Now this is ugly

[Predator_05]

Re: Now this is ugly

Tendulkar's issues with Azhar was because of Azhar's match fixing. He is justified to be peeved with Azhar.

This was long before the match-fixing scandal.

[yoda]

Re: Now this is ugly KR, if only saints can talk, freedom of speech will be pretty useless. If sunny wants to irritate the crap out of the aussies, more power to him. :hmph:

[gabbar]

Re: Now this is ugly aussies are bloody low life - don't let them fool you

[Guest BossBhai]

Re: Now this is ugly -- Removed on request of the user --

[kabira]

Re: Now this is ugly when Sachin took captaincy for second time, he came on his terms..one of this terms was that Azhar will be dropped.

[Predator_05]

Re: Now this is ugly

Tendulkar's issues with Azhar was because of Azhar's match fixing. He is justified to be peeved with Azhar.

This was long before the match-fixing scandal.

Yeh kab hua Predz ? :huh:

It started coming out in the open during the 1999 Aussie tour. Remember how Tendulkar put his foot down on VVS' inclusion in the Indian ODI side ahead of Azhar (whom the selectors were favouring at that stage). Azhar had a monster season for Hyderabad and was in top form, but Tendulkar insisted that he be left out and Laxman be chosen instead. The move failed miserably as Laxman's scores in the C&U Series read like my cell phone number. This is enough for me to know that there must have been some friction going on between the two. Azhar didn't want to lose the captaincy after the World Cup either. Following the disastrous tour of Australia; once again Azhar was in the spotlight and the selectors asked him to prove himself - he played lots of FC Cricket (just like Ganguly did recently) and piled up the runs; staking his claim for a place in the team for the first test at home vs SA. For some reason; the selectors "mysteriously" dropped him - citing his lack of match fitness, however x-rays and scans showed no trace of injury whatsoever. Instead, the Board picked a failure like Jadeja (who wasn't fully fit either) for the test squad. It was a move which completely defied logic. There was also that infamous meeting between Tendulkar and the selectors prior to the first test - captains or coaches weren't allowed a vote, but they chose to meet up anyway. It's obvious that they were trying to influence the board to keep Azhar out of the side. I dug through the cricinfo archives for that series and found the article too - http://content-eap.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/87452.html It does bear some semblance to Chappell-Ganguly, although the team kept a lid on it...

[kumble_rocks]

Re: Now this is ugly Predz, According to me it all started between 1998-99. Even in the article you mentioned , Sachin didn't want both Azhar and Mongia. It's obvious that Sachin knew by this time that these two were involved in match fixing. Sachin was peeved at Azhar because of this more then anything else.

[sm332]

