What do Australians hate about Ganguly

[Bracken]

I dont get it. So now what are you saying that Azhar, Malik, Cronje etc didn't fix matches ?

I am saying that the quoted evidence in that report was almost entirely circumstantial in regards to Azharuddin. I haven't made a comment on the guilt or otherwise of Malik nor Cronje.

Did Azharuddin fix a match? No idea. There certainly isn't any smoking gun within the CBI report, though, and for that reason I wouldn't lower myself to making an accusation that isn't supported by the evidence.

Natural justice insists that a person is innocent until the preponderance of evidence indicates otherwise. I also hold this standard regardless of the nationality of the accused. Not for nothing, but if I did anything else, I would be no better than, well, you.

You want me to believe that Waugh and Warne went to the board on their own and said that they took money from the bookies to fix games or provide information?

I am done here, I just cant argue with someone so misguided on this issue. You can believe whatever you want to.

Sigh.

Read it. I said that Waugh and Warne went to the ACB and admitted their contact with the bookie, and admitted that they provided pitch and weather information in return for excessive amounts of cash. The ACB then issued what they considered to be an appropriate punishment, and tried to hide the existence of the issue.

I'm more than comfortable that I expressed both of these views more than adequately.

I'm glad you're done with this. If nothing else, you have shown that aside from making wild, unfounded accusations and deliberately exaggerating and misquoting the relevant reports- not to mention your amateurish little attempts to twist my responses to your ridiculous claims- you haven't got the slightest bit of supporting evidence. I'm quite sure that you are aware of this, and if not, it would only indicate that you are even more simple than I gave you credit for.

You're right- you ARE done with this. You're done with this because you haven't got even the slightest evidence that can back up your ridiculous little unfounded crusade. As such, you can either accept that simple fact, or you can keep trying to scream at the rain and only reinforce just how insane your non-existent standard of "proof" is.

And I will believe what the available evidence supports, and I won't debase myself by assigning the same weight to any unfounded suspicions that I may hold.

 

[Bracken]

You clearly are misinformed. They didn't go to the board on their own, Mark waugh in his own words :-

"In early 1995, the Australian Cricket Board asked me if I had ever provided information to a bookmaker and I replied I had done so the previous year."

No marks for guessing why ACB asked Waugh and not others. It is really shameful to see how some folks continue to defend Mark Waugh and believe that he was not part of match fixing. Match fixing isn't limited to throwing matches and under performing.

I'll have a guess at this one- maybe because he went to the team management (the ACB's representative on tour) and told them about it?

And yes, match fixing IS limited to throwing matches BY underperforming (or inducing others to do the same). They "fix" the "match". Hence the term, "match fixing".

 

[Jono]

What an appalling comment. In the time honoured tradition of playing the post and not the poster, I will not call you a dribbling fool whose idea of disagreeing with questions posed by someone on TV is to call them scum. Nor will I describe you as someone who has no perspective or someone patently lacking in basic human courtesy, or for that matter intelligence. I will do this despite the great temptation to do so and the overhwelming evidence which supports such thoughts. Disagree all you like mate, but to call someone scum based on the issues you raise in your post is completely OTT. I would expect it from someone with the mind of a 4 year old, not from someone like your good self who, imo generally has pretty damn good thoughts and ideas on the game. Dire.

Mark Waugh says stupid **** all the time, and is quite obviously an Australian elitist, who if he had it his way, would kick out all the other international teams and just have Australia play against each other.

I gave one example of Mark Waugh's idiocy because it happened on the day I posted. I think its obvious to anyone who has followed Mark Waugh's career that he's a dickhead. You're obviously a fan and am biased, and good for you if you like Mark Waugh, but he's a dick.

And I think its pretty clear to everyone (and yourself) that by pretending to not call me a "dribbling fool" and as "someone who has no perspective or someone patently lacking in basic human courtesy, or for that matter intelligence"... you actually did!

I'm not going to retort, but wow, if you're going to insult me, don't try and go about it in a subtle or 'polite' manner. Instead of taking the backdoor, be forthright about it. If that's what you feel, fine, that's your opinion and I'm not going to get into some tongue lashing war like others would. But I'd rather you not sneakily denigrate me next time.

 

[Days of Grace]

Geez, I just went to the last page of this thread expecting a discussion on Ganguly and w.t.f?? His name is even mentioned once!

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

I gave one example of Mark Waugh's idiocy because it happened on the day I posted. I think its obvious to anyone who has followed Mark Waugh's career that he's a dickhead. You're obviously a fan and am biased, and good for you if you like Mark Waugh, but he's a dick.

