Its interesting how the complaints against umpires have gone away now that India have won

11 views
Skip to first unread message

Dave -Turner

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 7:26:40 AM1/19/08
to
Even posters like "Jason Gillespie" have calmed down a bit now that India
have won.

subi...@notmail.com

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 7:29:14 AM1/19/08
to
On Jan 19, 5:26 pm, "Dave -Turner" <n...@no.no> wrote:
> Even posters like "Jason Gillespie" have calmed down a bit now that India
> have won.

ok, ausland got some bad decisions against them, as did the indians.
no overwhelming advantage to either team, unlike in sydney.

yeskay

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 7:30:15 AM1/19/08
to
On Jan 19, 7:26 am, "Dave -Turner" <n...@no.no> wrote:
> Even posters like "Jason Gillespie" have calmed down a bit now that India
> have won.


Another Aussie whinger. You got 16 in a row. Bask in that.
We have got a paltry one.

Jason Gillespie

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 7:40:02 AM1/19/08
to

"Dave -Turner" <n...@no.no> wrote in message
news:13p3r41...@corp.supernews.com...

> Even posters like "Jason Gillespie" have calmed down a bit now that India
> have won.
>
>
>


No wonder majority of you dysfucntional whingers and whiners
get dumped by your wives and you live the rest of your
pathetic lonely lives loving dogs and cats.


Dave -Turner

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 7:45:51 AM1/19/08
to
Ahhh yes, "Jason Gillespie" - India's finest example of a troll. Please,
keep posting ....


Dave -Turner

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 7:56:45 AM1/19/08
to
It's also interesting how nobody in this newsgroup has even commented on
Australia winning 16 test matches in a row. There was plenty of cheers for
India winning 1 test match against Australia but I don't think anybody even
raised an eyebrow when Australia equaled the Australian-set record of 16
test match wins in a row. We have a name for that here in Oz -- Tall Poppy
Syndrome.

great...@fastmail.fm

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 9:14:11 AM1/19/08
to
On Jan 19, 7:26 am, "Dave -Turner" <n...@no.no> wrote:
> Even posters like "Jason Gillespie" have calmed down a bit now that India
> have won.

Why is that surprising? For India wins are scarce. If they're denied
one by factors not cricket, it is bound to raise a hue and a cry.
Anyone can afford to be magnanimous when winning. Let's see what
Australia do when they aren't. Will they bring laws against reverse
swing? Against number of bouncers in an over? Will they blame
suspended particulate matter in the atmosphere?

Tex

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 9:51:18 AM1/19/08
to

"Jason Gillespie" <JasonGillespi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fmsr33$rv7$1...@aioe.org...

>
> "Dave -Turner" <n...@no.no> wrote in message
> news:13p3r41...@corp.supernews.com...
>> Even posters like "Jason Gillespie" have calmed down a bit now that India
>> have won.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> No wonder majority of you dysfucntional whingers and whiners
> get dumped by your wives

So, tell us about the practice of bride-burning in India :)


HVS

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 11:35:58 AM1/19/08
to
On 19 Jan 2008, Dave -Turner wrote

> It's also interesting how nobody in this newsgroup has even
> commented on Australia winning 16 test matches in a row.

Because the 16th win was soiled by poor sportsmanship and uneven
breaks against the losing team.

The got their 16-streak win -- but everyone knew it was a hollow
victory.

Dave -Turner

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 12:18:30 PM1/19/08
to
Yeah I'm sure they just strung 16 wins together by chance.


HVS

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 12:26:41 PM1/19/08
to
On 19 Jan 2008, Dave -Turner wrote

> Yeah I'm sure they just strung 16 wins together by chance.

Read your post: you were whinging about the lack of acclaim for the
*16th* win. Now it's suddenly about "the other 15"?

The answer stands.

ben.g...@hotmail.com

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 12:27:37 PM1/19/08
to

Isn't that the point? Most Australians have barely uttered a word. If
this had been a reverse situation, we would've been assaulted with an
avalanche of idiotic posts, much like we were after the SCG test.

Regards,
Ben.

gupta...@comcast.net

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 12:50:55 PM1/19/08
to
On Jan 19, 4:26 am, "Dave -Turner" <n...@no.no> wrote:
> Even posters like "Jason Gillespie" have calmed down a bit now that India
> have won.

What this test has shown that if Australians play without sledging,
intimidation, cheating and lying, other teams can BEAT them!!!

