Sunil blasts the Australians

[social]

Isn't that just a different way of saying that they are savages??
What construes racism is really being stretched nowadays to put down statements not really made in a racial context, while real racism hides behind what seems like a really innocuous statement.

Is that really as racist as you can get?? the very fact that some people don't think its racist means that its borderline if at all racist.

TBH, I dont think that he was being racist, he was merely suggesting that their behaviour was poor.

Unfortunately, C_C tends to make a mountain out of a molehill when seeking to put the boot into Australians and so that point was largely for his benefit and also the others who were so quick to harpoon Gibbs for comments that were no worse.

In any event, at best it shows him to be incredibly naive as far as political correctness goes (as in the case of his introduction of Hookes into the slanging match)

 

[Matt79]

I think what's come out of this is that the Australian team has often behaved poorly - which everyone knew already, that Ponting isn't a brilliant public debater - which again, everyone pretty much knew, and that Gavaskar has no class whatsoever as a person - which is a disappointing surprise for many who, like me, admired his achievements as a cricketer.

 

[social]

I think what's come out of this is that the Australian team has often behaved poorly - which everyone knew already, that Ponting isn't a brilliant public debater - which again, everyone pretty much knew, and that Gavaskar has no class whatsoever as a person - which is a disappointing surprise for many who, like me, admired his achievements as a cricketer.

Unfortunately, some people spend too much time in the public eye and their reputation suffers as a result

The guy was a brilliant batsman but with flaws as a human being

 

[C_C]

Sunny stands accused of:

a. being primarily responsible for throwing a WC match

b. staging a near-forfeit for his own motives;

c. making what you would undoubtedly perceive to be racist remarks about Jamaican crowds; and

d.making tasteless remarks about somebody that was tragically killed for his own benefit.

I wonder if you'd be so forgiving if he happened to be Australian?

a) Is utter falsehood and libel. By that definition, every single Aussie is a cheat.
b) Very justified. As i said, if i were in his place, Lillee would be sporting a broken foot for attempting to kick me.
c) Nothing racist about that remark
d) Nothing wrong with that remark either.

 

[C_C]

It doesn't surprise me that tennis was the sport you were best at. That's the view of someone with a greater tie to individual sporting pursuits than team.

It doesnt change the fact that sports is ultimately entertainment and thus not the end-all-be-all to reduce it to such uncouth levels in the name of 'anything to win' mentality. Ie, its not worth it to go all out nastyness on a sporting pitch. Defies the very definition of a sport in my opinion.

 

[social]

a) Is utter falsehood and libel. By that definition, every single Aussie is a cheat.
b) Very justified. As i said, if i were in his place, Lillee would be sporting a broken foot for attempting to kick me.
c) Nothing racist about that remark
d) Nothing wrong with that remark either.

Case won - thank you linesmen, thank you ball boys

 

[telsor]

It doesnt change the fact that sports is ultimately entertainment and thus not the end-all-be-all to reduce it to such uncouth levels in the name of 'anything to win' mentality. Ie, its not worth it to go all out nastyness on a sporting pitch. Defies the very definition of a sport in my opinion.

Which doesn't change the fact that every time an Australian does or says anything, you'll consider it the worst possible light. ( and if they said/did nothing, you'd complain that they were surly ).

 

[Matt79]

a) Is utter falsehood and libel. By that definition, every single Aussie is a cheat.
b) Very justified. As i said, if i were in his place, Lillee would be sporting a broken foot for attempting to kick me.
c) Nothing racist about that remark
d) Nothing wrong with that remark either.

Can't believe that is what you actually think - as opposed to you not wanting to concede any points in the debate...

 

[adharcric]

It's a good thing that you live in the United States of America and you dont have the remotest chance of playing International cricket. Next thing you should do is Stop following cricket and concentrate on watching ICE HOCKEY.

 

[C_C]

Can't believe that is what you actually think - as opposed to you not wanting to concede any points in the debate...

Don't see why its so unbelievable, given Social's obvious anti-subcontinental bias.

First he accuses Gavaskar of 'throwing' the match- when there is absolutely zero credibility in claiming so. Claiming that Gavaskar 'threw' the match while at the same time backing much more blatant matchfixing activities of Warne smacks of nothing more than jingoism and bias.

