Woooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!

Way to skittle the Indians!

This belongs in the Sport's forum.

I thought that this game would easily be a draw, but just wow.

I'd been constantly calling Ponting words I can't repeat all day because he wouldn't give Clarke a bowl. It sure was satisfying that when Clarke came on he killed off the Indians!

What a win that was! Most exicting test I've seen in years.

The first innings Australia looked like they would get out cheaply but then Hogg, Symonds and Lee fired. In the second Innings Kumble, Tendulkar and Harbajan made runs. Third innings Australia make another 400+ score and then declare with two sessions and two overs to go. Lee gets Jaffer out for a duck (Jaffer's a dud) and India are one down at lunch. I can't beleive they bowled them out in such a short time. Only 7 balls left too.

Mr. Cricket that was the first time you failed to make many runs in a test. I can't beleive it.

He made runs in the second innings.

Moved to Sports.

Best match I've seen in ages (even though Steve Bucknor obviously didn't see much of it)
If they made it a movie script it'd be rejected for being too unbelievable.

Amazing job to beat the draw; but to be fair they shouldn't have had to work so hard. Ponting probably should have declared way earlier and set a more aggressive field to basically force a result either way (you know Steve Waugh would have done it).

But yeah, just when you think tests are getting too predictable, something like this comes along. This is one they'll be talking about for decades. Awesome.

Also what's with the jab at Mr Cricket? 140-odd not out is nothing at all to scoff at!

Its a pity that the umpiring was so poor (for both sides). Somewhat takes away from the win but the manner of victory was simply amazing.

Sorry, but the Indians have every right to feel completely robbed by the result in that game, by both the umpiring and the poor sportsmanship. Ponting's comments in the press conference made him sound like a spoilt kid.

Habarjan did get the punishment he deserved though, for his uncalled for outburst.

Hey guys, I reckon my unbeaten 145 is my best hundred so far. The pressure was on, the Indians really gave nothing away in the first few sessions I batted, but as we moved closer to declaration and Kumble took off the spinner Harbajan, I felt more at ease.

LOL

Just a few comments on the umpiring issue. Bad decisions happen all the time, you cop it and you move on. Sure the Indians have every right to be upset, but talk of boycotting the tour is just ridiculous. Remember Ashes 05, the Kasper caught behind decision we just copped it and moved on channelling our energies into revenge in 06/07. So maybe the Indians should take a leaf out of our book and focus on these upcoming tests, (which they will hopefully lose in :p)

Finally Kumble's comments were just unprofessional and not in the spirit of the game, it really made out the whole nation of Indians and her cricket fans as sore losers.

it really made out the whole nation of Indians and her cricket fans as sore losers.

But Australia also came out as poor winners, so disappointing play all around.

OMG, I can't beleive I forgot Hussey's ton. I wasn't watching that day 'cause I was playing myself. Sorry Hus.

This from Peter Roebuck in today's Sydney Morning Herald:

RICKY PONTING must be sacked as captain of the Australian cricket team. If Cricket Australia cares a fig for the tattered reputation of our national team in our national sport, it will not for a moment longer tolerate the sort of arrogant and abrasive conduct seen from the captain and his senior players over the past few days. Beyond comparison it was the ugliest performance put up by an Australian side for 20 years. The only surprising part of it is that the Indians have not packed their bags and gone home. There is no justice for them in this country, nor any manners.

I'm afraid I have to agree with this, along with the rest of the article. Ponting in particular has done his reputation massive damage in the last few days. I used to call him the greatest cricketer ever, but now I just think he's a knob.

Never liked Ponting as a captain but I think calling for him to be sacked is a bit rich. By inference of Roebuck's article, no one of the current players would be acceptable as a new captain because they all took part in the "excessive" celebrations. Do we bring in a complete new team?

Yes, the umpiring was bad , yes the Aussies celebrated somewhat distastefully but all these calls for India to abandon the tour and sacking Ponting is a bit too much. If the Indians took the moral high ground and just said such is life, let's get on with it, I would be able to feel some sympathy for them. Carrying on like a bunch of spoilt children lowers them to the level they are accusing the Aussies of.

