They must be slipping then. I would've thought it bleedin' obvious that
> > SRW's recent drove of games in county made the crucial difference in
SL...
>
> Huh??
>
> I was talking about Grumpy Hussain here, not SRW.
Yep. I was referring to SRW having gained deep & mystical knowledge just
from being recently, however briefly, lit by the aura of Nasser. Long bow,
but wtf.
Alvey
Andrew Dunford
"Bob Dubery" <mega...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3da3c293...@10.100.2.1...
I was treated to some archive footage of the West Indies tour of NZ in
1979/80 during the innings break of the recent ICC No Champions Trophy
final. In fact, to keep things consistent I was treated to the same footage
on both days. Everything looked about as bad as I remembered ie. it wasn't
as though the story had grown in the telling.
All the grisly bits were shown, reminding me that Holding was only the first
of two to demolish the stumps on the final day at Dunedin (Greenidge
repeated the act when NZ scored the winning run). Croft's barge was there,
plus the sit-in protest on the Sunday afternoon of the Christchurch Test,
when the Windies team refused to come out of their dressing room for 20
minutes after the tea break. Of course, the other noticeable factor was the
alacrity with which Fred Goodall gave his decisions: when NZ were batting I
could swear that he said 'not out' before the bowler appealed.
Incidentally, you omitted to mention the prelude to the captain threatening
the journalist with violence in 1990: the fielding captain who also did the
umpiring.
Andrew
Larry de Silva
"Ian Galbraith" <igalb...@ozonline.com.au> wrote in message
news:ftj4qu001st0j17ri...@4ax.com...
> On 07 Oct 2002 12:09:23 GMT, Samantha26no wrote:
>
> :>If that WI team was around today and behaved and played the way did
> :>back then they would be hated as much as the Aust. team of today.
>
>
> :would you mind telling us how you deduced this/
>
> As I said they behaved at least as badly as this Aust. team plus they
> made the matches boring.
Another absolute crap post from Master Ian. The WI team of the 80 were so
strong mentally that they never had to verbally abuse any opposition player
to win games. I know of many SL players who played against the then WI and
not ONE word was said as abuse. Actually, the fact is that the then WI teams
were some of the most social & friendly teams going around. They would have
a regular drink & feed with the SL boys & get into the local music, food
etc. They were NEVER boring, even when beating the then SL teams fairly
easily. They were bloody entertaining to the end dude.
So you REALLY have NO IDEA about what you are posting about Ian. Damn silly
stuff.
Larrikin
Larry de Silva
"Joe Black" <net...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a583f4fb.02100...@posting.google.com...
> hsa...@aol.com (HSaurav) wrote in message
news:<20021007021336...@mb-mj.aol.com>...
> > 1.It's because Australia is arrogant and shows no grace in victory.
> >
> >
the
> > umpires
> >
> > bowlers' techniques e.g, scurrilous attempts to destroy Shaoib and
Murali
> >
to set
> > up the pitch for the opposition
> >
childish
> > and unsporting
> >
bar the
> > illiterate Aussie gutter press(the only form of Aussie press)
> >
> > legitimate complaints by opponents is branded 'whingeing Poms' etc.....
> >
> >
>
> Jeez, youve applied the 'De Silva' philosophy to your English cricket
> team.
I didn't have anything to do with this post dude. So don't bloody bring me
into it as usual. Fight your own bloody battles, you sook.
Larrikin
> I can see it now: "Aussie gutter press nobble Caddick". Hahaha. Blame
> everything else and everyone else for your inept performances. Lack of
> cricket academy, sub-standard first class cricket scene? No, Steve
> Waugh kept calling me dirty names!
>
> Jeez, you hate Australians, but who is running your cricket
> development program, huh? If we are so bad why'd you hire Rod Marsh in
> the first fucking place? Why are most of the large scores in your
> domestic leagues scored by Australian and other internationals?
> Because your players arent fucking good enough!