I stand by the second point- i am sorry but i tend to deal very firmly with abuse. Lillee would quite literally have had a broken foot if he dared to kick me in the middle of a match.

For the third point - don't see how its racism-it was a blunt but fair commentary on the crowd behaviour. You are interperting the 'jungle' remark in typical euro-centric fashion where the innuendo is racial inferiority.

And for the last point- its insensetive to say so but the fact remains Aussie players tend to be mouthy and i can easily see Hooke mouthing off the wrong fellow and end up dead. Its not a justification of Hookes' murder in any way but merely a reminder of the axiom " those who live by the sword often die by it'.

 

[Matt79]

Don't see why its so unbelievable, given Social's obvious anti-subcontinental bias.

First he accuses Gavaskar of 'throwing' the match- when there is absolutely zero credibility in claiming so. Claiming that Gavaskar 'threw' the match while at the same time backing much more blatant matchfixing activities of Warne smacks of nothing more than jingoism and bias.

I stand by the second point- i am sorry but i tend to deal very firmly with abuse. Lillee would quite literally have had a broken foot if he dared to kick me in the middle of a match.

For the third point - don't see how its racism-it was a blunt but fair commentary on the crowd behaviour. You are interperting the 'jungle' remark in typical euro-centric fashion where the innuendo is racial inferiority.

And for the last point- its insensetive to say so but the fact remains Aussie players tend to be mouthy and i can easily see Hooke mouthing off the wrong fellow and end up dead. Its not a justification of Hookes' murder in any way but merely a reminder of the axiom " those who live by the sword often die by it'.

That's not living by the sword and then dying by it. That's (allegedly) living by the mouth and then dying from a fractured skull received as a result of being punched. Be careful not to equate verbal aggression with physical violence.

I obviously don't know personally, but would be staggered if anyone of Caribbean or Afro-American heritage would take the jungle reference as a purely descriptive term devoid of any negative racial connatation, regardless of whether it was a white person, or an Indian who made the comment. I'd be grateful for any explanation of what Gavaskar meant by the comment, if not to insultingly liken the presumably predominantly black crowd to animals?

On the WC match throwing allegation, I'm not asserting that Gavaskar is guilty of the allegation made, but I can believe you're serious with your retort. How does the "much more blatant matchfixing activities of Warne" (presumably the pitch-reports incident - so unless you're privy to information the rest of us haven't seen your extrapolating from what is known, not basing your comment on known fact) equate to "By that definition, every single Aussie is a cheat"? I honestly can't see how the one (speculative) assertion can support the second.

 

[Sanz]

Firstly, the hypocrisy can be found in your support of Gavaskar

"IMO he was one of the most well behaved cricketers on a cricket field except ......."

For it not to be hypocritical, there would be no exceptions, no ifs, buts or maybes

In his 20 years of cricket, Gavaskar had one bad moment that too after provocation and it's not enough for me compare him with the likes of Ponting etc.

Secondly, you support Gavaskar claims re Hookes by stating that they are true.

Utter nonsense.

Hookes got into a bar fight because he went to the aid of a woman from his group who was being man-handled by a bouncer as a result of his group's refusal to leave a pub at closing time.

It's speaks more about his quality as a husband etc that he was out with a girlfriend whilst drunk that it does about his on-field behaviour of many years ago.

As to how it could be used in support of a claim as to the rights and wrongs of a cricket team's behaviour on the field is a total mystery to all bar you and Mr Gavaskar it would seem

It is a fact that Hookes got into the fight and thanks for the unbiased take on the incident. Resembles Darren Lehman's version though. Here is some thing that might enlighten you.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/19/1074360698597.html

 

[Sanz]

Regardless, its still about winning. If you're the opposition's best bowler, and I can take you out of the game with a few choice words regarding your daughter, it would be ludicrous to not try and do that.

So you basically have no problem with Mcgrath/Sarwan or Dravid/Slater Incident, right ?

 

[silentstriker]

So you basically have no problem with Mcgrath/Sarwan or Dravid/Slater Incident, right ?

None. If I was Sarwan, and I could get the oppositions best bowler ejected cause he attacked me...I'd consider that a good day's work. Your chances of winning just shot through the roof.

 

[social]

Don't see why its so unbelievable, given Social's obvious anti-subcontinental bias.