R


Southpaw

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 1:20:29 PM1/19/08
to
On Jan 19, 9:27 am, ben.gus...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 20, 1:14 am, greatlor...@fastmail.fm wrote:
>
> > On Jan 19, 7:26 am, "Dave -Turner" <n...@no.no> wrote:
>
> > > Even posters like "Jason Gillespie" have calmed down a bit now that India
> > > have won.
>
> > Why is that surprising? For India wins are scarce. If they're denied
> > one by factors not cricket, it is bound to raise a hue and a cry.
> > Anyone can afford to be magnanimous when winning. Let's see what
> > Australia do when they aren't. Will they bring laws against reverse
> > swing? Against number of bouncers in an over? Will they blame
> > suspended particulate matter in the atmosphere?
>
> Isn't that the point? Most Australians have barely uttered a word. If

Probably because the umpiring evened out, unlike at Sydney. Tendulkar
LBW in I1 and Ponting on the 4th morning not given. Balanced by poor
decisions to Hussey and Symonds.

Australians on RSC are otherwise no saints. They continue to complain
about umpiring in India 2001, or even as far back as the 1980s.

-Samarth.

Reverse Swing

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 1:38:05 PM1/19/08
to

"Southpaw" <arb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a4e89917-443a-46cf...@21g2000hsj.googlegroups.com...

On Jan 19, 9:27 am, ben.gus...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 20, 1:14 am, greatlor...@fastmail.fm wrote:
>
> > On Jan 19, 7:26 am, "Dave -Turner" <n...@no.no> wrote:
>
> > > Even posters like "Jason Gillespie" have calmed down a bit now that
> > > India
> > > have won.
>
> > Why is that surprising? For India wins are scarce. If they're denied
> > one by factors not cricket, it is bound to raise a hue and a cry.
> > Anyone can afford to be magnanimous when winning. Let's see what
> > Australia do when they aren't. Will they bring laws against reverse
> > swing? Against number of bouncers in an over? Will they blame
> > suspended particulate matter in the atmosphere?
>
> Isn't that the point? Most Australians have barely uttered a word. If

Probably because the umpiring evened out, unlike at Sydney. Tendulkar
LBW in I1 and Ponting on the 4th morning not given. Balanced by poor
decisions to Hussey and Symonds.

[SP] To be fair, we should also count Dravid LBW in I1 not given against
Johnson's yorker in India's favour. 3-2 to India I'd say. It was still
pretty much evens-stevens.

Australians on RSC are otherwise no saints. They continue to complain
about umpiring in India 2001, or even as far back as the 1980s.

[SP] Or Englishmen whingeing about 1984-85 Bombay Test. I watched the
whole game on TV and don't recall any Bucknor-class decision.

SP [ Where did >>>'s go? ]


bhandava

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 3:20:51 PM1/19/08
to
Dave -Turner wrote:
> Ahhh yes, "Jason Gillespie" - India's finest example of a troll. Please,
> keep posting ....
>
>

An American posing as an Indian with an Australian name.


bhandava

bhandava

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 3:31:43 PM1/19/08
to

Copy and paste troll. I reduce your mark, you fail at trolling.

bhandava

Southpaw

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 3:36:33 PM1/19/08
to
On Jan 19, 10:38 am, "Reverse Swing"
<NOSPAMswinging.yor...@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:
> "Southpaw" <arbi...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:a4e89917-443a-46cf...@21g2000hsj.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 19, 9:27 am, ben.gus...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 20, 1:14 am, greatlor...@fastmail.fm wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 19, 7:26 am, "Dave -Turner" <n...@no.no> wrote:
>
> > > > Even posters like "Jason Gillespie" have calmed down a bit now that
> > > > India
> > > > have won.
>
> > > Why is that surprising? For India wins are scarce. If they're denied
> > > one by factors not cricket, it is bound to raise a hue and a cry.
> > > Anyone can afford to be magnanimous when winning. Let's see what
> > > Australia do when they aren't. Will they bring laws against reverse
> > > swing? Against number of bouncers in an over? Will they blame
> > > suspended particulate matter in the atmosphere?
>
> > Isn't that the point? Most Australians have barely uttered a word. If
>
> Probably because the umpiring evened out, unlike at Sydney. Tendulkar
> LBW in I1 and Ponting on the 4th morning not given. Balanced by poor
> decisions to Hussey and Symonds.
>
> [SP] To be fair, we should also count Dravid LBW in I1 not given against
> Johnson's yorker in India's favour.  3-2 to India I'd say.   It was still
> pretty much evens-stevens.

Dhoni's LBW in I1 was high and went in Aus' favor. But I think SRT was
also reprieved on 49 in I1, which was in India's favor. So maybe 4-3
to India. Either way, I agree it was even-stevens, unlike in Sydney
where it was not even close to balanced.

The important point I mentioned in another thread is that, in general,
LBWs are qualitatively harder than caught-behinds or stumpings or
caught-at-slip decisions. Getting a few LBWs wrong per game is par for
the course. Getting 3 caught-behinds wrong and not consulting the 3rd
umpire a few times all in the same match is terrible umpiring.

-Samarth.

