Aussies had it coming: Boycott

[CC1981]

No wonder aussiefan is cracking up. "as well respected as Benaud" Surely' date=' you jest.[/quote'] No, not really. Few can come close to Richie in his presentation but his material/observation isnt a class above- Boycs in the same class.

Irresponsible, lazy (as fieldsmen), lacking commitment, and his standard, "My moom could've batted better than them"

Again, thats commenting on the WI's cricketing ineptidude- not on their conduct on field. I don't think you are THAT ingeneous to confuse between a comment about a team's ineptitude in cricket and a comment between a team's pathetic code of conduct on the field.

[kilroy]

Irresponsible' date= lazy (as fieldsmen), lacking commitment, and his standard, "My moom could've batted better than them"

OMFOOKINGOD, if you seriously think that those refer to on-field behavior, i know this excellent English tutor who will be more than willing to help you on your comprehension skills.

[Mr. Wicket]

Salil' date=' surely, it's cricket fans appreciation and assessment we're talking about. I'm too busy to go searching but where else would I look other than message boards ?[/quote'] So based on that, just about anyone can be called roundly rubbished. FWIW, you could find a lot of (unwarranted) criticisms of Benaud on some forums with strong anti-Aussie sentiments. Check out a couple of certain South African boards, maybe Indian Cricket Fever and you'd find him being put down by many. Can that be logic to say he's a roundly rubbished commentator? Or if you go to PakPassion or a few other sites (for that matter even a few posters' threads here), you'll find people never missing an opportunity to put down Tendulkar. By that logic, can we also call Tendulkar a roundly rubbished batsman?

[kilroy]

oops, sry, spoke too soon. i mailed him the post and he said it's impossible. you could try bucknor tho, i think he has a lotta time on his hands now.

[Bumper]

so where is your "roundly rubbished" theory ( on Boycs) substantiated ?

I guess Donny just let one loose down his intestine. By his own words, Boycs is someone he likes as a commentator and has hardly heard Benaud speak, but yet does not rate Boycs above Benaud and that while not rating Benaud much. If any of this made sense to you, please PM me. Am interested in the semantics of such military language.:D

[Donny]

Maybe you should first check your own limited reading ability. Either way, why not ask CC why he brought Benaud into this ? I certainly didn't.

[Donny]

So based on that, just about anyone can be called roundly rubbished. FWIW, you could find a lot of (unwarranted) criticisms of Benaud on some forums with strong anti-Aussie sentiments. Check out a couple of certain South African boards, maybe Indian Cricket Fever and you'd find him being put down by many. Can that be logic to say he's a roundly rubbished commentator? Or if you go to PakPassion or a few other sites (for that matter even a few posters' threads here), you'll find people never missing an opportunity to put down Tendulkar. By that logic, can we also call Tendulkar a roundly rubbished batsman?

No. Just the same as Benaud is usually on top (or close to) of any commentators poll, so is Sach.

[Mr. Wicket]

And Boycott usually is rated quite highly by most fans. He's got a huge following in India, a very solid (if slightly polarised) following in England and there are plenty of others who enjoy listening to him. And there are plenty in the media who praise his work well - the likes of Gavaskar, Akram, Bhogle in commentary, and plenty of journalists all rate him very highly (and these are opinions I'd give considerably more weight to than any random website). Hence my argument that calling him 'roundly rubbished' is a rather ludicrous statement to make, and one that cannot be backed up.

[CC1981]

Either way, why not ask CC why he brought Benaud into this ?

I gave you a comparison to how Boycott is viewed 'out here' in analogy to one of the best cricket commentators in the business today. In anycase, you completely dodged/tried to pooh-pooh my response without a reason. I said earlier, that Boycott hasn't been scathing about a team's conduct (in a long term or immediate sense) and its not just 'Sore loser to Australia comment'. I raised the question 'well, if Boycott is sore for losing to Australia, why isnt he making comments about the conduct of the West Indies on the field - he certainly lost to them far more than to the Aussies!'. To which, you replied 'yes he has' and proceeded to rather disingeneously quote me his comments about the nature of cricket played by the west indies in the most immediate test. On and another thing- i'd suggest you do not try to patronize Salil, me, Swetabh or several others here in our quality of English (yes,there are some here with dodgy English skills but you picked on the wrong crowd here)- all the above are not only extremely well educated, they have done a significant portion of their education- linguistic as well as professional skills ones- in Anglophone 'western' countries. You simply are throwing around the 'check your limited reading ability' when it just happens to be that the said poster ( Salil) is better educated in the English language than 99% of your own 'English-speaking countrymate' are and you may very well be in that 99% ( btw, knowing Salil's education, i am quite willing to take my chances that you are NOT in that 1% ). I find your defence of Australian team's uncouth and loutish behaviour, along with your denial of the outpouring of international comments against Australian cricket team to be rad sad mockery of your 'i am a cricket fan, not of any nation' notion that you tried to sell here.