>
> Stop trundling out the same sad sack of shit excuses, play decent
> fucking cricket for once, and maybe you will get a bit of respect from
> the current test champions.
alvey
> > thing it just leads to endless tit for tat. Like; isn't India's captain
the
> > most featured player in the ICC's Bad Boy list?
>
> And isn't he the same
> > captain who once gave the finger to a group of opposition spectators?
>
> Did he? please provide proof?
http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2001/mar/22fais.htm
>
> And who also deliberately and arrogantly kept the opposing captain
> waiting at
> > the toss. Then there's that famous sheep-rooter Venkatesh Prasad who's
> > performance on his last tour here made him a celebrity in NZ.
>
> Isnt Prasad a vegetarian? oh i guess thats not harming animals...well
> maybe it is!! my mistake
Dunno about mistake. Indecipherable definately.
"Venkatesh Prasad
Australia v India 2nd Test Match
26th/30th December 1999 at Melbourne
Breach of Code 2 - on dismissing batsman, charged down the pitch to within
touching distance of the batsman. Then stood in front of the batsman
gesturing. Fined 35% of his gross match fee with suspended suspension of 1
Test or 2 ODIs for a four month period effective until 27th April 2000"
Note that this was Prasad's second conviction that year for this offence.
http://www-aus1.cricket.org/link_to_database/NATIONAL/ICC/ABOUT/PENALTIES_19
99.html
>
> Then there's
> > convicted ball-tamperer S. Tendulkar.
>
> He was never convicted of ball tampering.
Eh? What does this mean then?
"Sachin Tendulkar South Africa v India, 2nd Test
16 - 20 November 2001 at Port Elizabeth Breach of Code 2, alleged
interference with the match ball, thereby changing its condition. Found
guilty of bringing the game into disrepute. Fined 75% of match fee and
suspended suspension of one Test match., effective from 20th November to
31st December 2001. Any further breach of the Code in this period will incur
the one Test "
http://www-aus1.cricket.org/link_to_database/NATIONAL/ICC/ABOUT/PENALTIES_20
01.html
>
> Then there's half the team being fined for umpire intimidation.
>
> For doing something that other teams routinely do.
Not according to the umps & MR's. Of course that'd be the umps & MR's fault
>
> The fact that Ganguly was fined for doing NOTHING (something Steve
> Waugh routinely does)...should answer your point about Ganguly always
> appearing in the bad boy books of the illustrious ICC.
'Fraid not.
Alvey
Larry de Silva
"linus" <sun...@sprint.ca> wrote in message
news:g%no9.1274$3h6....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...> message news:anr84h$2840$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu...
> > "alvey" <alveyunders...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >"Atul" <at...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >news:329616fa.0210...@posting.google.com...
> > >> Which is the most hated team in cricket world today.
> > >> Based on responses on rsc, I guess Australia.
> > >> Any ideas Why?
> > >
> > >Easiest question of all-time.
> > >
> > >Because we're # 1. It's the tall gum tree syndrome mate.
> >
> >
> > I'd guess the Aussies are the most disliked team today, but I don't
agree
> > with Alvey about it being because of their ranking in the incomplete
Test
> > Champs table. The Windies of the 80s were far more formidable than the
> > Aussies in recent years and far from being disliked the Windies were
Aussie
> > team, I believe, stems from their behaviour. All the mental
disintegration
> > nonsense, leaking stupid dossiers on the opposition, unrestrained and
> > unacceptable on-field behaviour, stupid comments in the press, etc.
> >
> >
> You are right-on. Couldn't have said any better.
Perfectly stated. Some of us have been saying this very same stuff for
bloody years but it falls on deaf ears of the so called Aussie cricket
administrators.
Larrikin
>
>
Andrew Dunford
"Larry de Silva" <larryd...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:kFQo9.13531$Sr6.4...@ozemail.com.au...
>
> "Ian Galbraith" <igalb...@ozonline.com.au> wrote in message
> news:ftj4qu001st0j17ri...@4ax.com...
