The Sydney Test: A Summary
This is a simple 5 point explanation of why the Sydney test was one of the worst matches in the history of cricket (when it could easily have been one of the best). Simply put, it wasn't cricket.
1. Deaf as a door post, blind as a bat: Apparently there is a big shortage of umpires in world cricket today, judging by the fact that of the 10 in the "Elite Panel", supposedly the 10 best in the world, Steve Bucknor is one. The man is obviously not suitable for the job, and should have been sacked from international cricket umpiring soon after the final of the 2007 world cup (the one that nobody wants to remember). After that unforgivable cock-up which shamed the game, they gave him pretty much no penalty, and we ultimately had to pay the price. To miss an edge once or twice is excusable, to make over nine errors in one test match is not. One bad day is tolerable, five are not. What's more annoying is that of the 9 bad decisions, 8 were against one team and only 1 was against the other.
2. Benson becomes Ponting's bitch: Imagine if, in a football game, there's a feud between two opposing players and the referee goes up to one and asks "Hey, did he foul you? He did? Ok, I'll give him a red card". Or in a tennis match, in the final game of a set, while a player's on set point, the referee can't quite make out what happened and asks the player "Hey, was that out? It was? Ok, you win the point then. Point, game and set." Sounds ridiculous? Wait, I haven't finished yet. Now what if replays suggest that the decision is incorrect. After taking the player's word, the replays suggest that it was the guy himself who was actually at fault, or that the ball was in fact, in the court. Wouldn't the decision be revoked?
Well then, why shouldn't this happen in cricket, where the umpire is even entitled to check by a TV replay?! What was Ponting's bitch expecting the Aussies to say, "No mate, the catch wasn't clean, we're celebrating for the heck of it"?
3. Aussies had a "hunger" to win, greater than ours: Indeed, it was so great that it overpowered all the "integrity" Ponting claims they have. The understanding that he made before the series, that instead of technology, the fielding side's captain could "honestly" admit whether or not a catch was clean, was abused twice (and the bastard had the gall to complain when Dhoni was given not out one of those times). Ponting points back to the not-clean catch of Dravid that he had admitted to in the first innings, clearly forgetting that being honest at a relatively pressure-free time when you're not on the edge of that record breaking 16th win is different from being honest when you are, especially if you're Australian. And in the latter case, Australia cheated. We even have video evidence of it, (which is stronger than Hayden and Clarke's nonsense words by which Harbhajan was convicted of "racial slur").
4. The man of the match award went to a monkey: How could they give it to fricking Andrew Symonds, who made runs he didn't deserve only because his wicket was protected by three unqualified idiots and who got wickets he didn't deserve because of that senile old man whose age and lack of sense begs that he be retired (or banned, rather) from all forms of umpiring. Sachin Tendulkar made a real hundred, even Hayden played well in the second innings without umpire help, and RP Singh could've had a 5 wicket haul and set up an Indian victory, if not for you-know-who and his senility.
5. They banned an innocent man: Let's get one thing clear, calling Symonds a monkey is not, by any stretch of imagination, a racial slur. No, I'd call him one no matter what his ethnicity is, whether he's black, white, brown, yellow, blue.... it doesn't matter. You look like a monkey, I call you a monkey, where's the racism? (to be honest, I can't even make out what color the monkey is) So even if he did call him that (of which there's no proof, but for the word of two Australians), the Aussies needn't take it like the little bitches they are and whine about it so much that Bhajji gets banned. I thought Mike Proctor was respectable, but apparently, despite a massive lack of evidence, he convicts Harbhajan and gives him a 5 match ban. Seriously, what are these officials getting from the ACB or the Australian team? Money? Certificates? Blowjobs? It's funny that Australia always manage to come up with these allegations when they're down (this was on the 3rd day, after we took the lead), and yet, every other country has a problem with Australia and only Australia. You rarely hear of sledging between any other two teams. However, players from other teams are sportsmen; they take the insults from Australia in their stride and move on. As for the Aussies, they're just a band of pricks, who'll go out of their way to get a player they don't like in trouble, even if it means making stuff up.