>
> Australians on RSC are otherwise no saints. They continue to complain
> about umpiring in India 2001, or even as far back as the 1980s.
>
> [SP]  Or Englishmen whingeing about 1984-85 Bombay Test.  I watched the
> whole game on TV and don't recall any Bucknor-class decision.
>

> SP [ Where did >>>'s go? ]- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Fish Womper

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 3:51:59 PM1/19/08
to
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 09:50:55 -0800 (PST), "gupta...@comcast.net"
<gupta...@comcast.net> wrote:


India- repeat after me-

I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
>
>R
>
>

Sanjiv Karmarkar

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 3:56:55 PM1/19/08
to
On Jan 19, 3:51 pm, x...@x.x (Fish Womper) wrote on the blackboard as
part of his punishment:

Very nice, you have been a good boy and have completed your
punishment. Low lets see if it actually works for you.

SK

Fish Womper

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 4:12:06 PM1/19/08
to
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 12:56:55 -0800 (PST), Sanjiv Karmarkar
<s_kar...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Jan 19, 3:51=A0pm, x...@x.x (Fish Womper) wrote on the blackboard as
>part of his punishment:
>
>
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory


>
>Very nice, you have been a good boy and have completed your
>punishment. Low lets see if it actually works for you.
>
>SK

If only there had been cut and paste 45 years ago.

Sanjiv Karmarkar

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 4:12:15 PM1/19/08
to
On Jan 19, 4:12 pm, x...@x.x (Fish Womper) wrote:
>
> If only there had been cut and paste 45 years ago.

That, I have to admit, was quite funny!

I gather you're over 50 then? I gotta show more respect for the
elderly from now on :-)

Sanjiv Karmarkar

Fish Womper

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 4:34:53 PM1/19/08
to
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 13:12:15 -0800 (PST), Sanjiv Karmarkar
<s_kar...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Jan 19, 4:12=A0pm, x...@x.x (Fish Womper) wrote:
>>
>> If only there had been cut and paste 45 years ago.
>
>That, I have to admit, was quite funny!
>
>I gather you're over 50 then?

Barely.

fish

Fran

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 4:44:16 PM1/19/08
to

Yes, it does. They had no business celebrating number 16.

Fran

Fran

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 4:46:12 PM1/19/08
to


It still doesn't explain why we don't use the technology to get closer
to 100% right and no obvious incorrect decisions.

Fran

Fish Womper

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 5:08:19 PM1/19/08
to
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 13:46:12 -0800 (PST), Fran <Fran...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Jan 20, 7:36=A0am, Southpaw <arbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 19, 10:38=A0am, "Reverse Swing"


>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <NOSPAMswinging.yor...@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:
>> > "Southpaw" <arbi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >news:a4e89917-443a-46cf...@21g2000hsj.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Jan 19, 9:27 am, ben.gus...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jan 20, 1:14 am, greatlor...@fastmail.fm wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Jan 19, 7:26 am, "Dave -Turner" <n...@no.no> wrote:
>>

>> > > > > Even posters like "Jason Gillespie" have calmed down a bit now tha=
>t
>> > > > > India
>> > > > > have won.
>>
>> > > > Why is that surprising? For India wins are scarce. If they're denied=


>
>> > > > one by factors not cricket, it is bound to raise a hue and a cry.
>> > > > Anyone can afford to be magnanimous when winning. Let's see what
>> > > > Australia do when they aren't. Will they bring laws against reverse
>> > > > swing? Against number of bouncers in an over? Will they blame
>> > > > suspended particulate matter in the atmosphere?
>>
>> > > Isn't that the point? Most Australians have barely uttered a word. If
>>
>> > Probably because the umpiring evened out, unlike at Sydney. Tendulkar
>> > LBW in I1 and Ponting on the 4th morning not given. Balanced by poor
>> > decisions to Hussey and Symonds.
>>

>> > [SP] To be fair, we should also count Dravid LBW in I1 not given against=
>
>> > Johnson's yorker in India's favour. =A03-2 to India I'd say. =A0 It was =


>still
>> > pretty much evens-stevens.
>>
>> Dhoni's LBW in I1 was high and went in Aus' favor. But I think SRT was
>> also reprieved on 49 in I1, which was in India's favor. So maybe 4-3
>> to India. Either way, I agree it was even-stevens, unlike in Sydney
>> where it was not even close to balanced.
>>
>> The important point I mentioned in another thread is that, in general,
>> LBWs are qualitatively harder than caught-behinds or stumpings or
>> caught-at-slip decisions. Getting a few LBWs wrong per game is par for
>> the course. Getting 3 caught-behinds wrong and not consulting the 3rd
>> umpire a few times all in the same match is terrible umpiring.
>>
>
>
>It still doesn't explain why we don't use the technology to get closer
>to 100% right and no obvious incorrect decisions.
>
>Fran

Because the current 80-85 overs a day would be reduced to 70-75.