I wish both sides could remember its just a game.

I wish both sides could remember its just a game.

Oh yes, these comments do apply to both teams. It's just as petulant as what the Pakistanis did in England last year.

You'd never catch the NZ cricketers carrying on like this . . . . . mainly because we never have anything to celebrate . . . and all the favourable umpiring decisions and fumbled "catches" in the world are never going to help us win anything.........

I don't see what anyone did wrong. Is it poor sportsmanship to celebrate a victory of a wicket now? The hoo-har that has gone on recently is rediculous and completely unnessecary.

I don't see what anyone did wrong. Is it poor sportsmanship to celebrate a victory of a wicket now? The hoo-har that has gone on recently is rediculous and completely unnessecary.

I can think of 2 things Ponting did wrong.

1) Raising his finger when the umpire was looking in his direction, especially with that smirk on his face.

2) Complaining about the sledging of Symonds, which Symonds initiated.

I can think of 2 things Ponting did wrong.

1) Raising his finger when the umpire was looking in his direction, especially with that smirk on his face.

2) Complaining about the sledging of Symonds, which Symonds initiated.
1) The umpire asked him I think, so what was he supposed to do? Clarke thought he had caight it so Ponting beleived him.

2) I agree that that was a bit strange. I don't see what is so offensive about being called a monkey.

1) The umpire asked him I think, so what was he supposed to do? Clarke thought he had caight it so Ponting beleived him.

But why was he (seemingly) laughing? And why did the umpire ask him in the first place!

Symonds said he was defending Brett Lee who was hit by Harbajan. So in the end it was the Indian who provoked him.

A game of Cricket has come to this. :rolleyes:

There has been much written and spoken about this Cricket match - much of it emotive and unintelligent.

There is little dispute that the standard of umpiring was appalling and certainly influenced the result. This was made worse by the way in which the Australians cynically refused to 'walk' when everyone bar the umpire knew they were out - it looks bad and does nothing to enhance the perception of the individual or the game. I'll digress here to talk briefly about 'walking'. I have played this great game for forty years and, as an opening batsman, I have had plenty of bad decisions from umpires and some that went in my favour. I don't believe in automatically walking, particularly with faint edges to the keeper - sometimes there is doubt about whether it was bat, the same applies to bat pad catches facing a spinner - you should be entitled to the benefit of doubt if the umpire is unsure. However, when, as a batsman, you edge a catch to first slip you usually know and it looks churlish and unsportmanlike at best not to start moving to the sheds. When you know without a shred of doubt you are out you should walk - it's that simple, and more important at Test level where every little detail is scrutinised by television and players set the standard for everyone else.

The Indians are upset because Harbajan Singh has been reported and found guilty of racially abusing Andrew Symonds. There have been some extraordinary things said in defence of Harbajan Singh such as in India Indians don't regard calling someone a "monkey" as racist. This is disingeniuous: 1. they are in Australia, when in Rome etc...; 2. the term "monkey" is used to abuse black soccer players in Europe and widely understood as racist; 3. labelling someone as a "monkey" is clearly implying they are less than human - something that both Australians and Indians would be aware has been used to denigrate black Africans in the past. Add to this that Harbajan has 'form' in this regard and the Indian BCCI failed dismally to deal with this issue when Symonds was being abused by Indian spectators - there appears to be an unspoken assumption on the part of some Indians that they, by definition and unlike Australians, cannot be guilty of racism. Having said all that I do wonder whether this could have been handled better by Ponting, such as some conciliation between the parties (which is the usual approach, as a first step, when the Equal opportunity Commission deals with issues of alleged racial abuse).