Re: Now this is ugly now Border and Lehman get into it 'What Sunny said was totally uncalled for' Border slams Gavaskar over Hookes reference Cricinfo staff March 15, 2007 Allan Border says Sunil Gavaskar is a friend but he could not condone Gavaskar's comments ? Getty Images Allan Border said it was "totally inappropriate" and "plain wrong" for Sunil Gavaskar to link the death of David Hookes to the conduct of Australian cricketers on the field. Border said Gavaskar had missed the point and did not seem to appreciate that different behaviour was acceptable in different cultures. "I consider Sunny a friend, but what he said about David Hookes and the behaviour of Australian cricketers was totally uncalled for," Border told The Australian. "What Sunny said on television was totally inappropriate." Gavaskar suggested on ESPN the Australian players might get physically attacked if they used similar language in a bar as they use on the field. "There's the example of the late David Hookes," Gavaskar said. "Would they get away with it? Would they have a fist coming at their face or not?" Border said there was no need to mention Hookes, who died after an altercation outside a Melbourne nightclub in 2004. "For [Gavaskar] to link David's death to players allegedly misbehaving on a cricket field is plain wrong," Border said. He argued that Gavaskar was misinterpreting Australia's aggressive brand of play. "Where Australia may be seen to be playing the game hard and tough could be misconstrued on the subcontinent," Border said. "Similarly, the way India plays the game at times may not be to the liking of every Australian. Cricket is a global sport in which different cultures lock horns out in the middle. Only the nuances of the game may vary from country to country. "While a cricketer on the subcontinent or the West Indies may find an Australian bowler's remark to a particular batsman of 'you lucky b------' offensive, to players in other teams it's not. Sunny has missed the point here badly. He's clearly overlooked the fact there are different cultures at work. Darren Lehmann, a close friend of Hookes, backed Border's reaction. "I'm pretty disappointed with Gavaskar," Lehmann said. "His remarks only hurt David Hookes' family and friends, and tarnish Hookesy's memory. A man of Gavaskar's stature in the game of cricket should know better." Lehamnn said Gavaskar's outburst was "in bad taste" and he had ignored the fact that umpires and match referees had the power to take action if players' behaviour on the field was inappropriate. "I came into the international arena a few years after he had retired," Lehmann said. "He was a player I admired. Not any more." ? Cricinfo A bit rich coming from Lehman who called the SL team a bunch of black *unts ... but then Border tells us this is a difference in culture .. nothing more ... yeah and pigs fly.

[Birbal3]

Re: Now this is ugly Isn't Lehmann the one who Yelled BLACK C.U.N.T.S at Sri Lankans? Sure Darren somethings are normal in your culture...but if you shout that in South CEntral L.A. or Oakland bar... lucky if you make it out alive...

[Birbal3]