First he accuses Gavaskar of 'throwing' the match- when there is absolutely zero credibility in claiming so. Claiming that Gavaskar 'threw' the match while at the same time backing much more blatant matchfixing activities of Warne smacks of nothing more than jingoism and bias.

I stand by the second point- i am sorry but i tend to deal very firmly with abuse. Lillee would quite literally have had a broken foot if he dared to kick me in the middle of a match.

For the third point - don't see how its racism-it was a blunt but fair commentary on the crowd behaviour. You are interperting the 'jungle' remark in typical euro-centric fashion where the innuendo is racial inferiority.

And for the last point- its insensetive to say so but the fact remains Aussie players tend to be mouthy and i can easily see Hooke mouthing off the wrong fellow and end up dead. Its not a justification of Hookes' murder in any way but merely a reminder of the axiom " those who live by the sword often die by it'.

I actually thought your post was a joke - my bad

1. Gavaskar took 174 balls to score 36 no chasing 334 - in the process, he was criticised world-wide, most of all in his own country

2. Lillee was involved in a kicking match with a Pakistani not an Indian (*the Pakistani threatened him with a bat BTW) - Gavaskar behaved like a child and was treated as such

3. Give up - you criticise Gibbs but support Sunny (pure nonsense again)

4. Idiot and shame on you

 

[R_D]

So you basically have no problem with Mcgrath/Sarwan or Dravid/Slater Incident, right ?

SS is being his usual self really. WOuldn't be suprised if he said he has no problem.
I personally don't beleive in the whole win at all cost mentality either.
What Gavasker said about Hookes was pretty low but everything else is quite right.

Someone was asking what has Mcgrath done besides than Sarwan incident. Watch the matches pre 2001 or 2002 and you'll notice how much of a **** Mcgrath was. I used to hate his guts but in last few years he's become a real champ not upto his old antics.

 

[social]

In his 20 years of cricket, Gavaskar had one bad moment that too after provocation and it's not enough for me compare him with the likes of Ponting etc.




It is a fact that Hookes got into the fight and thanks for the unbiased take on the incident. Resembles Darren Lehman's version though. Here is some thing that might enlighten you.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/19/1074360698597.html

And .....

he was king-hit by a martial arts expert with a history of physical abuse as a bouncer a couple of hundred metres away from the pub

How the hell does this support Sunny "I'm doing everything I can to ruin whatever reputation I have left" Gavaskar?

 

[Sanz]

Any reason why you avoided Slater/Dravid incident ?

 

[social]

Don't see why its so unbelievable, given Social's obvious anti-subcontinental bias.

First he accuses Gavaskar of 'throwing' the match- when there is absolutely zero credibility in claiming so. Claiming that Gavaskar 'threw' the match while at the same time backing much more blatant matchfixing activities of Warne smacks of nothing more than jingoism and bias.

I stand by the second point- i am sorry but i tend to deal very firmly with abuse. Lillee would quite literally have had a broken foot if he dared to kick me in the middle of a match.

For the third point - don't see how its racism-it was a blunt but fair commentary on the crowd behaviour. You are interperting the 'jungle' remark in typical euro-centric fashion where the innuendo is racial inferiority.

And for the last point- its insensetive to say so but the fact remains Aussie players tend to be mouthy and i can easily see Hooke mouthing off the wrong fellow and end up dead. Its not a justification of Hookes' murder in any way but merely a reminder of the axiom " those who live by the sword often die by it'.

I actually thought your post was a joke - my bad

1. Gavaskar took 174 balls to score 36 no chasing 334 - in the process, he was criticised world-wide, most of all in his own country

2. Lillee was involved in a kicking match with a Pakistani not an Indian (Miandad threatened him with a bat BTW and both were equally culpable) - Gavaskar behaved like a child and was treated as such

3. Give up - you criticise Gibbs but support Sunny

4. Shame on you for suggesting that this was anything but a tragedy. Hookes might not nave been the greatest person and he might not have behaved appropriately on the night (although no evidence suggests that he did anything particularly wrong) but bringinging it into this debate reflects poorly on only one person

 

[silentstriker]

Any reason why you avoided Slater/Dravid incident ?

I feel exactly the same way. If Slater could get under Dravid's skin, it would be ludicrous to not try. Your chance of beating India rises exponentially without Dravid.