I also wonder whether Ponting was motivated by a desire to strike back at Harbajan because he had become his 'bunny' after again being dismissed by the Indian Off spinner. The other thing that strikes me is this is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black (no puns intended), the Australians are the masters at sledging and have obviously been directing quite a bit at Harbajan. I'll digress again to discuss 'sledging'. This is a time honoured Australian tradition, and I'll admit I have done this in the past, however I decided long ago to let my bat do the talking - actions always speak louder than words! The turning point for me was after a particularly savage bout of sledging one of my team mates hit an opposition player over the head with his bat, fortunately no serious damage was done, however, rightly, he was reported to the police, charged and convicted and as a result was never able to fulfill his dream to practice law. It could have been much, much worse and every player who was involved from both sides (me included) bore some responsibility for things getting out of hand - sledging is unnecessary particularly when you're as good as this Australian team obviously is. Using sledging to prosecute the strategy of 'mental discintegration' is a sign of poor judgement and immaturity. In any sporting contest that is being fiercely contested harsh words spoken in the heat of battle is inevitable - the Australians go well beyond that.

I, like most Cricket lovers, are in awe of the sublime skills of this Australian team and like many Australians are aghast at the boorish and ungracious behaviour our Cricketers seem to be so happy to indulge in. I don't have a problem with any sports people celebrating a hard fought win, however to not pay your opposition due respect as was the case with the Aussies jumping all over each other whilst Kumble (and his batting partner) stood by waiting to shake hands looks poor and leaves a bad taste in the mouth. The glory a winning team receives is in no small part due to the quality of the opposition it has overcome and hence one good reason to pay respect to that opposition BEFORE celebrating - not that difficult a concept to grasp. This problem is not limited to Australia's Test Cricketers and seems to be common amongst many professional sports people - think Tennis players jumping around pumping the air and hugging people in the crowd whilst their opponent waits at the net to shake hands. The sad thing is that Ricky Ponting and his team don't seem to understand that many fellow Australians are falling out of love with the Australian Test team regardless of how successful they are. I will always play any competitive sport hard, I'm Australian I know no other way, but I will also play by the rules and spirit of the game otherwise victory is hollow.

The final issue is the obvious and obscene attempt by the BCCI to leverage an outcome to Harbajan's appeal through the threat to abandon the tour. If the ICC caves in to the Indian attempt to get Harbajan off they might as well cede control of the game to the BCCI. The Australian Cricket team are a great sporting team I just wish they would be better sports.

Hey Dame Edna

About the walking issue, I don't know what level of cricket you play so I don't no if this applies to you, but just a question, have you ever thought you were out and walked and then later found out by way of replays or however that you actually weren't?

This is the one gripe I have about walking and it's that the respect for the umpire's authority comes under fire when a player decides to take decisions potentially affecting the outcome of the game into his own hands. Umpires are there to do a job and IMO it's not up to players to decide even though they might be rightfully out or whatever (I think this should apply definitely at Test level). Otherwise we'd just get rid of umpires and take the word of the players. To me walking is exactly the same as if a player was rightfully given out and just stood his ground and refused to go.

Just my 2 cents.

I believe that some of the issues in this test were caused by walking. I'd say the umpires are relying more on the players to walk when they know they've nicked it, which means they are less likely to make a decision and in this match it really cost the umps their reputations when there were a lot of close decisions to be ajudicated. If someone walked after I thought I took a wicket but the ump said otherwise, I would feel like I just got a free wicket. The umps have a job, to umpire. The players have a different job, to play. The players should not be doing the umpire's job for him.

Hey Dame Edna

About the walking issue, I don't know what level of cricket you play so I don't no if this applies to you, but just a question, have you ever thought you were out and walked and then later found out by way of replays or however that you actually weren't?

Mike, I've played a good grade of suburban Cricket which as you would be aware doesn't have the luxury of replays, but that doesn't affect this discussion. It doesn't matter what grade of Cricket you play if you know without a shred of doubt you're out you should walk, if there is any doubt don't, and let the umpire make the decision.

This is the one gripe I have about walking and it's that the respect for the umpire's authority comes under fire when a player decides to take decisions potentially affecting the outcome of the game into his own hands. Umpires are there to do a job and IMO it's not up to players to decide even though they might be rightfully out or whatever (I think this should apply definitely at Test level). Otherwise we'd just get rid of umpires and take the word of the players. To me walking is exactly the same as if a player was rightfully given out and just stood his ground and refused to go.

Just my 2 cents.