Re: Now this is ugly Lehmann reveals the unwitting racism that infuses Australia January 27 2003 The Darren Lehmann case has exposed a double standard in the Australian cricket community. Normally, moments of the highest pressure in sport are held to reveal character. Steve Waugh's toughness and Shane Warne's genius are revealed precisely in the heat of the moment. Conversely, the touring Englishmen have been stripped naked - weak, timid, lacking in technique - under high heat. We beat the drum of our own supremacy because we're tough when it really matters. Yet for Lehmann, the logic has been reversed. His defenders cannot reconcile his outburst against his Sri Lankan opponents with his reputation as a "good bloke". Teammates and associates have described Lehmann's slur as an "out of character" act, committed "in the heat of the moment" by someone who is "universally regarded as a nice guy". Instead, it is the Sri Lankans who are rendered villains, oversensitive and unmanly to complain. How is it that for Lehmann the rule is waived? How is it that in the heat of the moment, he did something supposedly out of character? The answer, of course, is that he did not. To believe this was the first time Lehmann used this terrible language about black people is to show the indulgence of a parent who believes their teenager's "it was my first joint" defence. Lehmann's misfortune is that he is the man who got caught revealing the unwitting racism that infuses not only Australian cricketing culture but mainstream Australia. Lehmann's supporters cannot understand the difference between calling someone a "c---" and a "black c---". Nor, presumably, can they understand that it is offensive for our media commentators to speak of the Sri Lankans as "babbling" in the field, as "leaping about with great big smiles" or as "little guys". Monkeys babble. Little black sambos have great big smiles. We're not yet at a stage of cultural maturity where we even know what racism is. John Howard is supposedly a decent man who hates the racist epithet. Yet each year he sanctifies the white man's military tragedy (Gallipoli) while denying or excusing the black man's military tragedy (the colonisation massacres). Racism in Australia is insidious, unadmitted. We have few proud racists. There is no open Klan or National Front here. Our white supremacist fringe - the 10 per cent of voters represented in the late-'90s by Pauline Hanson but who, in the 2001 election, swung back in step with Howard's dance of Arab-phobia - do not admit to racism. Hanson's platform of cutting non-white immigration and government assistance to Aborigines was coded as a call from "mainstream Australia" for "fairness" (no pun intended). When Howard talks of pre-emptive strikes against terrorists in Asia, and of de-democratising the rights of non-white asylum seekers, his favourite phrasing is "ordinary Australians think . . ." All ills can be cured if everybody just stops whingeing and swallows the (white, male, resolutely middle-class and anti-intellectual) panacea of "mateship". By raising this, one risks being labelled politically correct and a troublemaker. Three years ago, when India toured Australia, I interviewed Indian-Australians who were supporting India. I found two reasons. One was that it is natural not to let go of one's birthplace. Presumably those Australians who impose cultural-assimilation policies upon new arrivals are not the ones who slag Greg Norman for his American accent; presumably those who say Muslims should renounce their language and religion once they become Australians are not the ones who accuse Clive James and Germaine Greer of "selling out" their Australian-ness to Britain. Yet a more pungent reason for those Indian flags at the Sydney Cricket Ground was that fathers resented the exclusion of their sons from local and school teams. Every family I interviewed had a story of a boy who had been shut out of the "in" group because of his race, or his teetotalism, or some other cultural difference. Lest this be taken as paranoia, one need only look at the make-up of Australian cricket teams at senior levels. The most common name in the Sydney phone book is Lee - and they're not relatives of Brett - yet all our teams can boast is the occasional Kasprowicz or Di Venuto. If you want a cultural snapshot of Australia in the 1950s, look no further than our cricket. Rather than shame, our cricket community tends to feel pride in this ethnic wholeness. Yet the Lehmann case has shown that an excess of our greatest strengths - unity, certainty, simplicity - has become our greatest weakness. Australian triumphalism masks the fact that we lag a generation behind England in resolving the race debate. While English sporting clubs struggle to harmonise different cultures, Australian clubs fix the problem by leaving non-whites out. When controversy about England's racially diverse cricket teams has broken out, Australian cricketers tacitly agree with those who say recent teams from the old country are "less English", and therefore weaker, than in the 1960s or before. Their prescription for England's ills is to revert to "English" (i.e. Boycottian, Illingworthian) traits. We fail to recognise England's change as much as we fail to acknowledge our own. When I wrote about the Indians who felt shut out of Australian cricket, I was taken to task for "inventing" trouble where none existed. Yet I'd seen racism with my own eyes. On a tour to India, I heard two Australian cricketers call the locals "niggers". I saw Australian cricketers coming across Indians sleeping on a railway platform in Jamshedpur and nudging them awake with their feet to take a happy snap. No malice was intended, and if you can understand that the cricketers involved were both "good blokes" and yet-to-be-reconstructed racists, then you go a long way to comprehending the incoherence amid which most Australians live. Malcolm Knox is a former cricket writer for The Age and the author of the novel Summerland.

[DesiChap]

Re: Now this is ugly

Isn't Lehmann the one who Yelled BLACK C.U.N.T.S at Sri Lankans? Sure Darren somethings are normal in your culture...but if you shout that in South CEntral L.A. or Oakland bar... lucky if you make it out alive...

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

[Birbal3]