> > On 07 Oct 2002 12:09:23 GMT, Samantha26no wrote:
> >
> > :>If that WI team was around today and behaved and played the way did
> > :>back then they would be hated as much as the Aust. team of today.
> >
> > :ian,
> >
> > :would you mind telling us how you deduced this/
> >
> > As I said they behaved at least as badly as this Aust. team plus they
> > made the matches boring.
>
>
> Another absolute crap post from Master Ian. The WI team of the 80 were so
> strong mentally that they never had to verbally abuse any opposition
player
> to win games.
That's all very interesting. It isn't a rebuttal of Ian's point because he
didn't claim that the West Indian team of the 80s abused opposition players.
> I know of many SL players who played against the then WI and
> not ONE word was said as abuse. Actually, the fact is that the then WI
teams
> were some of the most social & friendly teams going around. They would
have
> a regular drink & feed with the SL boys & get into the local music, food
> etc. They were NEVER boring, even when beating the then SL teams fairly
> easily. They were bloody entertaining to the end dude.
> So you REALLY have NO IDEA about what you are posting about Ian. Damn
silly
> stuff.
It's pretty clear to me that Ian's labelling of 80s WI as 'boring' refers to
Test cricket: he gave examples elsewhere. Sri Lanka first played WI in
Tests in 1993/94, which incidentally was also the first time WI played an
odo in Sri Lanka.
Andrew
Andrew Dunford
> > Then there's
> > > convicted ball-tamperer S. Tendulkar.
> >
> > He was never convicted of ball tampering.
>
> Eh? What does this mean then?
>
> "Sachin Tendulkar South Africa v India, 2nd Test
> 16 - 20 November 2001 at Port Elizabeth Breach of Code 2, alleged
> interference with the match ball, thereby changing its condition. Found
> guilty of bringing the game into disrepute. Fined 75% of match fee and
> suspended suspension of one Test match., effective from 20th November to
> 31st December 2001. Any further breach of the Code in this period will
incur
> the one Test "
>
>
http://www-aus1.cricket.org/link_to_database/NATIONAL/ICC/ABOUT/PENALTIES_20
> 01.html
Yep, it's there in black and white. However, it's a bit hard to ignore Mike
Denness' comments a few days later after the event:
"Tampering seems to be the instant word that everyone wants to use" ...
"Tendulkar was punished not for tampering with the ball, but for failing to
call up an umpire to supervise his attempts to clean the ball"
<snip>
Andrew
Bob Dubery
wrote:
>
>
>Bob Dubery wrote:
>> And the contemporary reaction to a player bursting into the press box
>> to harangue a journalist is easily imagined.
>>
>
>go on, fill me in.
During the 1990 England tour of West Indies there was a run-in between
Viv Richards and the press - especially Jim Lawton.
This was all sparked by Viv having show V-signs to the crowd.
Lawton approached Viv on a rest day and asked if he would care to
comment on the V-signs.
Viv produced a tirade by why of declining the request that included a
threat of physical violence. This was witnessed by other journalists.
The next day Viv burst into the press gallery just before the start of
play and confronted Lawson. He accused Lawson of writing "shit" and
made statements like "If you were a younger man I might do something
here and now".
Now work out what would happen if a test captain (pick your country)
got up to something like that today.
Richards was, I presume, upset about the growing tendency of the press
to report the details of all kinds of events. I would imagine that he
would find the press even less forgiving now and the penalties for
behaviour of this kind much harsher.
Larry de Silva
Officially you are spot on Andrew but unofficial WI tours to Sri Lanka
(Ceylon) have been going on for years. I first saw the mighty Windies as a
10 year old in the late sixties (ironically at the very same stadium that
hosted the Pak vs. Aus game this week, it used to be called the Ceylon
Oval). They have been regular visitors to SL before and after then until SL
got their test status in 1982.
Before SL got test status (& for some die hards, even after!!) most SL
cricket fans supported the WI test team because the cool dudes were so
popular with the locals & they got on so well. So the WI Eighties team, imo
at least, were nowhere as verbally abusive to the opposition or hated as
this current Aussie test team. Even in the Melb. Herald Sun today, two
letters to the editor written by Aussies slate the team.
