posted Jan 14, 2008

So George Bradley Hogg had the hide to insult Indians by saying "we're going to run through you b*stards". The charge has been withdrawn by the Indians, which is probably a smart move on their behalf. The ICC may have been inclined to appease the sensitive Indians by punishing Hogg with a suspension just to prove to them they aren't racist. If that were to have been the case, India would be sure to face a 4 pronged pace attack on a very fast WACA wicket. I think they have now at least created the possibility that Hogg maybe selected in favour of Tait, which would be a God sent to the Indians on this wicket. Hopefully Australia will still go ahead and pick the four quickies and bore it up India.

I'm not a fan of sledging, because it adds no value to any sport, and is basically unsporting. The hysteria that has erupted from the Sydney test match, whilst completely over the top, may at least force the ICC to deal with the issue. This can only benefit the sport in the long term.

Having said that, when you get caught breaching agreements or cricket code of conduct stipulations, at least have the decency to own up to having made a mistake and accept the consequences. You sense that the Indians have concocted a defense by coming up with a similar sounding word to explain why 3 Australians could have heard Harbhajan use the word "Monkey". Why didn't they say that straight away when Proctor conducted the initial investigation? It smacks of dishonesty that is involving an increasingly larger number of people.

Gavasker is employed as an ICC official, yet is coming out to accuse a whole host of people including Proctor and Australian players as racist. He justifies this by saying that the ICC (and Proctor) believes 3 Australian players over Harbhajan and Tendulkar. Tendulkar by his own admission didn't hear anything, so he is no more of a witness than anyone sitting in the crowd or watching the test on television. So it comes down to 3 witnesses against the accused who has a record of using the word "monkey" against Symonds. Surely the guilty verdict is a no-brainer. The ICC should censure Gavasker or dispense with his services. All he has done is add fuel to the fire.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 14, 2008

Gavaskar writes in his personal capacity not as Chairman of a sub-committee and his terms with do not prevent him writing.As regards questioning Proctor's decision,one in a position where he/she can will do so but it was not necessary to say that he took a Whiteman's word against that of a Brown but probably used Sachi's antecedents.Going by the players who were there what made Proctor trust one side and not the other, nobody knows better than he does.When a doubt exists is the batsman given the benefit of doubt or the bowler and in this case Harbhajan should have been let off with a warning.Did the match Referee ask Symonds as to why he intervened after Harbhajan had patted Lee's back
may be his view point is (not on agenda) which is as meaningless as the very position of the Referee is,these guys have no interest in anything out side from a sheet that they have, and do not control the game at all otherwise the match in England between Pakistan and hosts wont have been abandoned and this one not reached this stage.
Could not he talk to the Umpires and to two captains during drinks when they were being intimidated by some players but these guys wait for an incident to take place so that could be seated in a Judge's seat and announce the verdict.
Such a positions ICC should consider giving to MBAs who have been Managers and Troubler shooters having enough knowledge of the game.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 15, 2008

“Gavaskar writes in his personal capacity not as Chairman of a sub-committee…”

So he doesn’t hold the same inappropriate views whilst he is carrying out his committee duties, amarjitmadan? Your remark turns logic upon its head.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 15, 2008

Gavasker is ICC official but he is honest and that is why he explained his views he is knowing very well that he may be fired from the job by ICC....
and that will be no surprise to him or any one else.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 15, 2008

Abuse of any kind directed at opponents, while playing a game, should not be accepted. The Aussies who started it all have made a virtue of it as if it is the right thing to do in a contest. Others have picked it up and “tit for tat" has become a buzzword now. It is very unsportsmanlike and it shows that a team does not have confidence in its own abilities but needs to resort to such cheap tricks. I agree that the stump mikes should pick up these comments and the match referee should hand out appropriate punishments to all those who indulge in it

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 15, 2008

How come England managed to give as good as they got in terms of sledging, back in 2005, and won — yet India can't?

Simple: lack of backbone and a victim mentality.

The excuses being trotted out for Harhajan — who crossed a clearly designated line — would be laughable if they weren't so pathetic.

Anyway, the cricket's about to start at last. Womder what excuse the Indians will trot out for (another) defeat this time...

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 15, 2008

Well the Stump microphone will also pick up the strategy and planning of fielding teams and that can be dangerous thing to have in case it gets leak out to other teams. what u say?

Tina

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 15, 2008

DL:
Half a glass of water to some is half full and to some half empty and surely you would have seen my logic about Gavaskar with the later bent of mind.He has always been a straight forward person and is respected for his game and that amongst Cricket circles ICC included.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 15, 2008

Gavaskar may have been respected before, amarjitmadan. I doubt that he is as widely so now.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 15, 2008

One thing to me seems quite likely that this was a bad incident but it may have ended quite a bit on field non sense if ICC have the brains at the right place and take decisions getting the red tape out from the system, on,
Sledging/Intimidation of umpires,Captains'right to refer and or Field umpires right to reconsider after viewing replay.Referee involvement to avoid incidents and I feel they should be trouble shooters and not ex players.Surely Mr speed wont want the CEO or GM be an ex player but a duly qualified man
Let us move on with the hope that the game becomes fairer.

add comment | complain about this comment