Re: Now this is ugly Lehmann reveals the unwitting racism that infuses Australia January 27 2003 The Darren Lehmann case has exposed a double standard in the Australian cricket community. Normally, moments of the highest pressure in sport are held to reveal character. Steve Waugh's toughness and Shane Warne's genius are revealed precisely in the heat of the moment. Conversely, the touring Englishmen have been stripped naked - weak, timid, lacking in technique - under high heat. We beat the drum of our own supremacy because we're tough when it really matters. Yet for Lehmann, the logic has been reversed. His defenders cannot reconcile his outburst against his Sri Lankan opponents with his reputation as a "good bloke". Teammates and associates have described Lehmann's slur as an "out of character" act, committed "in the heat of the moment" by someone who is "universally regarded as a nice guy". Instead, it is the Sri Lankans who are rendered villains, oversensitive and unmanly to complain. How is it that for Lehmann the rule is waived? How is it that in the heat of the moment, he did something supposedly out of character? The answer, of course, is that he did not. To believe this was the first time Lehmann used this terrible language about black people is to show the indulgence of a parent who believes their teenager's "it was my first joint" defence. Lehmann's misfortune is that he is the man who got caught revealing the unwitting racism that infuses not only Australian cricketing culture but mainstream Australia. Lehmann's supporters cannot understand the difference between calling someone a "c---" and a "black c---". Nor, presumably, can they understand that it is offensive for our media commentators to speak of the Sri Lankans as "babbling" in the field, as "leaping about with great big smiles" or as "little guys". Monkeys babble. Little black sambos have great big smiles. We're not yet at a stage of cultural maturity where we even know what racism is. John Howard is supposedly a decent man who hates the racist epithet. Yet each year he sanctifies the white man's military tragedy (Gallipoli) while denying or excusing the black man's military tragedy (the colonisation massacres). Racism in Australia is insidious, unadmitted. We have few proud racists. There is no open Klan or National Front here. Our white supremacist fringe - the 10 per cent of voters represented in the late-'90s by Pauline Hanson but who, in the 2001 election, swung back in step with Howard's dance of Arab-phobia - do not admit to racism. Hanson's platform of cutting non-white immigration and government assistance to Aborigines was coded as a call from "mainstream Australia" for "fairness" (no pun intended). When Howard talks of pre-emptive strikes against terrorists in Asia, and of de-democratising the rights of non-white asylum seekers, his favourite phrasing is "ordinary Australians think . . ." All ills can be cured if everybody just stops whingeing and swallows the (white, male, resolutely middle-class and anti-intellectual) panacea of "mateship". By raising this, one risks being labelled politically correct and a troublemaker. Three years ago, when India toured Australia, I interviewed Indian-Australians who were supporting India. I found two reasons. One was that it is natural not to let go of one's birthplace. Presumably those Australians who impose cultural-assimilation policies upon new arrivals are not the ones who slag Greg Norman for his American accent; presumably those who say Muslims should renounce their language and religion once they become Australians are not the ones who accuse Clive James and Germaine Greer of "selling out" their Australian-ness to Britain. Yet a more pungent reason for those Indian flags at the Sydney Cricket Ground was that fathers resented the exclusion of their sons from local and school teams. Every family I interviewed had a story of a boy who had been shut out of the "in" group because of his race, or his teetotalism, or some other cultural difference. Lest this be taken as paranoia, one need only look at the make-up of Australian cricket teams at senior levels. The most common name in the Sydney phone book is Lee - and they're not relatives of Brett - yet all our teams can boast is the occasional Kasprowicz or Di Venuto. If you want a cultural snapshot of Australia in the 1950s, look no further than our cricket. Rather than shame, our cricket community tends to feel pride in this ethnic wholeness. Yet the Lehmann case has shown that an excess of our greatest strengths - unity, certainty, simplicity - has become our greatest weakness. Australian triumphalism masks the fact that we lag a generation behind England in resolving the race debate. While English sporting clubs struggle to harmonise different cultures, Australian clubs fix the problem by leaving non-whites out. When controversy about England's racially diverse cricket teams has broken out, Australian cricketers tacitly agree with those who say recent teams from the old country are "less English", and therefore weaker, than in the 1960s or before. Their prescription for England's ills is to revert to "English" (i.e. Boycottian, Illingworthian) traits. We fail to recognise England's change as much as we fail to acknowledge our own. When I wrote about the Indians who felt shut out of Australian cricket, I was taken to task for "inventing" trouble where none existed. Yet I'd seen racism with my own eyes. On a tour to India, I heard two Australian cricketers call the locals "niggers". I saw Australian cricketers coming across Indians sleeping on a railway platform in Jamshedpur and nudging them awake with their feet to take a happy snap. No malice was intended, and if you can understand that the cricketers involved were both "good blokes" and yet-to-be-reconstructed racists, then you go a long way to comprehending the incoherence amid which most Australians live. Malcolm Knox is a former cricket writer for The Age and the author of the novel Summerland.