But it was hardly an idiotic comment!

It was a simple question to the former coach of Australia considering the team that is probably second best in the world just came out and got trounced 2-0. Its perfectly acceptable, in that case, to as if any team has really improved.

You can't use that comment as proof that he is 'elitist.'

 

[Burgey]

Mark Waugh says stupid **** all the time, and is quite obviously an Australian elitist, who if he had it his way, would kick out all the other international teams and just have Australia play against each other.

I gave one example of Mark Waugh's idiocy because it happened on the day I posted. I think its obvious to anyone who has followed Mark Waugh's career that he's a dickhead. You're obviously a fan and am biased, and good for you if you like Mark Waugh, but he's a dick.

And I think its pretty clear to everyone (and yourself) that by pretending to not call me a "dribbling fool" and as "someone who has no perspective or someone patently lacking in basic human courtesy, or for that matter intelligence"... you actually did!

I'm not going to retort, but wow, if you're going to insult me, don't try and go about it in a subtle or 'polite' manner. Instead of taking the backdoor, be forthright about it. If that's what you feel, fine, that's your opinion and I'm not going to get into some tongue lashing war like others would. But I'd rather you not sneakily denigrate me next time.

Wow. Well done - you got it in one. That's exactly what I was doing. It was no more than your post deserved. You are truly a perceptive person.

You didn't just call him stupid mate, you called him "scum". There's a bit of a difference there.

I don't think he's elitist necessarily about Australia vis a vis the rest of the countries, but I agree that there's an air of arrogance about him which wears thin. But hey, if he's offended a team you support by suggesting they're not up to playing agaisnt Australia, then so be it. Doesn't make him scum though. Or does it?

Now anyone who's followed him through his career knows he's a dickhead. Why's that? Is it because he's arrogant or something else? If it's because he's arrogant, then you're entitled to your view and ok, but if it's something else, then share it with us please.

I was/ am a fan of Mark Waugh's cricket - he was an effortlessly brilliant player and a joy to watch. I'm not a real fan of his commentary as I don't think his analysis of the game is particularly enlightening. But I don't think he's scum.

 

[Burgey]

Azhar is not being discussed here and I have never defended him accept saying that he was/is/will always be one of my fav. player. Besides he is banned for life,so I dont know what else you expect to be done to him, may be a death penalty for fixing games ?



I will try one last time - Waugh was fined by his own board, he was named in pretty much every investigation. And no ACB has no credibility on the issue after all they were the ones that covered it up. And no one would have been able to replace Waugh and Warne. I hope you are not suggesting otherwise.

Rest of your post is again same old bull**** being repeate again and again and I am not going to oblige you with repeated replies. I have had it enough, believe what you want to.

I don't believe in the death penalty mate. I raised Azhar only int he context which you did.

You've said there was no evidence Azhar or Jadeja threw a match. Then you've said that Waugh was involved in match fixing throughout the 90s. Waugh has admitted he was involved with a bookie in giving info, but he's never said he fixed a match, and there's never to my knowledge been a suggestion that he did.

So, one more time. Apart from your own postings here, where's the proof, or even the suggestion in any one of these reports that Waugh was involved in fixing a match?

Man, it's a simple proposition, and I can feel that question coming on which I love to ask witnesses when you know you've got them on the rack:

"Sir, are you just making this up as you go along?"

 

[Jono]

But it was hardly an idiotic comment!

It was a simple question to the former coach of Australia considering the team that is probably second best in the world just came out and got trounced 2-0. Its perfectly acceptable, in that case, to as if any team has really improved.

You can't use that comment as proof that he is 'elitist.'

What about the rest of the show, when he goes on and on about how India's flat tracks ensure their batsman struggle when they come to Australia. Yeah because Australia's tracks are minefields?

Didn't this same team win 1-0 against England, and win a test in South Africa?

Australia have gotten better from 2000 - 2007, until the recent retirements. That doesn't mean India haven't improved, nor England, nor Sri Lanka. The guy clearly doesn't follow international cricket properly.

And I find it hard to give evidence that SL are second best in the world. Can't remember the last time they beat India in a test series, and if they went to SA I imagine they'd be trounced. They also only drew 1-1 with Pakistan I think.

Wow. Well done - you got it in one. That's exactly what I was doing. It was no more than your post deserved. You are truly a perceptive person.

You didn't just call him stupid mate, you called him "scum". There's a bit of a difference there.

I don't think he's elitist necessarily about Australia vis a vis the rest of the countries, but I agree that there's an air of arrogance about him which wears thin. But hey, if he's offended a team you support by suggesting they're not up to playing agaisnt Australia, then so be it. Doesn't make him scum though. Or does it?