Because it would devalue the status and call into question the
integrity of on field umpires.

Because a further gulf would exist between international cricket and
lower forms of the game.

Because contentious decisions and accusations of cheating would still
be made no matter what technology is used.

In other words it would create more problems than it solves.

Hope this helps.

fish

dechucka

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 6:10:39 PM1/19/08
to

<great...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:14fc569f-c57e-449a...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...


No and even if Aus got a few dud decision ( more than India in this test )
you won't see the ACB threatening to stop the tour and have umpires stood
down


dechucka

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 6:12:01 PM1/19/08
to

"Fran" <Fran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8100ff2a-0614-4b76...@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...

What technology would you use?

Fran


Southpaw

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 6:23:08 PM1/19/08
to
On Jan 19, 1:46 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> It still doesn't explain why we don't use the technology to get closer
> to 100% right and no obvious incorrect decisions.

Hey you're preaching to the choir. I'm all for technology being used
to aid umpires wherever and whenever possible.

-Samarth.

Sanjiv Karmarkar

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 6:33:43 PM1/19/08
to
On Jan 19, 6:10 pm, "dechucka" <dechu...@vomithotmail.com> wrote:

> No and even if Aus got a few dud decision ( more than India in this test )
> you won't see the ACB threatening to stop the tour and have umpires stood
> down

If what transpired at Perth would have happened to any other team, the
hue and cry would have been much more deafening; I bet you guys would
be clamoring to get that test annulled.

I'm not sure if you are in complete denial or it's impossible for you
to imagine being in those shoes.

Sanjiv Karmarkar

dechucka

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 6:37:35 PM1/19/08
to

"Sanjiv Karmarkar" <s_kar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2f626d63-643e-4231...@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...

On Jan 19, 6:10 pm, "dechucka" <dechu...@vomithotmail.com> wrote:

> No and even if Aus got a few dud decision ( more than India in this test )
> you won't see the ACB threatening to stop the tour and have umpires stood
> down

-If what transpired at Perth would have happened to any other team, the
-hue and cry would have been much more deafening; I bet you guys would
-be clamoring to get that test annulled.

No we wouldn't.

By the way what transpired at Perth,

-I'm not sure if you are in complete denial or it's impossible for you
-to imagine being in those shoes.

Australia in many sports have cracked it for crook decisions but so what?

R. Shakey

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 6:40:48 PM1/19/08
to

> I'm not sure if you are in complete denial or it's impossible for you
> to imagine being in those shoes.

No, we've already been there. Venkat used to fuck us over every single
time we visit India before the neutral umpire rule came in. We just
managed to accept that our team simply didn't bat and bowl as well as
they should, got better and went back and won the next time.

R. Shakey

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 6:51:38 PM1/19/08
to
> >> The important point I mentioned in another thread is that, in general,
> >> LBWs are qualitatively harder than caught-behinds or stumpings or
> >> caught-at-slip decisions. Getting a few LBWs wrong per game is par for
> >> the course. Getting 3 caught-behinds wrong and not consulting the 3rd
> >> umpire a few times all in the same match is terrible umpiring.

So what's the point? Oh, the umpiring wasn't that great. What a great
point.


> >It still doesn't explain why we don't use the technology to get closer
> >to 100% right and no obvious incorrect decisions.
>

Fran, your constructive approach is so positive for this group. Keep
posting.

> Because the current 80-85 overs a day would be reduced to 70-75.

Not sure how you come to that conclusion. If there's just one
challenge per day, which is realistic, the game would lose up to three
minutes and only one over of play. Four or five challenges would end
up being about three overs. Nowhere near ten.

> Because it would devalue the status and call into question the
> integrity of on field umpires.

Is the feelings of our umpires or the game of cricket more important?
Some umpires obviously need some perspective when it comes to their
contribution to the game, anyway. Why is it that Steve Bucknor didn't
simply say... 'everyone - i had a fucking shocker. i'm going to have a
short holiday and hopefully come back fresh'?? It's because umpires
see themselves as more important than the game sometimes.

> Because a further gulf would exist between international cricket and
> lower forms of the game.

If that detracts from club cricket I can't see how.

> Because contentious decisions and accusations of cheating would still
> be made no matter what technology is used.

Status quo stays.

> In other words it would create more problems than it solves.

In other words, you're afraid of change.

prakmel

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 7:24:10 PM1/19/08
to

Of course you forgot to mention that the 3rd Umpire also contributed
to the cause by
presumably pressing the wrong button and giving Symonds not out for a
stumping
which even the Aussie commentators said was out.

Sanjiv Karmarkar

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 7:25:51 PM1/19/08
to

If your team actually did not bowl and bat as well (as you say above),
then what's the big deal if you accept that?