[Birbal3]

Re: Now this is ugly Though written 4 years ago...still holds true... I don't see a single Desi player in the Aussie team...and doubt there will be one for years to come... The only team in the WC without a single desi who has played for the team in the past year...as far as I can tell...

[kumble_rocks]

Re: Now this is ugly

I don't see a single Desi player in the Aussie team...and doubt there will be one for years to come...

While I agree aussie is a racist culture , it works both ways mate. let me play devil's advocate here. I don't see a single dalit in the indian cricket team among Hindus. Do you ? What coud be the reason ? :huh: likely playing 11 1. Virender Sehwag (Rajput) 2. Sourav Ganguly(Brahmin) 3. Rahul Dravid*(Brahmin) 4. Sachin Tendulkar(Brahmin) 5. Yuvraj Singh(half Rajput) 6. Mahendra Dhoni(Rajput) 7. Irfan Pathan 8. Ajit Agarkar(Brahmin) 9. Zaheer Khan 10. Kumble(Brahmin) or harbhy 11. Munaf Patel

[sm332]

Re: Now this is ugly that is a very very silly analogy ... do we have dalits playing competitive cricket yes ... there are nary a minority playing competitive cricket in Oz.

[MundaPakistani]

Re: Now this is ugly That was uncalled for from Sunny, there was no NEED to bring Hookes in to his childish argument with Ponting.

[Predator_05]

Re: Now this is ugly

Though written 4 years ago...still holds true... I don't see a single Desi player in the Aussie team...and doubt there will be one for years to come... The only team in the WC without a single desi who has played for the team in the past year...as far as I can tell...

As knowledgeable as you may be, you certainly seem to be very ignorant on issues such as these. England have been represented by a fair few desis in cricket, and other sports as well yet that didn't stop you from denouncing English fans as racist on the old board. As far as desis in Australia are concerned; i take it you have never heard of a player named Usman Khawaja - the CAPTAIN of the Australian u19 squad ? or Lisa Sthlekar; the best batsman on the woman's team ? Don't bother making such pointless statements unless you can substantiate them...otherwise it's just meanginless conjecture.

[Birbal3]

Re: Now this is ugly Predator... you seem to think one player in a blue moon is proof enough... btw, the article was written by a WHITE AUSSIE... So if you have problems seeing what he sees need to take those rosy sun glasses off.. I will grant you that Lisa Sthalekar is indeed a break through and a role model...but honestly she slipped my mind... And I was talking about the Men's game... And what is the U19 Captain doing these days?

[Vishwatma]

Re: Now this is ugly lado lado...ponting ki maaro!!

[THX_1138]

Re: Now this is ugly

I don't see a single Desi player in the Aussie team...and doubt there will be one for years to come...

While I agree aussie is a racist culture , it works both ways mate. let me play devil's advocate here. I don't see a single dalit in the indian cricket team among Hindus. Do you ? What coud be the reason ? :huh: likely playing 11 1. Virender Sehwag (Rajput) 2. Sourav Ganguly(Brahmin) 3. Rahul Dravid*(Brahmin) 4. Sachin Tendulkar(Brahmin) 5. Yuvraj Singh(half Rajput) 6. Mahendra Dhoni(Rajput) 7. Irfan Pathan 8. Ajit Agarkar(Brahmin) 9. Zaheer Khan 10. Kumble(Brahmin) or harbhy 11. Munaf Patel

my sympathies with the dalits for they have indeed been handed the short end of the stick for over half a millennium, but your logic is pointing towards some sort of affirmative action in sports which can only spell disaster. we are a country of one billion and dalits make up a small number of that majority, maybe you ought to consider the possibility that the best 11 or 16 players amongst these one billion come from the overwhelming majority?