The Australian team - A disgrace to the game

[C_C]

Come on folks. Let's use a more ambiguous expression of everyone's favourite "f" word.

fook is good enough ?

 

[Loony BoB]

Sort of off-topic here: I haven't read half of this thread but thought I'd note that it's kind of amusing that people, not just in cricket, consider 'black' or 'white' to be racist words. I know they aren't the only words used in most incidents on the cricket pitch, but sometimes they are. I always laugh when someone calls me white as if it's a bad thing. They may as well call me a brown haired and eyed white male human. I just laugh and say, yes, that is correct, I am indeed what you have called me.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I have in another thread i started, where ya went off moaning after a few folks agreed with me.
backed by facts and actual happenings.



both were in responses - McGrath asking 'why are you so F*ckin fat' and Merv saying 'you cant F*cking bat'.

ah, ok. So it's ok if it's said in response to something?

 

[Slow Love™]

Ganguly has three reports for this year alone.

Yeah, he has two more since the report, I think (and obviously Akhtar has another ), although I believe he's only got a suspended sentence for one additional conviction.

However, that certainly wasn't part of the widely publicised report earlier in the year. In terms of conduct violations, do you have stats to back up your claims? It's a genuine question. Because if you're going to use words like "FACTS" in capital letters, I think you should. I don't actually know for sure, although I do have access to the earlier reports (which don't back up your claims). I just can't remember exactly what's happened since.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

fook is good enough ?

What about flowerpots or fried chicken?

 

[Scallywag]

Yeah, he has two more since the report, I think (and obviously Akhtar has another ), although I believe he's only got a suspended sentence for one additional conviction.

However, that certainly wasn't part of the widely publicised report earlier in the year. In terms of conduct violations, do you have stats to back up your claims? It's a genuine question. Because if you're going to use words like "FACTS" in capital letters, I think you should. I don't actually know for sure, although I do have access to the earlier reports (which don't back up your claims). I just can't remember exactly what's happened since.

Ganguly had another three in 2001.

 

[C_C]

first one would sound very gay, Mxy...

and Coco- to an extent, yes. If you cant take the heat, get out of the kitchen. If you cant take it, dont dish it..remember ?

Point is- it still adds up against the current OZ players in terms of # of instances...

 

[Slow Love™]

Ganguly had another three in 2001.

Another three what? Charges or convictions? (Again, I just don't remember.) And could you stop stalling, and answer the question? You said that in the report released earlier this year that dealt with the previous two years, Ganguly topped the list. This was not true.

You also said that India had transgressed more than the Australians. This COULD be true, but the report I saw (and that you referred to) didn't show that.

CAN you please provide stats that verify your case? Also, in terms of the Ganguly charges (which again, could well be true), could you point me to where you're getting the pre-2002 info, 'cause I'm curious myself.

 

[Scallywag]

Breach of Codes 3 & 4, showing dissent at the Umpire's decision and attempting to intimidate the Umpire. Each found guilty, fined 75% of match fee and suspended suspension of one Test match effective immediately until 31st January 2002.

Virender Sehwag,
Harbhajan Singh,
Deep Dasgupta,
Shiv Sunder Das

Breach of Codes 3 & 4, showing excessive actions and reactioins to the 'not out' decision, and attempting to intimidate the Umpire by charging him. Found guilty and fined 75% of match fee, plus a ban of one Test match effective immediately

 

[C_C]

correct me if i am wrong but ICC rescended those sanctions against Sehwag,Harby,Das and Dasgupta.
if so, they dont count. And like i said, THAT MATCH was bcci vs icc....the team had its orders. thats a far cry from personal conduct on and off the pitch.
A soldier is not responsible if its army deciedes to wage a war. Likewise here.

anyways...you are yet to refute my point about authorities being infallible..as such, quoting convictions and not instances are irrelevant.

 

[Scallywag]

Breach of Codes 3 & 4, showing dissent at the Umpire's decision and attempting to intimidate the Umpire. Each found guilty, fined 75% of match fee and suspended suspension of one Test match effective immediately until 31st January 2002.