Larrikin
>
> Andrew
>
>
Bob Dubery
<larryd...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>Another absolute crap post from Master Ian. The WI team of the 80 were so
>strong mentally that they never had to verbally abuse any opposition player
>to win games. I know of many SL players who played against the then WI and
>not ONE word was said as abuse. Actually, the fact is that the then WI teams
>were some of the most social & friendly teams going around. They would have
>a regular drink & feed with the SL boys & get into the local music, food
>etc. They were NEVER boring, even when beating the then SL teams fairly
>easily. They were bloody entertaining to the end dude.
Well that sounds a lot like the current Aussie side. Even SA - who
were reportedly on the receiving end of a fair bit of Aussie sledging
recently - will tell you that Australia are the ONLY side that will
regularly fraternise with their opponents after the match. Win, lose
or draw, end of match or end of a Test match day, the Aussies will ask
to enter the opposition dressing room or invite the opposition to
theirs.
Ian didn't specifically accuse the Windies of sledging, but he did say
that they were guilty of some pretty bad behaviour. Which they were.
Many a team has been guilty of bad behaviour. It's not exclusively the
preserve of Australians.
Larry de Silva
The ONLY part I disagree with is with the sledging bit. From my test cricket
contacts, its funny how the Aussies keep on getting mentioned as the team
that is the MOST verbally abusive ON the field. They are deadly & some
comments about players personal lives & culture are SO distasteful, they are
not even worthy of repetition. This feedback is from players who play
against ALL the other test teams. Must be something in our water or
something!!
Larrikin
Andrew Dunford
<snip>
> Even in the Melb. Herald Sun today, two
> letters to the editor written by Aussies slate the team.
Well, I suppose you have to let both your kids write in to avoid accusations
of favouritism.
Andrew
Ron Knight
>The WI team of the 80 were so
> strong mentally that they never had to verbally abuse any opposition player
> to win games. I know of many SL players who played against the then WI and
> not ONE word was said as abuse. Actually, the fact is that the then WI teams
> were some of the most social & friendly teams going around. They would have
> a regular drink & feed with the SL boys & get into the local music, food
> etc. They were NEVER boring, even when beating the then SL teams fairly
> easily. They were bloody entertaining to the end dude.
I will venture to express a divergence of opinion with you Larry. I
lived in the West Indies 1977-1982 and was a big fan of the WI cricket
team and its winning ways at that time. Certainly many of the good
things you say about them are true. But I would recast your first
sentence to say that they were so physically abusive and intimidative of
batsmen with their style of bowling that they never had to *verbally*
abuse any opposition player to win games. How you can go on and on
about one Shane Warne throw that whistled past a batsman's ears and
ignore what opposition batsmen faced all day long against the West
Indies escapes me. Of course since the umpires never did anything to
stop the Windies it must all have been perfectly legal, but it left a
bad taste in my mouth even as a WI fan.
Take it easy,
Ron Knight
Moby
No.. there are a number of Australians who don't like the Australian cricket
team. We don't, however, declare that they aren't real Australians.
Moby
Mad Hamish
<larryd...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>"Ian Galbraith" <igalb...@ozonline.com.au> wrote in message
>news:ftj4qu001st0j17ri...@4ax.com...
>> On 07 Oct 2002 12:09:23 GMT, Samantha26no wrote:
>>
>> :>If that WI team was around today and behaved and played the way did
>> :>back then they would be hated as much as the Aust. team of today.
>>
>> :ian,
>>
>> :would you mind telling us how you deduced this/
>>
>> As I said they behaved at least as badly as this Aust. team plus they
>> made the matches boring.
>
>
>Another absolute crap post from Master Ian. The WI team of the 80 were so
>strong mentally that they never had to verbally abuse any opposition player
>to win games.
You might want to read a few more books Larry.