[Donny]

No problem, Salil. I happily retract the 'roundly rubbished' assessment of Boycs. It wasn't the main thrust of my comment anyway. That being: People will hypocritically offer an article of someone they have previously denigrated, if it suits their cause.

[Donny]

On and another thing- i'd suggest you do not try to patronize Salil, me, Swetabh or several others here in our quality of English (yes,there are some here with dodgy English skills but you picked on the wrong crowd here)- all the above are not only extremely well educated, they have done a significant portion of their education- linguistic as well as professional skills ones- in Anglophone 'western' countries. You simply are throwing around the 'check your limited reading ability' when it just happens to be that the said poster ( Salil) is better educated in the English language than 99% of your own 'English-speaking countrymate' are and you may very well be in that 99% ( btw, knowing Salil's education, i am quite willing to take my chances that you are NOT in that 1% ).

You are sadly incorrect. I have total respect for Salil. This: 'check your limited reading ability' in post #41 was directed at Bumper in the previous post (#40), not at Salil. It's not unusual though. You have often misquoted me and seen fit to erroneously generalise - as you just did about the members you mentioned.

[Guest HariSampath]

No problem, Salil. I happily retract the 'roundly rubbished' assessment of Boycs. It wasn't the main thrust of my comment anyway. That being: People will hypocritically offer an article of someone they have previously denigrated, if it suits their cause.

Then your counterclaim and argument against Boycott collapses. The original point of this thread was Boycott's take on the current controversy about the Australian team and its behavior; which you countered by saying Boycott was a "roundly rubbished" commentator and by inference his take on this didn't deserve merit. And if you withdraw the assessment of Boycott , then his views stand. Period.

[aussiefan]

donny, dont worry about cc1666, he's a profoundly disturbed person who insists on giving you his CV at every chance, preaching about his superiority in relation to all and sundry. the chip on his shoulder leads one to wonder if he was picked on as a small child who has carried this all his life....very much an unpleasant troll, best ignored.

[Donny]

Then your counterclaim and argument against Boycott collapses. The original point of this thread was Boycott's take on the current controversy about the Australian team and its behavior; which you countered by saying Boycott was a "roundly rubbished" commentator and by inference his take on this didn't deserve merit. And if you withdraw the assessment of Boycott ' date=' then his views stand. Period.[/quote'] Oh dear. (Exasperatedly) His views stand anyway. I didn't even comment on what he said.

[CC1981]

donny, dont worry about cc1666, he's a profoundly disturbed person who insists on giving you his CV at every chance, preaching about his superiority in relation to all and sundry.

Hahahaaa...this comming from an intellectually challenged dimwit who runs away every single time i blow hiséheréits mindless idiocies apart....i exposed your limited idea of logic in the `2 aussies vs 1 indian`s word on the event` nonsense and then you disappearedérefused to acknowledge...why É Mate, you, i am sorry to say, is a quintessential Aussie- can dish out but can`t take any. PS: Happy(belated) Gallipoli day- i hope you`ve attended Turkish celebrations in the past commemmorating their amazing victory in Gallipoli over ANZAC invaders.

[Guest dada_rocks]

I still remember that banner on Sydney hill " Boycott is a bastard' date= all Poms are bastards"

So these convicts have been living in stone-age since quite sometime I guess.

[maggot_brain]

So these convicts have been living in stone-age since quite sometime I guess.

Have you read the mods request in the sticky thread?

[Gambit]

NZ players slam Aussies NZ players slam Aussies

Wellington: Former New Zealand players have lambasted the Australians for having “double standards” on sledging and said they should be ashamed of their “gutless and churlish” charge of racial abuse against Harbhajan Singh.