Now anyone who's followed him through his career knows he's a dickhead. Why's that? Is it because he's arrogant or something else? If it's because he's arrogant, then you're entitled to your view and ok, but if it's something else, then share it with us please.

I was/ am a fan of Mark Waugh's cricket - he was an effortlessly brilliant player and a joy to watch. I'm not a real fan of his commentary as I don't think his analysis of the game is particularly enlightening. But I don't think he's scum.

Firstly, please stop the sarcasm. Cheers.

Secondly, if that's the way you're going to act, by taking pot shots, then fine. I'm not going to be precious about it, I'll just say I guess I thought you were a different sort of poster. Definite "eyes wide open" stuff now though. At least you admitted that you took the 'soft' route to doing so.

Now regarding your points. Mark Waugh takes every opportunity to attack sub-continental cricket whenever possible, especially their batsman. I don't know if he thinks he actually averaged 50 at test level rather than 41, but this superiority attitude he has makes me dislike him. Then you've got whatever you want to call his bookie saga, and his general idiocy.

Then you've got Mark Waugh on Inside Cricket openly criticising Lara when he toured Australia, saying he's not applying himself and is over-balanced at the crease. Conveniently forgetting about all the incorrect decisions Lara got here... that and the fact that Mark Waugh isn't fit to lace Lara's boots. Lara at 37 was a better test batsman than Mark Waugh ever was. Not to mention Mark Waugh is one of the most overrated test batsman of recent times in general anyway.

And he's scum because of his continuous open complaints about touring India btw. Either don't tour, or shut up about it.

 

[Burgey]

Jeez,

I've just re-read my posts to on here over the past few pages. I apologise for the personal stuff - I was out of line and admit it. We can agree to disagree. I just thought the "scum" comment was a bit rich (bad choice of words in match fixing context) but I didn't do myself any favours in going off like that. Apologies for offence caused.

I'd be grateful if you would accept my apologies and also accept that it was out of character on my part. Grumpy old man syndrome and bah humbug at Christmas stuff. Poor form and I admit it.

BTW: Lara >>>>>>>> M Waugh. On that we can certainly agree!

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

What about the rest of the show, when he goes on and on about how India's flat tracks ensure their batsman struggle when they come to Australia. Yeah because Australia's tracks are minefields?

Australia's pitches aren't minefields, no. But they do bounce more than the Indian tracks and as (I think) Buchanan said - it is easier to go from high to low in your game than low to high.

Australia have gotten better from 2000 - 2007, until the recent retirements. That doesn't mean India haven't improved, nor England, nor Sri Lanka. The guy clearly doesn't follow international cricket properly.

He was purely asking for Buchanan's opinion if he believed anyone had improved. If the gap between Australia and the rest has grown - then you'd be fair to say other teams haven't improved all that much IMO.

And I find it hard to give evidence that SL are second best in the world. Can't remember the last time they beat India in a test series, and if they went to SA I imagine they'd be trounced. They also only drew 1-1 with Pakistan I think.

I think their side is the best balanced - probably one of the better bowling attacks in world cricket and some of the best batsman. I'm only going by the ICC Test rankings which is all I can go from - and they are third at the moment behind England who have gone downhill since 2005.

If you are going to call the guy a dickhead and elitist - at least use a better example.

 

[Jono]

Jeez,

I've just re-read my posts to on here over the past few pages. I apologise for the personal stuff - I was out of line and admit it. We can agree to disagree. I just thought the "scum" comment was a bit rich (bad choice of words in match fixing context) but I didn't do myself any favours in going off like that. Apologies for offence caused.

I'd be grateful if you would accept my apologies and also accept that it was out of character on my part. Grumpy old man syndrome and bah humbug at Christmas stuff. Poor form and I admit it.

BTW: Lara >>>>>>>> M Waugh. On that we can certainly agree!

No problem mate, I'm definitely not one to hold grudges. I do agree that 'scum' was too strong a word, and though I didn't touch on the bookie/match fixing comment, it was probably bad timing.

I do dislike Mark Waugh a lot though, and whilst watching Inside Cricket I was yelling "STFU" at the TV. My mum was quite confused saying "If he annoys you so much, why are you watching?" I didn't really know how to respond.

Australia's pitches aren't minefields, no. But they do bounce more than the Indian tracks and as (I think) Buchanan said - it is easier to go from high to low in your game than low to high.



He was purely asking for Buchanan's opinion if he believed anyone had improved. If the gap between Australia and the rest has grown - then you'd be fair to say other teams haven't improved all that much IMO.