Virender Sehwag,
Harbhajan Singh,
Deep Dasgupta,
Shiv Sunder Das

Breach of Codes 3 & 4, showing excessive actions and reactioins to the 'not out' decision, and attempting to intimidate the Umpire by charging him. Found guilty and fined 75% of match fee, plus a ban of one Test match effective immediately

Virender Sehwag

Breach of Code 2, alleged interference with the match ball, thereby changing its condition. Found guilty of bringing the game into disrepute. Fined 75% of match fee and suspended suspension of one Test match

Sachin Tendulkar

Breach of Code 2 after gesturing and speaking to Sri Lankan batsman after he had dismissed him. Found guilty, issued with a severe reprimand and fined 75% of his match fee

Sourav Ganguly


Do you know what Ganguly said C_C

 

[Scallywag]

correct me if i am wrong but ICC rescended those sanctions against Sehwag,Harby,Das and Dasgupta.
if so, they dont count. And like i said, THAT MATCH was bcci vs icc....the team had its orders. thats a far cry from personal conduct on and off the pitch.
A soldier is not responsible if its army deciedes to wage a war. Likewise here.

anyways...you are yet to refute my point about authorities being infallible..as such, quoting convictions and not instances are irrelevant.

Are you saying that the BCCI sanctioned the intimidation of umpires and dissent.

 

[C_C]

are ya gonna quit stalling and answer my question about the authorities' infallability/fallability ?

if so, we can proceed.

 

[C_C]

Are you saying that the BCCI sanctioned the intimidation of umpires and dissent.

considering that many reporters and ex-players from the IND circles have said so ( players involved kept mum for obvious reasons), YES thats what i am saying.
Like i asked you before, do i have to spell everything out to you ?

And are ya gonna answer my question or not.

 

[Slow Love™]

Come on Scallywag, either produce the comparitive figures or stop yelling "FACTS" with no basis. You're still stalling and avoiding the question.

I'm going to bed. Hopefully tomorrow I'll come back and you'll have it laid out (although I do think you should have already had this info earlier - it's obvious you don't up to this stage). Then you might actually have a point for a change.

Otherwise, it just sounds like parochial barking, as usual.

 

[Scallywag]

anyways...you are yet to refute my point about authorities being infallible..as such, quoting convictions and not instances are irrelevant.

To be honest you will need to spell this one out to because I have no idea what you are trying to say.

If you want me to say that the ICC can make mistakes then yes they can.
If you want me to say that the ICC gives biased treatment to Australia then no you are a fooking sook.

 

[Scallywag]

Come on Scallywag, either produce the comparitive figures or stop yelling "FACTS" with no basis. You're still stalling and avoiding the question.

I'm going to bed. Hopefully tomorrow I'll come back and you'll have it laid out (although I do think you should have already had this info earlier - it's obvious you don't up to this stage). Then you might actually have a point for a change.

Otherwise, it just sounds like parochial barking, as usual.

You go off to bed and when you wake up it will all be there for you, goodnight.

 

[C_C]

If you want me to say that the ICC gives biased treatment to Australia then no you are a fooking sook.

i've backed that up with instances- Akhtar vs Willams incidents, McGrath vs Pathan incidents etc etc etc.
INSTANCES wise, the aussies were guilty of same/worse.
Judgement meted out- both aussies found not guilty and both non-aussies found guilty.

CLEAR bias in their calling.

As such,talk about instances....not judgement meted out...as the authorities here are NOT consistent.

Bedtime for me too. Its useless to debate with a fanatic like you.

 

[vic_orthdox]

tooextracool vs richard, anyone??

 

[Scallywag]

i've backed that up with instances- Akhtar vs Willams incidents, McGrath vs Pathan incidents etc etc etc.
INSTANCES wise, the aussies were guilty of same/worse.
Judgement meted out- both aussies found not guilty and both non-aussies found guilty.

CLEAR bias in their calling.

As such,talk about instances....not judgement meted out...as the authorities here are NOT consistent.

Bedtime for me too. Its useless to debate with a fanatic like you.

Yes C_C all biased towards the Aussies.

Pathan continued after being warned by the umpire, so it was a bit more of Pathan being done for being a prat and rightly so. At least McGrath has the sense to shut up when told.

Akhtar Williams is nowhere near the same. Williams was running towards and looking at the gully fielder. Akhtar stood in the middle of the pitch looking at Hayden and made three double handed gestures to the pavillion.

I know you will never accept anything other than it is biased towards the Australians but it does bring out all the little things that you have scraped up and collected to make a molehill and from there you made a mountain. WELL DONE C_C !!!