Launching a scathing attack on their trans-Tasmanian neighbours, the players — John Morrison, Dipak Patel and Simon Doull — said the Australians were themselves so foul-mouthed that they had no moral right to complain about others.

Morrison, who played for New Zealand in the 1970s and 80s, said, “they’ve basically run off to tell the teacher on Harbhajan.”

“If the Aussies have any conscience at all, surely they’d be ashamed over this because it’s just gutless, it’s churlish, it’s childish — the sort of thing you’d see in a playground,” he was quoted as saying in a New Zealand daily. “A lot of good cricket people around the world will not like what’s happened here,” he added.

Former captain Stephen Fleming said the matter, which looked a bit “schoolboyish” initially, became a mess because of lack of independent evidence.

“The Harbhajan aspect is interesting. It sounds like there is a case there to be answered, it’s the player’s word against another — without the match officials it’s very messy,” Fleming was quoted as saying by New Zealand Players Association.

“It does look a little bit schoolboyish, though the racial issue does cause concern for a lot of players. There’s been a big push to stamp it out,” he added.

Patel, meanwhile, felt the Aussies have dished far worse of their “mental disintegration” to act so sensitive on Harbhajan.

“I’m not saying that he (Harbhajan) is not guilty but there’s been a lot worse said by Australians in the past to other opposition,” Patel said.

“What happens on the park should stay on the park. I’ve been called a lot worse than a monkey, to be honest with you, and it’s just something that you accept and it’s left on the field,” Patel opined.

Doull, a former fast bowler, felt the case against Harbhajan hardly stands in the absence of any independent evidence. “From my point of view the Match Referee is there to do a job. If the umpires or the Match Referee haven’t seen it or heard it, there’s no case at all to answer,” he said. (PTI)

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080112/jsp/sports/story_8773481.jsp

[beetle]