We lost to you fair and square at Melbourne, and several times before,
and Indian posters have said so openly on this forum. What transpired
at Sidney was simply preposterous; it was unforgivable. All real
cricket fans - including several Australians on this forum - have said
so openly. Unfortunately - but not unexpectedly - that does not
include you two.

Sanjiv Karmarkar

Sanjiv Karmarkar

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 7:29:24 PM1/19/08
to
On Jan 19, 6:37 pm, "dechucka" <dechu...@vomithotmail.com> wrote:
> "Sanjiv Karmarkar" <s_karmar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:2f626d63-643e-4231...@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 19, 6:10 pm, "dechucka" <dechu...@vomithotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > No and even if Aus got a few dud decision ( more than India in this test )
> > you won't see the ACB threatening to stop the tour and have umpires stood
> > down
>
> -If what transpired at Perth would have happened to any other team, the
> -hue and cry would have been much more deafening; I bet you guys would
> -be clamoring to get that test annulled.
>
> No we wouldn't.

Yes you would. :-)


> Australia in many sports have cracked it for crook decisions but so what?

Sorry, I don't follow AFL or RL But the penalty kick at the World cup
comes to mind. Now imagine that times 7.

Sanjiv Karmarkar

prakmel

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 7:33:14 PM1/19/08
to
On Jan 19, 8:56 pm, "Dave -Turner" <n...@no.no> wrote:
> It's also interesting how nobody in this newsgroup has even commented on
> Australia winning 16 test matches in a row.  There was plenty of cheers for
> India winning 1 test match against Australia but I don't think anybody even
> raised an eyebrow when Australia equaled the Australian-set record of 16
> test match wins in a row. We have a name for that here in Oz --  Tall Poppy
> Syndrome.

Are you the same person who started this thread?

If so, why do you switch the question when you feel like it? To
elaborate, the thread
was titled about equalling the record 16 wins and you now mention
winning 16 matches
in a row. Hopefully even you see the difference.

Furthermore, even you may be aware that a sizeable portion of even
your countrymen have
voiced their displeasure at the way the '16 win' was contrived. If
not, please keep up.

HTH

Jughead

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 8:04:10 PM1/19/08
to
On Jan 19, 9:18 am, "Dave -Turner" <n...@no.no> wrote:
> Yeah I'm sure they just strung 16 wins together by chance.

How does it matter if someone acknowledges those 16 wins are not?.
With or without acknowledgments it was a brilliant streak...Tell me
how many people were actually surprised that they got that streak. You
can multiply the number many times over to see that many people
surprised by this one Indian win at Perth......That I guess has a lot
to do with with euphoria in India currently. We are a good test team,
but the Aussies are the best and it feels great to beat the best test
side

-Aravind

Obtusenet

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 8:08:02 PM1/19/08
to
On Jan 19, 12:38 pm, "Reverse Swing" >

> SP [ Where did >>>'s go? ]- Hide quoted text -
>

If you are using google groups click the "More Options" and then
"Reply"
">>>" will appear.

dechucka

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 9:06:03 PM1/19/08
to

"Sanjiv Karmarkar" <s_kar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8cbe00cc-ccc4-4fb9...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On Jan 19, 6:37 pm, "dechucka" <dechu...@vomithotmail.com> wrote:
> "Sanjiv Karmarkar" <s_karmar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2f626d63-643e-4231...@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 19, 6:10 pm, "dechucka" <dechu...@vomithotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > No and even if Aus got a few dud decision ( more than India in this
> > test )
> > you won't see the ACB threatening to stop the tour and have umpires
> > stood
> > down
>
> -If what transpired at Perth would have happened to any other team, the
> -hue and cry would have been much more deafening; I bet you guys would
> -be clamoring to get that test annulled.
>
> No we wouldn't.

Yes you would. :-)

Of course


> Australia in many sports have cracked it for crook decisions but so what?

Sorry, I don't follow AFL or RL But the penalty kick at the World cup
comes to mind. Now imagine that times 7.

So fucking what they are all games.


dechucka

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 9:07:46 PM1/19/08
to

"Sanjiv Karmarkar" <s_kar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7c332b0d-1eee-4389...@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

I am one of the Aussie fans who said that India copped the worst of it in
Sydney but so what. Aus copped the worst of it in Perth but Hey shit happens


R. Shakey

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 9:26:35 PM1/19/08
to

> If your team actually did not bowl and bat as well (as you say above),
> then what's the big deal if you accept that?

There isn't a big deal at all - umpires have bad games and umpires are
influenced by home crowds (such is life). The similarities between
that situation and this, and the difference in responses, was in
itself the point that you missed.

> We lost to you fair and square at Melbourne, and several times before,
> and Indian posters have said so openly on this forum. What transpired
> at Sidney was simply preposterous; it was unforgivable. All real
> cricket fans - including several Australians on this forum - have said
> so openly. Unfortunately - but not unexpectedly - that does not
> include you two.