I think you've got it around the wrong way. By 'walking' when you know without a shred of doubt you're out, you are helping and upholding the umpire's authority - it is not the same as standing your ground when you've been given out. Take the case of Andrew Symonds, he admitted he knew he was out when he was on 32 and then went on to score 160+ how does that help the authority and standing of the umpire? Steve Bucknor must have felt humiliated and this would probably have contributed to an erosion of confidence which in turn means his ability to make good decisions is impared leading to further bad decisions. The umpire's ability to make good decisions is called into question and the side on the wrong end of the decision gets understandibly angry and frustrated, multiply that by further bad decisions and look what happens. Also, don't you think the value of the victory is debased when you, and everyone else, know that but for that wrong decision the result would probably have been quite different?

@azzaman333

None of the problems in the Sydney Test were caused by 'walking', quite the reverse - in order to uphold the 'spirit of the game' players need to exercise their neurones when playing and not leave it to someone else.

The problem is with some players who will walk sometimes and not walk other times, relying on their reputation as a walker to persuade the umpire to give them not out. You either walk all the time or never. Yuvraj walked in sydney but didn't in melbourne when he was out. It puts more pressure on umpires.

Having said that, if you nicked the ball to first slip, you should walk 100% of the time. I've also played grade cricket (also as an opener) and would wait for the umpire to give me out for a caught behind (can remember once being given not out to one I thought I hit and twice being given out when I definately didn't), the only time I stayed my ground edging to slips was when I thought the ball bounced before the fielder. The square leg umpire gave me out and that was good enough. I'm not sure how I would have reacted if the opposition captain had given me out.

The whole "walking" discussion is a bit of a red herring here. The biggest issue I have is this:

I, like most Cricket lovers, are in awe of the sublime skills of this Australian team and like many Australians are aghast at the boorish and ungracious behaviour our Cricketers seem to be so happy to indulge in.

That sums up the problem. The Australians were just not very good sports in this game, although the Indians were not much better. I liked and admired Ricky Ponting last week. Now I think he's a clown.

What about cases that are not so black and white then? It becomes a personal qualitative judgement of the situation whether or not to walk. I'm just scared of cases where players might think that there is 'absolutely no doubt' and then walk and then later found out that it wasn't out through replay. The player then becomes the umpire. And I think there have been cases of this ala Gilchrist WC 03, in which I doubt he would've walked unless he thought it was definitely out but then replays suggested he wasn't. I reckon if players were right 100% of the time in making a "without a shred of doubt" decisions then walking would definitely help the umpire. But sometimes they are not, as proven in the Gilchrist situation in which case we should just leave it to the umpire.

I've been reading a bit of the press from both countries and some discussion in Facebook groups on both sides.

Man, fans can be real idiots, can't they?

Definitely.

Imagine all the bad decision that go to the Indians when they are at home. I do not see the teams they play get angry about it. You have to take the good with the bad. That it the part of every game.

Well played India! Laxman does the job on the Aussies again!

Well played India! Laxman does the job on the Aussies again!

Bloody Umpiring, ruining the game!








:joke:

Lack of a quality spinner, plus Tait's lack of match fitness, plus Hayden's injury all conspired brilliantly together to give India a huge chance to win this game, which they took with both hands.

Plus the fact that India scored more runs than Australia.

Plus the fact that India scored more runs than Australia.

Well duh... :rolleyes:

Captain Obvious.

Quite a bit has happened in the last few days. Gilchrist retires, Shaun Tait quits indefinitely and the ICC have admitted bungling the Harbajhan Case.

Quite a bit has happened in the last few days. Gilchrist retires, Shaun Tait quits indefinitely and the ICC have admitted bungling the Harbajhan Case.

Sad to see Gilly go, but better to go out on top and not be forced out - Gilly will be missed. Tait's decision is not suprising given the amount of Cricket that is played and the pressure to perfom, however what is suprising is that he doesn't appear to have had the support he needed to manage the workload and stress.

And finally that decision to let Harbajan off with a pissy fine - how pathetic! Cricket Australia have come out looking like the Cricketing version of Neville Chamberlain - "peace in our time". The ICC have come out of it as the weak and ineffectual body they really are and the BCCI as the arrogant bullies they've become - how long before all Cricketing nations are franchise operations of the BCCI?