Captain Kumble summed it up best when he said "Only one team was playing with the spirit of the game, that's all I can say."
1. Deaf as a door post, blind as a bat: Apparently there is a big shortage of umpires in world cricket today, judging by the fact that of the 10 in the "Elite Panel", supposedly the 10 best in the world, Steve Bucknor is one. The man is obviously not suitable for the job, and should have been sacked from international cricket umpiring soon after the final of the 2007 world cup (the one that nobody wants to remember). After that unforgivable cock-up which shamed the game, they gave him pretty much no penalty, and we ultimately had to pay the price. To miss an edge once or twice is excusable, to make over nine errors in one test match is not. One bad day is tolerable, five are not. What's more annoying is that of the 9 bad decisions, 8 were against one team and only 1 was against the other.
2. Benson becomes Ponting's bitch: Imagine if, in a football game, there's a feud between two opposing players and the referee goes up to one and asks "Hey, did he foul you? He did? Ok, I'll give him a red card". Or in a tennis match, in the final game of a set, while a player's on set point, the referee can't quite make out what happened and asks the player "Hey, was that out? It was? Ok, you win the point then. Point, game and set." Sounds ridiculous? Wait, I haven't finished yet. Now what if replays suggest that the decision is incorrect. After taking the player's word, the replays suggest that it was the guy himself who was actually at fault, or that the ball was in fact, in the court. Wouldn't the decision be revoked?
Well then, why shouldn't this happen in cricket, where the umpire is even entitled to check by a TV replay?! What was Ponting's bitch expecting the Aussies to say, "No mate, the catch wasn't clean, we're celebrating for the heck of it"?
3. Aussies had a "hunger" to win, greater than ours: Indeed, it was so great that it overpowered all the "integrity" Ponting claims they have. The understanding that he made before the series, that instead of technology, the fielding side's captain could "honestly" admit whether or not a catch was clean, was abused twice (and the bastard had the gall to complain when Dhoni was given not out one of those times). Ponting points back to the not-clean catch of Dravid that he had admitted to in the first innings, clearly forgetting that being honest at a relatively pressure-free time when you're not on the edge of that record breaking 16th win is different from being honest when you are, especially if you're Australian. And in the latter case, Australia cheated. We even have video evidence of it, (which is stronger than Hayden and Clarke's nonsense words by which Harbhajan was convicted of "racial slur").
4. The man of the match award went to a monkey: How could they give it to fricking Andrew Symonds, who made runs he didn't deserve only because his wicket was protected by three unqualified idiots and who got wickets he didn't deserve because of that senile old man whose age and lack of sense begs that he be retired (or banned, rather) from all forms of umpiring. Sachin Tendulkar made a real hundred, even Hayden played well in the second innings without umpire help, and RP Singh could've had a 5 wicket haul and set up an Indian victory, if not for you-know-who and his senility.
5. They banned an innocent man: Let's get one thing clear, calling Symonds a monkey is not, by any stretch of imagination, a racial slur. No, I'd call him one no matter what his ethnicity is, whether he's black, white, brown, yellow, blue.... it doesn't matter. You look like a monkey, I call you a monkey, where's the racism? (to be honest, I can't even make out what color the monkey is) So even if he did call him that (of which there's no proof, but for the word of two Australians), the Aussies needn't take it like the little bitches they are and whine about it so much that Bhajji gets banned. I thought Mike Proctor was respectable, but apparently, despite a massive lack of evidence, he convicts Harbhajan and gives him a 5 match ban. Seriously, what are these officials getting from the ACB or the Australian team? Money? Certificates? Blowjobs? It's funny that Australia always manage to come up with these allegations when they're down (this was on the 3rd day, after we took the lead), and yet, every other country has a problem with Australia and only Australia. You rarely hear of sledging between any other two teams. However, players from other teams are sportsmen; they take the insults from Australia in their stride and move on. As for the Aussies, they're just a band of pricks, who'll go out of their way to get a player they don't like in trouble, even if it means making stuff up.
Captain Kumble summed it up best when he said "Only one team was playing with the spirit of the game, that's all I can say."
posted by N.J. at 4:49 AM
0 comments
