Hit these hypocritic racist cheating Australian bastards on their pocket books - Ramesh Thakur
Jason Gillespie
made every point in the last one week what Dr Ramesh Thakur made in his
column yesterday.
Important points from this column
1. Marginal decisions that do eventually even out one can understand.
Umpiring blunders of this magnitude and series-deciding impact are something
else. Lacking the judgment and sense to retire gracefully, Steve Bucknor
should have been put to pasture after the World Cup. Astonishingly, in the
Sydney Test his fellow umpire matched him in gross incompetence and was
joined also by the third umpire.
Translation: Mark Benson and Oxenford are also cheats
2. Thirdly, and still on the commercial theme, Indian firms and sponsors
should withdraw contracts and product endorsements by the Australians. That
is a language, perhaps the only language, they understand. Their brand value
stands much diminished in the Indian market.
Translation: Hit these hypocritic racist cheating Australian bastards on
their pocket books
3. Mark Benson should be relegated to officiating at appropriate levels
until he gains more maturity and experience.
4. The BCCI should accept nothing less than "not proven" at best and a
total reversal of the conviction and punishment of their player.
5. A just outcome would have seen India win the Sydney Test and square
the series. An acceptable outcome would have been an honourable draw against
the rub of monumental umpiring mistakes. A series-deciding loss is
intolerable and should be treated as such by the Indian Board.
6. The Australians seem to believe in a God-given right to determine
unilaterally just where the boundaries of good and impermissible behaviour
lie.
Translation: Indians should take over ICC and set the rules and standards
that are "acceptable" and "just" to every one.
(Ramesh Thakur, an Australian citizen and a former professor at the
Australian National University, is Distinguished Fellow at the Centre for
International Governance Innovation and Professor of Political Science at
the University of Waterloo in Canada.
His passion for cricket has been put on temporary hold.)
Translation: Cricket world is disgusted with Australian cheats, unearned
victory and racism of Mike Proctor
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.hindu.com/2008/01/09/stories/2008010952951100.htm
Wrongs and rights in India-Australia cricket
Ramesh Thakur
The ICC is an antiquated arrangement lurching from one crisis to another.
The BCCI should accept nothing less than "not proven" at best and a total
reversal of the conviction and punishment of their player.
While my cricketing heart has always beaten to the pulsating fortunes of the
Indian team, in my head I have long admired the way the Aussies played the
game: hard but true and fair. They were the ultimate examples of a
thoroughly professional approach to the game under demanding modern
conditions. Somewhere along the way, they lost the plot. It is sad to see a
team of champions stooping to conquer. Moreover, in a curious combination of
the bully and tantrum-throwing spoilt brat syndromes, they can dish it out
but not take it. They seem to believe in a God-given right to determine
unilaterally just where the boundaries of good and impermissible behaviour
lie.
At the end of the disgraceful farce in Sydney, I felt proud to identify with
Anil Kumble's dignity in undeserved defeat against Ricky Ponting's smugness,
triumphalism, and precious protestations of innocence in unearned victory.
Indeed only one side played in the spirit of the game, and all cricket fans
throughout the world know it. One team stands diminished, and it isn't the
Indians. An online poll in The Age (Melbourne) on the morning of January 8,
no matter how unrepresentative, showed 81 per cent of respondents believe
Australian cricketers are bad sports. In his regular column for the same
paper on January 8, Peter Roebuck suggested in a strongly worded article
that Cricket Australia should sack Ponting for his "arrogant and abrasive
conduct." Certainly Ponting's ongoing comments show that he still doesn't
get it and therefore Roebuck's advice is germane.
India was beaten comprehensively in the first Test in Melbourne. No Indian -
player, manager, journalist, or fan - claimed that the result was due to
anything other than the team's own abject performance. Perhaps the Indian
cricket board deserved some blame for not scheduling adequate preparation
time before matching up with the acknowledged world champions on their home
ground. The tag of sore losers doesn't wash.
To its credit, the team picked itself up from the depths of demoralisation
in Melbourne and came out firing on all cylinders in Sydney. They were
gutted by umpiring errors and unsporting behaviour by Australian batsmen,
including the captain, on the first day itself. And still they picked
themselves up magnificently once again to make a game of it, only to be
destroyed by still more umpiring blunders on the final day. A
record-equalling triumph? They are welcome to it. Instead of adding glory to
their previous triumphs, this will rather tarnish the quality of their early
victories.
Marginal decisions that do eventually even out one can understand. Umpiring
blunders of this magnitude and series-deciding impact are something else.
Lacking the judgment and sense to retire gracefully, Steve Bucknor should
have been put to pasture after the World Cup. Astonishingly, in the Sydney
Test his fellow umpire matched him in gross incompetence and was joined also
by the third umpire. As for the adjudicator giving the man of the match
award to Andrew Symonds, I like his sense of irony-laced humour.
And now we have the injustice meted out to Harbhajan Singh. If the match
referee was going to do his job properly, he should have found Yuvraj Singh
guilty of dissent in the first Test and fined him substantially for it. To
add insult to injury, they have taken the collective word of the Australian
team against that of the Indian team. The match referee thus joins the on
and off field umpires in this travesty of serial provocations to India.
Ponting's cheek in registering dissent at being given out long after he had
been allowed to bat on despite being out, and knowing he was out, was
exceeded only by Symonds' chutzpah in complaining about Harbhajan's remarks.