Preposterous, yes. Some of the decisions were absolutely ridiculous -
Bucknor shouldn't have been there in the first place. Unforgivable? If
someone did something that you feel they need to be forgived for, you
didn't exactly point it out. Still haven't seen any Indians refer to
Sharma standing his ground after he was caught at slip, but in the
context of the game that was easily forgivable. Reality is that it's
an emotional game, people make mistakes and learn from them. Kumble
appealed for an LBW yesterday after it hit the bat.. if he's good
enough to see how that contradicts with his moral high ground stance
in Sydney, that's forgivable too.

Ravi

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 9:47:40 PM1/19/08
to
On Jan 19, 5:26 pm, "Dave -Turner" <n...@no.no> wrote:
> Even posters like "Jason Gillespie" have calmed down a bit now that India
> have won.

So do you think that the Sydney test was not incorrectly influenced by
Bucknor/Benson?

Jason Gillespie

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 9:53:13 PM1/19/08
to

"Tex" <trop...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:47920e68$0$26179$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "Jason Gillespie" <JasonGillespi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fmsr33$rv7$1...@aioe.org...
>>
>> "Dave -Turner" <n...@no.no> wrote in message
>> news:13p3r41...@corp.supernews.com...

>>> Even posters like "Jason Gillespie" have calmed down a bit now that
>>> India have won.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> No wonder majority of you dysfucntional whingers and whiners
>> get dumped by your wives
>
> So, tell us about the practice of bride-burning in India :)
>


Indians have a lot to learn from the Scott Petersons and the
Drew Petersons in killing their wives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Peterson

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312023,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,309688,00.html


Tex

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 11:21:47 PM1/19/08
to

"Jason Gillespie" <JasonGillespi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fmud2r$52u$1...@aioe.org...

>
> "Tex" <trop...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
> news:47920e68$0$26179$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>
>> "Jason Gillespie" <JasonGillespi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:fmsr33$rv7$1...@aioe.org...
>>>
>>> "Dave -Turner" <n...@no.no> wrote in message
>>> news:13p3r41...@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> Even posters like "Jason Gillespie" have calmed down a bit now that
>>>> India have won.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No wonder majority of you dysfucntional whingers and whiners
>>> get dumped by your wives
>>
>> So, tell us about the practice of bride-burning in India :)
>>
>
>
> Indians have a lot to learn from the Scott Petersons and the
> Drew Petersons in killing their wives.

Nah, they already burn them.

BTW, I notice you prefer to live in the US over India :)


bcl...@mailinator.com

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 12:27:27 AM1/20/08
to


Aussies complaining about Venkat is funny - he gifted the '96 WC
finals berth to Aussies with his horrendous umpiring againt WI in the
semis. He kept gifting wckets to Warne, turning an easy WI win into a
thrilling Aussie victory (thanks in no small part to the collapsos
also). He fell in love with Warne's flipper that day and couldn't deny
him anything.

Rajagopal

Enzo

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 1:20:01 AM1/20/08
to
On Jan 19, 7:40 am, "Jason Gillespie"

<JasonGillespie123Purget...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Dave -Turner" <n...@no.no> wrote in message
>
> news:13p3r41...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > Even posters like "Jason Gillespie" have calmed down a bit now that India
> > have won.
>
> No wonder majority of you dysfucntional whingers and whiners
> get dumped by your wives and you live the rest of your
> pathetic lonely lives loving dogs and cats.

There is nothing pathetic about loving/living with dogs and
yes, there is a lot to be said in favor of seeing the last
of the spouse.

Enzo [ Jason Gillespie? ]

bhandava

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 1:49:33 AM1/20/08
to
Jason Gillespie wrote:
>
> "Dave -Turner" <n...@no.no> wrote in message
> news:13p3r41...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>> Even posters like "Jason Gillespie" have calmed down a bit now that
>> India have won.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> No wonder majority of you dysfucntional whingers and whiners
> get dumped by your wives and you live the rest of your
> pathetic lonely lives loving dogs and cats.
>
>

I know! This wouldn't happen if people had less control over their lives
and parents got to choose the wife instead.

R. Shakey

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 1:49:32 AM1/20/08
to

> Aussies complaining about Venkat is funny - he gifted the '96 WC
> finals berth to Aussies with his horrendous umpiring againt WI in the
> semis. He kept gifting wckets to Warne, turning an easy WI win into a
> thrilling Aussie victory (thanks in no small part to the collapsos
> also). He fell in love with Warne's flipper that day and couldn't deny
> him anything.

Resentment of SK Warne's superiority is my best guess as to how you
could say something like that.

I knew they were plumb, but your reminder made me want to watch the
last moments of this game again.

Adams was absolutely plumb, playing across the line and hit in front
of middle stump on the full. If you weren't aware, when the ball hits
the batter on the full umpires are instructed to assume that it will
go straight on, so Venkat simply couldn't not give it out. More out
than George Michael.

