Why is Australian media and public so incredibly angry with the Indian team?

[Chandan]

Do they think that Hansen's verdict is not fair? If yes, then has anyone given the reasons for that? Why do they think that BCCI flexed its muscle and what effect it had on the verdict of Hansen? I mean I simply cannpt understand, why they should be so angry with the Indian team. Does anyone know? If yes, then please explain it to me.

[fineleg]

Do they think that Hansen's verdict is not fair? If yes, then has anyone given the reasons for that? Why do they think that BCCI flexed its muscle and what effect it had on the verdict of Hansen? I mean I simply cannpt understand, why they should be so angry with the Indian team. Does anyone know? If yes, then please explain it to me.

Yes. They are biased and jealous. Thats why. Simple explanation.

[IndianRenegade]

I had already said why, in an another thread. I am copy pasting it again. Lot of emotion is at work here, rather than rational thought. Australia's shocking defeat at perth was attributed to the criticism that lead to a decreased on field aggression/bullying against the opposition players and umpires by some sections of the media. A very sad development that failed to acknowledge the Indian resurgence which had started in Sydney only to be defeated by umpiring. Though the aussies did say India was a better team at perth, suggestions that they were hampered by all the criticism was also encouraged by aussies. It unfortunately seemed to many that India was having its way, NO Bucknor, reduced aussie aggression, to top it all India winning a game at perth, where the aussies were expected to run through the Indians blind folded! The criticism of the aussies was a thing of the past now. Hectic lobbying from BCCI to acquit Bhajji from all charges of racism against him with a threat to quit the series was seen as a threat to a just process, it is quite amazing to know that the same people who had advocated the move earlier found fault with the BCCI for the threat. Such was the change in tide, it doesn't matter that the Aussies had no evidence against Bhajji, all that seemed to matter was that the Aussies will face another defeat and its players stubborn insistence on AS being racially abused would after all amount to nothing. People failed to see that it was because of the lack of evidence and not BCCI's lobbying. Those who could see that still thought India was forcing justice by making such threats, some how blind to the fact BCCI was fighting against injustice.

[Holysmoke]

well.. india had made it clear that if bhajji was banned, we were going home bhajji pleaded guilty to abuse... now for that, considering his past record, he should have gotten a ban but his past record was not shown to the judge.. and so thats why he got off with a fine. That is why they are pissed.. ICC did not provide proper facts to judge because of "human error" but most people think that it was done purposely because the indian board threatened to walk out

[Chandan]

If the rumour about India's threat to pull out is true, why didn't they do so immediately after Procter gave the verdict that Bhajji indeed used a racist remark after Sydney test? And Rajiv Shukla kept on saying that there was no such threat. Pawar had assured before that there was no question of pulling out. So where did this renewed threat come from? And what lobbying did BCCI do to get Bhajji exonerated of this charge?

[Rajan]

who cares? let them think whatever they want. it is all gas. personally i wish the BCCI sues all the newspapers for huge sums in a libel suit for publishing unsubstantiated claims on- chartered plane waiting to take off- stories. once BCCI does that, the entire aussie media will understand that they have to stick to facts and not assumptions and will keep quiet. Despite SRT's denials they went on to shout from rooftops that he led the SMS morcha. now, the fuelled up plane, bullsh!t. bunch of losers.

[IndianRenegade]

well.. india had made it clear that if bhajji was banned, we were going home bhajji pleaded guilty to abuse... now for that, considering his past record, he should have gotten a ban but his past record was not shown to the judge.. and so thats why he got off with a fine. That is why they are pissed.. ICC did not provide proper facts to judge because of "human error" but most people think that it was done purposely because the indian board threatened to walk out

It is interesting to note that the BCCI didn't have problems with the ban, but wanted to remove the racist tag, which is fair considering the lack of evidence. A fair judgement should have been both Symmonds and Harbhajan being penalized as Symmonds was the one who instigated the row. If Bhajji was lucky so was Symmonds. SO whats all the whining about?

[Chandan]

It is interesting to note that the BCCI didn't have problems with the ban, but wanted to remove the racist tag, which is fair considering the lack of evidence. A fair judgement should have been both Symmonds and Harbhajan being penalized as Symmonds was the one who instigated the row. If Bhajji was lucky so was Symmonds. SO whats all the whining about?

Even I didn't have a problem if Bhajji was banned or an ODI but the charge had to be plain abbuse, not racist remark. So why does the Australiam media think that Hansen made a mess of the hearing and what are CA and Ponting and co disappointed at? I'm unable to understand!

[Holysmoke]

So why does the Australiam media think that Hansen made a mess of the hearing and what are CA and Ponting and co disappointed at? I'm unable to understand!

Australian media thinks that way because under normal circumstances, bhajji would have been banned for a game because he has a past history. Hansen did not take past history in consideration, because it wasnt given to him, a fault of the ICC, which has termed this "human error" .If the ICC wouldnt have made this error, (meaning, under normal circumstances), bhajji would have been banned. But he isnt.

[Zap_Brannigan]

They are all just a reflection of their team. Aus cricket team could sledge but then they throw their toys out of the pram when sledged back. The same with their public. They were ok when Proctor unfairly(without any reliable evidence) banned bhajji but when an "human error" gets his off, they can't take it. Bunch of hypocritical pussies.