I think their side is the best balanced - probably one of the better bowling attacks in world cricket and some of the best batsman. I'm only going by the ICC Test rankings which is all I can go from - and they are third at the moment behind England who have gone downhill since 2005.

If you are going to call the guy a dickhead and elitist - at least use a better example.

Fair enough about SL, I disagree but its not really much of a talking point. India, SL and SA are all fairly close IMO.

IMO, he's a dickhead based on how he upholds himself in general. He thinks his **** doesn't stink (ironically brought up in a Ganguly thread), and his career just doesn't back up this air of superiority he purports.

And IMO its quite clear he's an elitist if you just watch the way he makes his comments on Inside Cricket whenever they discuss the international scene. Its very disrespectful, and add that to his comments in the past regarding touring India (which I felt were inappropriate), its not difficult to see why I think he's an elitist.

Completely contrasted to how Steve Waugh behaved when touring India. A player I respect immensely, as a cricketer and person.

On another issue, do you yourself think that India aren't a better test team in 2007 then they were circa 2000? What about Sri Lanka, who wouldn't have dreamed of drawing with England 1-1? And England are clearly a far better team nowadays.

 

[Burgey]

Thanks Jono. Appreciate it.

 

[Sanz]

And yes, match fixing IS limited to throwing matches BY underperforming (or inducing others to do the same). They "fix" the "match". Hence the term, "match fixing".

According to that definition no one ever fixed matches and there is no evidence to suggest that match fixing ever happened.

Anyways, that's the basic difference between yours and my definition of match fixing and I will leave it at that.

 

[Richard]

On another issue, do you yourself think that India aren't a better test team in 2007 then they were circa 2000? What about Sri Lanka, who wouldn't have dreamed of drawing with England 1-1? And England are clearly a far better team nowadays.

England better in 2007 than 2000? No chance.

 

[honestbharani]

As another Australis Vs India series approaches and another thread has shown us down here in Aus Ganguly is not very popular.

I thought it would be interesting to see why people thought Australians did not like him or from my fellow Australians why they don’t like him.

I know he rubbed a few people up the wrong way last tour but he is not paid to make the opposition happy but to make his own team competitive. For this he lead a competitive side out here and became unpopular and I for one am not entirely sure why he is so hated in Aus.

which thread are we talking about here?

 

[Burgey]

TBH I don't think he's anywhere near as disliked here now as he was maybe 5 or 6 years ago.
We're a bit of a weird lot out here (as a lot of people can probably attest to). I'm only guessing but there may have been a thought that he could give some stuff out but couldn't back it up when the acid was put on him against Australia, especially out here. I think (though of course can't speak for others) that his ton at the Gabba last time around went a long way to dispelling that notion, and he's now regarded with a fairly large measure of respect here.

 

[Perm]

I hate everything about him - worse than Stalin IMO.

No real reason - just the whole package. Annoying bloke to look at, the constant blinking and the fact he comes off as an absolute prick.

I don't have to have any good reasons to dislike the guy outside of him having a face you'd like to hit.

 

[Perm]

People just don't like him because of the way he seems very arrogant. If you're extremely arrogant you'll be generally disliked in Australia.

Which is quite ironic really. I know most of the Australian players aren't actually arrogant, but it is something that is constantly chucked at them, which makes them quite easy to dislike.

 

[iamdavid]

England better in 2007 than 2000? No chance.

Better in 2004/05 than at any time over the previous 12-17 years ?

 

[iamdavid]

TBH I don't think he's anywhere near as disliked here now as he was maybe 5 or 6 years ago.
We're a bit of a weird lot out here (as a lot of people can probably attest to). I'm only guessing but there may have been a thought that he could give some stuff out but couldn't back it up when the acid was put on him against Australia, especially out here. I think (though of course can't speak for others) that his ton at the Gabba last time around went a long way to dispelling that notion, and he's now regarded with a fairly large measure of respect here.

Agree, have always had alot of respect for Ganguly as a leader and a competitor even if something about him I cant quite put my finger on ticks me off.

Think the negative image of him was largely to do with his arrogance in the early 2000's, things like leaving Steve Waugh (at the time the most widely respected cricketer on the planet) waiting for 10 minutes at the toss before a one day game in 2001, and then not waiting for Waugh's interview to conclude so the captains could walk off together as is tradition. Showing up at the toss in his tracksuit, and just generally coming across as very arrogant in his dealings with the press. However looking back it may very well have been a pre-meditated tactic to get under the aussies skin rather than just his nature, in which case good on him because it worked.