David Gower has some comments on Viv Richard's conduct towards
umpires, Richard Hadlee has a few comments on the Windies, Dean Jones
remarks that he was told that he shouldn't be out there on his debut
and that he was shitting himself (well heck, when the same type of
things were allegedly said to an RSA player recently they were
apparently proof that the Australians are evil)
Then consider Colin Croft barging an umpire...
> I know of many SL players who played against the then WI and
>not ONE word was said as abuse.
and exactly how many tests did Sri Lanka play against the Windies in
the 80s?
Or how many one dayers did they get close?
> Actually, the fact is that the then WI teams
>were some of the most social & friendly teams going around.
Yes, what happened on the field stayed on the field.
btw If you read Clive Lloyd's book he seems to be a damned good friend
with Ian Chappell, David Gower was on damned good terms with Rod Marsh
and Dennis Lillee, Brian Lara and Shane Warne are good mates....
>They would have
>a regular drink & feed with the SL boys & get into the local music, food
>etc. They were NEVER boring, even when beating the then SL teams fairly
>easily. They were bloody entertaining to the end dude.
>So you REALLY have NO IDEA about what you are posting about Ian. Damn silly
>stuff.
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
h_l...@aardvark.net.au
Bob Dubery
Well look at your own insult-ridden posts. Maybe it's too much
fluoride or something...
Australia certainly have a reputation for sledging, and I think it's
fair to say they do have a lot to say on the field of play.
Richie Benaud reckons that sledging was going on before WSC, so about
1975 at the earliest (though it depends on what you call sledging - In
WG Grace's time using words like "cad" might have been considered very
bad form).
But it's only become an issue in recent times. Why?
Two reasons I can think of
1) The media and especially the press are more sensationalist and
keener to find "good copy" than they were 20 years ago.
2) Australia are top of the tree right now.
Also it's moot wether or not it is an exclusively Australian thing.
The SA team have certainly had some compliments paid to them by
members of England and India teams.
Kepler Wessels - on his test debut - was sledged by Botham and Lamb
(in two languages).
Brian MacMillan and Pat Symcox were known to be pretty handy with
their mouths (Symcox famously talked Matt Hayden out a few years ago).
Oh... and I've head Keith Arthurton use pretty rough language - and he
was just talking to some members of the public who were hanging around
a net session.
Mike Holmans
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>On Wed, 9 Oct 2002 17:12:13 +1000, "Larry de Silva"
><larryd...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>Another absolute crap post from Master Ian. The WI team of the 80 were so
>>strong mentally that they never had to verbally abuse any opposition player
>>to win games.
>
>You might want to read a few more books Larry.
>David Gower has some comments on Viv Richard's conduct towards
>umpires, Richard Hadlee has a few comments on the Windies, Dean Jones
>remarks that he was told that he shouldn't be out there on his debut
>and that he was shitting himself (well heck, when the same type of
>things were allegedly said to an RSA player recently they were
>apparently proof that the Australians are evil)
>
>Then consider Colin Croft barging an umpire...
>
>> I know of many SL players who played against the then WI and
>>not ONE word was said as abuse.
Presumably because the SL side of the 80s was so weak that
intimidation would have just been silly.
As you say, Hamish, there are books in which you can find this sort of
stuff out. Viv Richards's autobiography, for instance, says that
Roberts, Holding and Garner never swore at batsmen, but that Marshall
did it all the time, as did Richards himself (he even quotes himself
saying to Craig McDermott, whom he especially despises, "Fuck off, you
piece of Queensland shit!").
As usual, Larry is taking it upon himself to refute the first-hand
observations of people who were actually there and even admit the
offences because such evidence conflicts with his massively racist
world view.
Cheers,
Mike
samarth harish shah
> On Wed, 09 Oct 2002 17:02:31 +1000, Ken Higgs <kenh...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Bob Dubery wrote:
>
> >> And the contemporary reaction to a player bursting into the press box
> >> to harangue a journalist is easily imagined.
> >>
> >
> >go on, fill me in.
<snip>
Thanks, Bob. Now, can anyone give me the Viv Richards p.o.v. on it?
-Samarth.