Neither were questions ever raised about the LBW that Bishop got. Hit
in front of middle stump on the shin, no stride forward, evidently
hitting leg-stump. Another clear dismissal. Both out, without a shadow
of a doubt.

Reverse Swing

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 2:00:50 AM1/20/08
to
"Obtusenet" <ltus...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:15a58f3b-4aa7-46ca...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

I am using MS OE.

SP


Jason Gillespie

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 2:42:22 AM1/20/08
to

"Tex" <trop...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:4792cc6a$0$30016$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...

Doesnt matter Tex. I can fly anywhere you live and
fuck your wife and mom while you guzzle beer, eat hot
dogs, fart and watch baseball/football.


Indians have a lot to learn from the Scott Petersons and the
Drew Petersons in killing their wives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Peterson

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312023,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,309688,00.html

Jason Gillespie

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 2:50:18 AM1/20/08
to

"bhandava" <bhandava_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fmtm2k$qas$2...@aioe.org...
> Dave -Turner wrote:
>> Ahhh yes, "Jason Gillespie" - India's finest example of a troll.
>> Please, keep posting ....
>>
>>
>
> An American posing as an Indian with an Australian name.
>
>
> bhandava


bhandava,

I can tell you have 300 IQ like your mafia member Rodney Ulyate,
Diggler, Jack, Kim and hundred other UserIds you mafia members
post with on rsc.

Simply brilliant. You made me feel so inferior and imbecile. LOL


Jason Gillespie

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 2:54:54 AM1/20/08
to

"bhandava" <bhandava_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fmuqtk$chh$1...@aioe.org...

bhandava,

Yep in my country USA, 99% of people choose their wife on thier
own and 65% of them end up in divorce and then dysfucntaional lives
loving cats and dogs.

These third world Indian idiots and curry munchers should learn
from us superior americans how to choose their wives on their
own.

As always you are genius and an intellectual with 300 IQ just like
your fellow genius and intellectual Rodney Ulyate who is SHIT
SCARED to file a police complaint against that imbecile
"Husband of All FBI n NSA agents" who put a $10,000
bounty on his head.


Jason Gillespie

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 2:58:47 AM1/20/08
to

"R. Shakey" <dnarm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:697ce0e2-3c18-45b3...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

>
>> Aussies complaining about Venkat is funny - he gifted the '96 WC
>> finals berth to Aussies with his horrendous umpiring againt WI in the
>> semis. He kept gifting wckets to Warne, turning an easy WI win into a
>> thrilling Aussie victory (thanks in no small part to the collapsos
>> also). He fell in love with Warne's flipper that day and couldn't deny
>> him anything.
>
> Resentment of SK Warne's superiority is my best guess as to how you
> could say something like that.


Brilliant psychoanalysis from R Shakey aka Rodney Ulyate.

Your culture breeds naturally gifted and talented geniuses like you.

Is Oil the secret sauce ?

Roflmao


bhandava

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 3:26:32 AM1/20/08
to
Jason Gillespie wrote:
>
> Yep in my country USA, 99% of people choose their wife on thier
> own and 65% of them end up in divorce and then dysfucntaional lives
> loving cats and dogs.

Of course, 99.79% of your statistics are made up, 87% of people realise
this. Keep being a slave though, go against natural selection and get
your family to sell their home and buy you a wife. It won't end up in
divorce, she'll top herself if she has a shred of dignity. LMAO

> These third world Indian idiots and curry munchers should learn

> from us superior americans.

If you insist, crazy yankee slave.


bhandava

bcl...@mailinator.com

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 3:27:08 AM1/20/08
to
On Jan 20, 11:49 am, "R. Shakey" <dnarmstr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Aussies complaining about Venkat is funny - he gifted the '96 WC
> > finals berth to Aussies with his horrendous umpiring againt WI in the
> > semis. He kept gifting wckets to Warne, turning an easy WI win into a
> > thrilling Aussie victory (thanks in no small part to the collapsos
> > also). He fell in love with Warne's flipper that day and couldn't deny
> > him anything.
>
> Resentment of SK Warne's superiority is my best guess as to how you
> could say something like that.
<snipped>

It is possible that the hardcore WI fan in me is being a sore loser.
Possible. I don't think so, but you could argue that.

But honestly, there is no resentment of Warne in me. Along with a fit
early Waqar and Lara anytime, Warne's bowling was what I wanted to see
most since the early 90's.

Rajagopal

bhandava

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 3:31:51 AM1/20/08
to
Jason Gillespie wrote:
>
> bhandava,
>
> I can tell you have 300 IQ like your mafia member Rodney Ulyate,
> Diggler, Jack, Kim and hundred other UserIds you mafia members
> post with on rsc.
>
> Simply brilliant. You made me feel so inferior and imbecile.
>

Handy hint: "imbecilic" is the adjective you're searching for.