Someone should explain to Ponting, Symonds & Co. that their approach to the
game casts far more aspersions on their nation than any comment anyone else
may make.
Harbhajan is a hot-headed young man who needs to curb his exuberance and
control his temper. There is nothing in his record, however, to suggest he
initiates confrontations. By contrast, the Australians are notorious the
world over for their provocative sledging and are also acquiring a
reputation for not being able to cope with retaliation in kind. Little
wonder that former Pakistan great Wasim Akram has called them "cry babies"
for their performance in Sydney.
A just outcome would have seen India win the Sydney Test and square the
series. An acceptable outcome would have been an honourable draw against the
rub of monumental umpiring mistakes. A series-deciding loss is intolerable
and should be treated as such by the Indian Board.
Unless Bhajji's teammates are lying to the Indian press and people, neither
they nor the umpires heard anything to corroborate the Australians' charge.
The match referee decides that the Indians are lying and Australians telling
the truth. Please. The ICC must move away from rank amateurishness and
select people with some grasp of due process and diplomatic skills that will
help to defuse tensions instead of inflaming them further. For that matter,
the ICC is an antiquated arrangement, managing the equivalent of a major
multinational corporation, whose work method seems to be to lurch from one
crisis to another instead of providing strategic leadership. It suffers from
a severe bout of the head in the ostrich affliction: "What, me worry?" The
BCCI should accept nothing less than "not proven" at best and a total
reversal of the conviction and punishment of their player.
Secondly, if the result of Sydney is to be allowed to stand, then the two
Boards should agree immediately to an emergency fifth Test in order to
restore some credibility and life to the series. Since so much of the bad
behaviour is widely attributed to the growing commercialisation and
commodification of the game, it is worth putting the argument in the
language of business. The cricketing 'industry' is supported by a global
base of consumers, most of whom are concentrated in the subcontinent. They
pay generously to maintain the wealthy lifestyles of the cricketers, the
umpires and the officials. The 'product' delivered to the paying spectators
in Sydney and the worldwide television audience was defective. They are
entitled to demand an exchange of the goods or else must be given a full
refund.
Thirdly, and still on the commercial theme, Indian firms and sponsors should
withdraw contracts and product endorsements by the Australians. That is a
language, perhaps the only language, they understand. Their brand value
stands much diminished in the Indian market.
Fourthly, Mr. Bucknor should be thanked generously for his contributions to
the game - which have been enormous over a considerable length of time - and
invited to spend quality time with his family. Mark Benson should be
relegated to officiating at appropriate levels until he gains more maturity
and experience.
Finally, they should bring in immediately the challenge system used in
tennis which is a fair compromise between using technology without
recklessly delaying the game. Each team could be permitted up to three
challenges per innings communicated to the umpire through the captain. If a
challenge is upheld by the third umpire, the number of challenges remaining
in the team's credit ledger is not changed. If it is rejected, one challenge
is deducted.
An additional option would be to build on the captains' agreement that did
not quite work as hoped for in Sydney. If in doubt, umpires could be
empowered to ask the batsmen concerned directly if they had nicked the ball.
With modern technology that will quickly catch a lie out, this would make it
difficult for batsmen, who usually know whether or not the bat touched the
ball on the way through to the wicket-keeper, to be dishonest. Yet it
neither wastes time nor undermines the on-field umpires' authority.
(Ramesh Thakur, an Australian citizen and a former professor at the
Australian National University, is Distinguished Fellow at the Centre for
International Governance Innovation and Professor of Political Science at
the University of Waterloo in Canada. His passion for cricket has been put
on temporary hold.)
Jack
"Jason Gillespie" <JasonGillespi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fm66dv$dgs$1...@aioe.org...
> There is only cricket fan on rsc that gets "everything right" as usual. I
> column yesterday.
<snipped bullshit>
Bullshit, you just happened to find another fuckwit who agrees with you.
R. Shakey
>
> A just outcome would have seen India win the Sydney Test and square the
> series. An acceptable outcome would have been an honourable draw against the
> rub of monumental umpiring mistakes. A series-deciding loss is intolerable
> and should be treated as such by the Indian Board.
> (Ramesh Thakur, an Australian citizen and a former professor at the
> Australian National University, is Distinguished Fellow at the Centre for
> International Governance Innovation and Professor of Political Science at
> the University of Waterloo in Canada. His passion for cricket has been put
> on temporary hold.)
More subjective ranting from people upset with the result of a test
match. Look forward to seeing whose effigies they'll be burning when
they're on their way home after a 4-0 belting.
Jason Gillespie
"R. Shakey" <dnarm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e8e802f5-32a1-4de0...@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
How can India win if the tests are umpired by incompetent and
biased umpires like you ?
I have no respect for ANY of your abilities including English vocabulary.
Idiots like you make me laugh.
Jack
Who gives a shit? As long as the results are in our favour you can get
fucked.
Jellybeans
Jellybeans
Isn't your name spelt with "er" instead of "ac" as the middle two letters?
Jason Gillespie
"Jack" <jt2...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:478de0e7$1...@news.chariot.net.au...
I dont mind doing your mom and wife who thinks you cant make
them cum.
Jason Gillespie
"R. Shakey" <dnarm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e8e802f5-32a1-4de0...@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
R Shakey,
Do you stop at torturing innocent human beings or do you go
to the stage of drinking their blood ?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/9053e7d823d225a9