[Zap_Brannigan]

Australian media thinks that way because under normal circumstances' date=' bhajji would have been banned for a game because he has a past history. Hansen did not take past history in consideration, because it wasnt given to him, a fault of the ICC, which has termed this "human error" .If the ICC wouldnt have made this error, ([b']meaning, under normal circumstances), bhajji would have been banned. But he isnt.

Yeah,but under normal circumstances, Aussies would have had more bans for their abuses on field, cheating, intimidation etc.

[Pancho]

bunch of losers.

err dude, we won 2 - 1. :yay:

[gloryof83]

Do they think that Hansen's verdict is not fair? If yes, then has anyone given the reasons for that? Why do they think that BCCI flexed its muscle and what effect it had on the verdict of Hansen? I mean I simply cannpt understand, why they should be so angry with the Indian team. Does anyone know? If yes, then please explain it to me.

Public support was favoring India before BCCI threatened to pull of the tour if Bhajji was not cleared. BCCI's threats pissed a lot of people off, actually turned the public support from India to Australia. Also the fact that India was changing its story every 2 mins.

[Chandan]

Public support was favoring India before BCCI threatened to pull of the tour if Bhajji was not cleared. BCCI's threats pissed a lot of people off, actually turned the public support from India to Australia. Also the fact that India was changing its story every 2 mins.

When did BCCI threaten to pull out? Throughout, Sharad Pawar was saying that there was no question of a pull out. Same with Rajiv Shukla who repeatedly kept saying that threre was no threat to the tour. So where did the Australians get the threats from? How and who cooked that rumour about chartered plane and certainly India were not going to go back on a chartered plane from Australia? So where did that rubbish come from? And I'd like you te tell us what were the stories which India kept changing every 2 minutes. I'm unaware of it.

[gloryof83]

When did BCCI threaten to pull out? Throughout, Sharad Pawar was saying that there was no question of a pull out. Same with Rajiv Shukla who repeatedly kept saying that threre was no threat to the tour. So where did the Australians get the threats from? How and who cooked that rumour about chartered plane and certainly India were not going to go back on a chartered plane from Australia? So where did that rubbish come from? And I'd like you te tell us what were the stories which India kept changing every 2 minutes. I'm unaware of it.

BCCI threats were all over the papers in OZ and on the internet, just google it you will find heaps. As far as the stories go day 1 - Bhajji did not call him monkey day 2 - But monkey is not offensive in Inda day 3 - he actually said maa ki But the maa ki defense was not used in the Sydney hearing but again used in the Adelaide hearing. They should thought of one thing & stuck to it. But by changing their story every so often they were just giving it away.

[IndianRenegade]

BCCI threats were all over the papers in OZ and on the internet, just google it you will find heaps. As far as the stories go day 1 - Bhajji did not call him monkey day 2 - But monkey is not offensive in Inda day 3 - he actually said maa ki But the maa ki defense was not used in the Sydney hearing but again used in the Adelaide hearing. They should thought of one thing & stuck to it. But by changing their story every so often they were just giving it away.

How about this: Australia had 5 witnesses and they believed they had a strong case. On proctors hearing Two of their 5 witnesses claim they didn't hear it. In the appeal, Hayden claims he didn't hear the monkey word from Bhajji but from Symonds. Clarke is termed an unreliable, who doesn't understand what harbhajan was speaking but miraculously picked up the word big monkey. Surprisingly he also says Symmonds didn't say anything but Symmonds himself accepts he abused Bhajji. Symmonds himself is unsure what Harbhajan said to him Monkey or big Monkey or Teri Maaki... talk about confusion! and changing stories!

day 1 - Bhajji did not call him monkey day 2 - But monkey is not offensive in Inda day 3 - he actually said maa ki But the maa ki defense was not used in the Sydney hearing but again used in the Adelaide hearing. They should thought of one thing & stuck to it. But by changing their story every so often they were just giving it away.

Tell me which Indian team member said monkey is not offensive in India? Tell me whether Symmonds said that he abused Bhajji first before the appeal? Why expect bhajji alone to say what he said against Symmonds when Symmonds doesn't reveal his abuse against Bhajji? If anyone was changing stories its was the Aussies and not the Indians!

[talksport]

@OP , Should we care.....about Australian Media and public

[Chandan]

That is none of Australian public's concern as to what Harbhajan said in his defence. Did anyone ask in India what sentence Bhajji used when he called him monkey? It was Proctor's duty to ask Harbhajan as what did he exactly say when he denied saying monkey. Did Proctor ask him? And BCCI threat is a complete media cook-up. Don't you think if they indeed wanted to pull out, they'd have done it immediately after Sydney and had pressurised Proctor to give a favourable verdict instead? A pull out, after playing the whole test series doesn't make any sense. And who from BCCI carried this threat? Can anyone say? Certainly not Pawar who was the only person who had the power to do so. No one else had any power. So what has hurt the media and public alike?

[talksport]

An anti-Indian sentiment in cricket is like an anti-american sentiment

[Chandan]

@OP ' date=' Should we care.....about Australian Media and public[/quote'] No. I don't think so. But still I'm interested to know that even after being proved how their players were the real villains and even blatant liars, why are they directing their anger to the Indian team instead?

An anti-Indian sentiment in cricket is like an anti-american sentiment

Please explain.