Your obvious illiteracy speaks for itself, maybe take an English course.
I'm not surprised you feel inferior.


bhandava

alvey

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 3:33:40 AM1/20/08
to
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 22:49:32 -0800 (PST), R. Shakey wrote:


snip valiant attempt.


This is rsc. Truth is rarely convincing.

alvey

Jason Gillespie

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 3:45:13 AM1/20/08
to

"Enzo" <s_deb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3c06ed82-804a-44e7...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

On Jan 19, 7:40 am, "Jason Gillespie"
<JasonGillespie123Purget...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Dave -Turner" <n...@no.no> wrote in message
>
> news:13p3r41...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > Even posters like "Jason Gillespie" have calmed down a bit now that
> > India
> > have won.
>
> No wonder majority of you dysfucntional whingers and whiners
> get dumped by your wives and you live the rest of your
> pathetic lonely lives loving dogs and cats.

>>There is nothing pathetic about loving/living with dogs and
>>yes,


There is everything pathetic about loving dogs and cats out of
your loneliness caused by your dysfuncational life.

Jason Gillespie

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 5:14:54 AM1/20/08
to

"bhandava" <bhandava_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fmv0tc$tv0$1...@aioe.org...

Lord bhandava,

My English is bad as yours.

Lets take English course together mate.

You are running away like a pussy. I will teach you how to be brave
after you suck my dick like Monica Lewinsky.

Husband of All FBI n NSA agents challenged you.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/5d90a8473e4fc400

eusebius

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 6:03:29 AM1/20/08
to
On Jan 20, 4:20 am, Southpaw <arbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 19, 9:27 am, ben.gus...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Jan 20, 1:14 am, greatlor...@fastmail.fm wrote:

>
> > > On Jan 19, 7:26 am, "Dave -Turner" <n...@no.no> wrote:
>
> > > > Even posters like "Jason Gillespie" have calmed down a bit now that India
> > > > have won.
>
> > > Why is that surprising? For India wins are scarce. If they're denied
> > > one by factors not cricket, it is bound to raise a hue and a cry.
> > > Anyone can afford to be magnanimous when winning. Let's see what
> > > Australia do when they aren't. Will they bring laws against reverse
> > > swing? Against number of bouncers in an over? Will they blame
> > > suspended particulate matter in the atmosphere?
>
> > Isn't that the point? Most Australians have barely uttered a word. If
>
> Probably because the umpiring evened out, unlike at Sydney. Tendulkar
> LBW in I1 and Ponting on the 4th morning not given. Balanced by poor
> decisions to Hussey and Symonds.
>
> Australians on RSC are otherwise no saints. They continue to complain
> about umpiring in India 2001, or even as far back as the 1980s.
>
> -Samarth.
>
>
>
> > this had been a reverse situation, we would've been assaulted with an
> > avalanche of idiotic posts, much like we were after the SCG test.
>
> > Regards,
> > Ben

There actually were Australians at the time who were arguing against
whinging about the umpiring, if you'll recall. Even though the
umpiring probably made a material difference to the result of Ts 2 and
3. At least 2. But some were of the view that it was the rotten
batting by Australia in I2 that determined the result, rather than
rotten umpiring by SK Bansal. Forward 6 years, and there really is no
comparison.

eusebius

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 6:04:51 AM1/20/08
to
On Jan 20, 4:38 am, "Reverse Swing"
<NOSPAMswinging.yor...@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:
> "Southpaw" <arbi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a4e89917-443a-46cf...@21g2000hsj.googlegroups.com...

> On Jan 19, 9:27 am, ben.gus...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 20, 1:14 am, greatlor...@fastmail.fm wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 19, 7:26 am, "Dave -Turner" <n...@no.no> wrote:
>
> > > > Even posters like "Jason Gillespie" have calmed down a bit now that
> > > > India
> > > > have won.
>
> > > Why is that surprising? For India wins are scarce. If they're denied
> > > one by factors not cricket, it is bound to raise a hue and a cry.
> > > Anyone can afford to be magnanimous when winning. Let's see what
> > > Australia do when they aren't. Will they bring laws against reverse
> > > swing? Against number of bouncers in an over? Will they blame
> > > suspended particulate matter in the atmosphere?
>
> > Isn't that the point? Most Australians have barely uttered a word. If
>
> Probably because the umpiring evened out, unlike at Sydney. Tendulkar
> LBW in I1 and Ponting on the 4th morning not given. Balanced by poor
> decisions to Hussey and Symonds.
>
> [SP] To be fair, we should also count Dravid LBW in I1 not given against
> Johnson's yorker in India's favour.  3-2 to India I'd say.   It was still
> pretty much evens-stevens.

>
> Australians on RSC are othe