Understanding the Australian January 14, 2008 Soon after the second Pokhran nuclear tests, the western world was outraged. America was quick to apply sanctions. In an insufficeintly recalled incident, a bumptious Australian army official stomed into a lecture room in Canberra where some Indian army officers were attending a course by invitation. He interrupted the lecture, asked the officers to get up and follow him. They were asked to pack up immediately and put on the next plane to India. Such was the Australian's moral outrage at India's temerity in threatening the world with destruction. I wrote a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald, which understandably was not published. I said I was confirmed that Australian foreign policy was to follow the American with a scoop, a bucket and a roll of paper. India drop charges against Hogg More confirmations of that opinion have been arriving thick and fast. [Do be patient. I will come to the cricket soon] As soon as America lifted the sanctions, Australia was instantly convinced the Indian ogre was no longer a threat and lifted its own sanctions. In an episode that must shine in our history of statesmanship, when the Australian Deputy Prime Minister -was he Mr Chambers?; I truly don't care to remember - came calling, looking for business, Vajpayee let him cool his heels for three days before a low level foreign office man gave him an audience. The Australian DPM had spent the waiting time visiting places of interest like Appu Ghar and the Rail Museum. Such are the rewards of camp followers. More recently, a few days before the US nuclear deal was announced John Howard declared, Australia was resolutely against uranium sales to India. Within a few days of the announcement, it was very ready to sell to India whatever uranium it cared to buy. In the war against terror, soon after Glasgow bombing, the Australian throve on the opportunity to raise his visibilty in the world, by hounding the poor Dr Haneef. An Australian needs to show he's a strong man and very much around in this planet. We must understand the Australian craving for being noticed with sympathy. There he is, dangling lonely, castaway and vulnerable from the underside of Asian land mass. In a usage that gives him away, he refers to his country as being in the 'West'. When America - earlier it was the then mighty Britain- is at war he ups and buttons his tunic and marches off. He was in Vietnam and he is in Iraq now. He allows nuclear tests on his soil. Every fashion, fad, posture or policy that overtakes the west, is immediately sniffed in by him. Poor bloke, he wants in somehow. Ponting's team one of the worst behaved: Holding Sport gives him a wonderful identity. Fed on the bountiful land and enriched by inexhaustible minerals, he is a bold and physical fellow with a lot of free time. With weekends that start on Friday noon and last till Monday morning, he excels in almost every sport he cares to play. Success in sport gives him a great identity. Speech is another unique reinforcer of his identity. He goes out of the way to distort English even when the distortion adds nothing by way of colour, originality, clarity or wider acceptance- he is searching for uniqueness. He is proud of his culture central to which is the number of beers he can empty of an evening in a bar standing around with his 'mites'. I have just learnt from Alan Border that calling someone a 'lucky bastard' or a '******' is also a culture thing of the Australian. Mind you, I am not calling him a hostile fellow. He's very gracious when all is well, like when he is winning. But he's prone to jump in fright when someone stands up to him. Like, when his wallet could be hit. Like, when he is likely to be thrashed in a game of cricket. He will react with panic, abuse, deception, boorishness and lies. Ask Muralidharan or Shoiab Akhtar. And don't you dare question Trevor Chappel's bowling action. That is in the past. we are talking of the here and now. Sense arrives only if he realises he's monetarily vulnerable like say it will hit exports or contracts. He will then capitulate quickly. He needs his good life, made of leisure and beer; and he needs money for that. Wait for a few weeks and see how he will come around on this Sydney Test caper - by then, he will have learnt India can indulge the Australian cricketer and give him endorsements and business. After all, the best of the then national talent did toss away their baggy green caps to go invent the one day international under the benevolent gaze of Kerry Packer. The other unique thing about the Australian is this: when he has made some amends to correct a shameful aspect his recent history, he will quicky climb a high moral ground and lecture anyone who cares to take notice of him. When I first went to Australia 1967, I saw a ship load of immigrants from Italy [images] who knew no English. Didn't matter, as long as they were white. It was when the Rt Hon Albert Calwell's 1947 dictum still reigned: "Two wongs don't make a white"; 'wong' of course is how the Australian affectionately refers to the Chinese. Our emigrating Anglo Indians were assessed for the shades of their skins in personal interviews. But soon after the USA adopted a freer immigration policy in 1965, Australia lo and behold, quickly became a proud multi-cultural society and now you won't ever stop hearing of its liberalism. And so it came to pass, that after close to 150 years of playing cricket, and having acquired its first non-white cricketer it has become the Australian's burden to 'protect' Symonds from racist slur. Never mind he has not cared to develop a single Aboriginal cricketer so far. So he's now lecturing on how our cricket team is picked on the basis of caste. We seem to have booed Kambli out because of his caste though possibly we had made an exception and let him become the best friend of a Maharashtrian Brahmin. But we kicked him out; the matter of his inability to cope with the rising ball was probably an excuse. A strange quota system may also be operating against our Muslim players. The Austraian media's research on this is on right now. Serves us well too. We are a people who love being lectured. We are a people who offer to be civilised yet. Look at our Prime Minister! How promptly he replies with unctuous care, to Gladys Staines' concern for the persecuted Christians of Orissa. I dare say the BCCI will discuss reservations in our team, lest Australia's moral fibre be offended. In the meantime the sport loving nation of Australia keeps on rolling with its muscular tradition. A captain who hoists himself with a grounded ball to claim a catch, will be succeeded by a pup that scoops a bumped ball and then grounds it while claiming a 'clean' catch. As I write the vice captain Gilchrist says he 'appeals for a catch' when he is sure of the nick and 'asks the question' when he is not sure. Notice the uprightness of the man. Unlike us Indians who are secure in our several layered identities, the poor Australian needs to win anyhow, to retain his only identity. Do we owe him an understanding? Or do we give him a jolt? That is the question. When a Ponting or a Clarke or a Gilchrist cheats we must be aware of the innate fairness of the Australian. He only awaits the right moment in history to awaken. India as an economic superpower in cricket can hasten that moment by thwacking him where it hurts- in the approximate physical equivalent of where he is located in geography: Down Under. [D V Sridharan is the publisher of goodnewsindia.com] http://ia.rediff.com/cricket/2008/jan/14guest.htm

[Guest dada_rocks]

More confirmations of that opinion have been arriving thick and fast. [Do be patient. I will come to the cricket soon] As soon as America lifted the sanctions, Australia was instantly convinced the Indian ogre was no longer a threat and lifted its own sanctions. In an episode that must shine in our history of statesmanship, when the Australian Deputy Prime Minister -was he Mr Chambers?; I truly don't care to remember - came calling, looking for business, Vajpayee let him cool his heels for three days before a low level foreign office man gave him an audience. The Australian DPM had spent the waiting time visiting places of interest like Appu Ghar and the Rail Museum. Such are the rewards of camp followers. Just loved it..:two_thumbs_up: