• The Ashes
• International
• Big Bash League
• Big Bash League Fixtures
• IPL
• Domestic
• Cricket RSS
• Cricket photos

The Crowd Says (22) | Page 1 of Comments

• Brett McKay said | February 26th 2010 @ 7:49am | Report comment

  it really has been quite the month, Kersi…

  Reply

• Kersi Meher-Homji said | February 26th 2010 @ 8:16am | Report comment

  Tendulkar cannot sit back and relax. He has another record to break. Belinda Clark scored an unbeaten 229 for Australian women against Denmark women in Mumbai in 1997.

  Men’s World Cup is only a year ahead, so here is some motivation for him, if he ever needs one!

  Reply

• preciouspress said | February 26th 2010 @ 10:02am | Report comment

  What skill, what grace, what humility. Forget the numbers, Tendulkar is peerless. I doubt we will ever see a challenger to his crown.

  Reply

  • lemo said | February 26th 2010 @ 10:23am | Report comment

    And forget about the attacking shots (of which there are plenty), from a cricket purists point of view and with all this talk of Warner and the T20 “stars” – what about his front and back foot defense – a pleasure to watch – from a bowlers perspective there just appears to be no way through.

    Brilliant – none better

    Reply

• Al said | February 26th 2010 @ 6:22pm | Report comment

  When Tendulkar retires (shudder at the very thought) the cricketing world will realise that there were two periods in cricket- BT and AT…
  BEFORE TENDULKAR & AFTER TENDULKAR !!!

  Reply
• 

  vinay verma said | February 27th 2010 @ 7:52am | Report comment

  Kersi,Tendulkar as a 12 year old would play upto three matches a day and then practice for another four hours. Now he is the hardest trainer and spends time in the Gym also. Kapil Dev,when he was manager,had to coax him to train less incase he injured himself. He is an accomplished catcher and is terrier like on the boundary. Even now he prides himself on the returns to the keeper. He always apologises when his throw is around the keepers’ ankles.In the words of Gary Player: “The harder I train the luckier I get.”

  Reply
• 

  Greg Russell said | June 29th 2010 @ 12:22am | Report comment

  It has been evident to me for some time now that the aims for which Tendulkar continues to play are (1) to become the first player to score 50 test centuries (currently on 47), and (2) to become the first player to score 100 centuries in international cricket (currently on 93), ideally by having tallies of 50 in each form.

  It surprises me that there hasn’t been any comment on this (that I have seen) in the media. The celebrations in statistics-minded India will be enormous when/if these marks are reached.

  Reply

• Kersi Meher-Homji said | June 29th 2010 @ 7:44am | Report comment

  Greg,
  For once I disagree with you. You suggest that Tendulkar is a selfish cricketer. It is wrong.
  All the runs he has scored has helped India win matches or at times not lose matches.
  Of course landmarks are as much important to him as to any other sportsman. That keeps them going. Those who say stats do not matter to them are not completely honest to themselves.
  Tendulkar has brought a rare dignity to cricket.

  Reply
  • 

    Greg Russell said | June 29th 2010 @ 6:51pm | Report comment

    Kersi, I agree with all that you write. I did not mean to imply that Tendulkar is selfish (better said, he’s no more selfish than is normal at this level – it is impossible to succeed at the highest level without being selfish and single-minded). The angle I was coming from was the one you have expressed well, viz. “Of course landmarks are as much important to him as to any other sportsman. That keeps them going.” I will be delighted for Tendulkar and for cricket when he reaches the marks I have drawn attention to.

    One thing though: “Tendulkar has brought a rare dignity to cricket.” All true except for Bollyline, where he lied to protect his friend Harbhajan Singh, and in the process set Andrew Symonds off on the self-destructive path that would quickly end his international cricketing career, right at the moment when it was at a major peak.

    Reply

• Kersi Meher-Homji said | June 29th 2010 @ 7:23pm | Report comment

  Greg,
  And how do we know who was lying? Just because Gilly says in his ghosted ‘autobiography’ that Tendulkar was lying, does it make it a gospel truth? Later Gilly retracted. We will never know who was telling the truth as neither you or I was on the field. Also there was no video evidence.
  I’ll say to my dying day that the word monkey (IF it was said by Harbhajan) is NOT a swear word in India. Certainly NOT a racist word. Harbhajan is as brown as Symonds, so how does it make it a racist comment? Monkey is a worshipped animal in India. And an endearing word. My sister called me “Vanglo” (monkey) endearingly because I made monkey faces.
  I admire Symonds highly. But he must have had drinking problem before the January 2008 Test. Also Michael Clarke and Ponting made a mountain of a mole hill of Symonds’ fishing and drinking problem making it infinitely worse for poor Symonds. Rod Marsh and David Boon among others were proud of their beer drinking record from Australia to England on a plane.
  But suddenly we have become holier than thou, especially the Aussie captains. And Symonds suffered because of this changed attitude.
  Being both Indian and Australian, and proud to be Indian and Australian, it hurts me that no one asked my opinion, especially to the real meaning of monkey in India. What happened in India with the monkey chants was bad and unforgivable. Also Harbhajan and Sreesanth are not persons I think well of. They are trouble makers. But Indians have been subjected to sledging by the Aussies very long and they tend to give back. If you sledge others, you should take it.
  In summary, Sachin and Gilly are two cricketers who have brought dignity to cricket. And 10 minutes of misunderstanding (and a life time of ignorance of Indian culture) should not dent their image.

  Reply
  • 

    Greg Russell said | June 30th 2010 @ 7:42pm | Report comment

    Kersi, one bit of background you seem not to be aware of is that Symonds had a meeting with Indian management and Harbhajan during the ODI tour that preceded that fateful summer. Symonds was the star of that series, and was regularly taunted by Indian crowds. He was also taunted by Harbhajan. At the meeting he said that he regarded being called a “monkey” as racism, but he was prepared to let bygones be bygones if Harbhajan promised not to do this again. Harbhajan promised. So he was have Harbhajan saying that he accepts that it is racism to call Symonds a monkey and that he will not do it again. This undermines a large part of your argument.

    Now to the SCG incident. You are right that we can’t know what was said. Instead we are just in the position that any judge (or, for that matter, scientist, which we both are) is in, which is that we must look at the evidence as a whole, and decide what looks like it adds up, and what looks like it doesn’t. At the instant of the (supposed) indiscretion by Harbhajan, a whole bunch of Australians reacted immediately. So either they heard something, or else they had a pre-ordained plan to react when someone gave a signal in order to make Harbhajan look bad. I think it’s pretty easy to say what is most likely here. And then there was the initial verdict by Mike Proctor – why would he come to that decision if he didn’t think the evidence was compelling? After that he was subjected to huge pressure from the BCCI, and stories started to change, including Tendulkar’s – what he said to Judge Hansen was different to what he said during the match. Then there’s Judge Hansen himself, who was furious soon after the hearing, and said on record that he believes he was deliberately deceived about Harbhajan’s past disciplinary record. Obviously I have an emotional bias here, but I try to put this aside and use only my head to look at all the facts – all the above, plus a lot more in favour of the Australian version of events. I think it adds up to a clear picture. Harbhajan’s subsequent disciplinary problems are also consistent with this picture. It was only a matter of weeks later that the BCCI gave him a long suspension for slapping the face of Sreesanth during an IPL match.

    As for Symonds, I don’t for a moment think it’s all Harbhajan’s fault. You are correct that Harbhajan was just the catalyst for problems that probably would have come to the surface anyway. I also think Cricket Australia is hugely at fault for the demise of Symonds. It was more important to them to preserve a decent relationship with the BCCI than to get a just verdict from the incidents at the SCG.

    Symonds also failed to accept responsibility for himself. Rather than accepting a setback, even if it was unjust, he started drinking more and was ill-disciplined in the Australian camp. You write that Clarke and Ponting were too harsh on Symonds over one incident, but in fact this was just the straw that broke the camel’s back – apparently there were a lot of problems with Symonds on the tour of the WI before that.

    This is all history now and should probably be forgotten. All that I have written here is stuff that I read in media articles at the time, of which there were a lot. Of course not all that one reads in the media is true, but I try to use reliable journos. I also try to look for the angles that add up, as opposed to those that are not consistent with other events. The way Ponting and Clarke reacted to the Symonds fishing trip is a classic example of this. It looks over the top, until one sees the accounts of Symonds on the WI tour.

    Reply

• Kersi Meher-Homji said | July 1st 2010 @ 8:10am | Report comment

  Greg,
  Our debate is approaching Isner-Mahut marathon proportions! I respect your views as you respect mine. Here are facts which need no debating:
  1. There was no video or audio evidence that the word monkey or maki or any other word was used in the 2008 Sydney Test.
  2. The match referee was wrong to take sides (Australians’ words over Indians’ words).
  3. Harbhajan is a trouble maker.
  4. IF he said monkey, it was a sledge (and not a racist comment NOR spoken endearingly). He thought if Australians sledge Indians why not the other way about? This was wrong as two wrongs do not make a right.
  5. Monkey is a revered animal in India. Greg, in Mumbai in 1960s for my MSc thesis on Enteroviruses (Polio, Coxsackie and ECHO), I used monkey kidney tissue culture to look for cytopathogenic effect. This involved sacrificing a monkey to take his kidneys out. When a Hindu religious group heard about it, they took out a procession out and demonstrated against our cruelty to monkeys (and indirectly to their Hanuman God). So this was stopped and I had to purchase a cell line of monkey kidney tissue culture from USA at a huge expense and foreign exchange.
  6. The BCCI is as much to blame as CA and ICC to acknowledge that monkey has a racist connotation. One can forgive CA and ICC for their ignorance of Indian culture but it is unforgivable for BCCI to agree to this nonsensical assumption. If some ignorant Committee decides that a hook shot should be called a cover drive in the future, would you and believe it? Just because monkey is a racist word in America, should we blindly copy them in everything?
  7. The only racism shown during that idiotic controversy was that a white match referee took the side of a white team against a brown team. And white reporters blew it out of proportion. There were Indian journalists here who took it all calmly as it sold their papers. My letters to the editor were published neither in Australia nor in India.

  Hope one day I can convince one person. You know I am unbiased and passionate about truth.
  I wrote many letters to Indian publications when the Indian media FALSELY accused Australians of being racists after a few incidents in Melbourne. I have lived in Sydney for 40 years with my wife and two boys, both born in Sydney. And NOT one incident of racism we have encountered in Australia, the best country in the world. We are so happy here because we have got all chances. Although a Virologist working 10 hours a day, I wrote 12 books on cricket, all published in Australia. No one looked at the colour of my skin. But the despicable Indian journalists went on and on, not listening to me.
  I don’t expect to change the world. If only I can convince YOU to believe me that racism issues are magnified by journalists to sell their papers.
  I feel very sad for Symonds. He was the victim. Marshie and Boonie and Dougie can drink to their hearts’ content. But not poor Roy. Pigeon and Tugga can sledge but not Bhajji. I feel like Alice in wonderland.

  Reply
• 

  Greg Russell said | July 1st 2010 @ 6:19pm | Report comment

  Kersi, all good points. Have you caused me to change my mind on this particular incident? No. Have you caused me to broaden my view in general? Yes. Is that a decent compromise? I hope so!

  One thing, though, that I don’t get about what you have written: isn’t the Bollyline incident all about how Symonds perceives the word “monkey”, not at all about how sacred monkeys are in India? There are plenty of places where it is not racist to call someone black. However this doesn’t change that if a black person in Australia or England or wherever feels that it is a racist taunt to be called black, then it is racism to do so, even if the person using the word “black” comes from a culture where the word isn’t racist. The fact is that Symonds strongly felt it a racial insult to be called a monkey. This is not an unreasonable position. Growing up in Queensland, it probably is a racist taunt. Symonds is not alone: when Italian and Spanish football fans make monkey noises at black English football players, FIFA and UEFA regard it as racism. Symonds communicated his view to Harbhajan and Indian management. By all accounts they said they accepted that Symonds regarded it as a racist taunt, and Harbhajan said he would not so do again.

  Did Harbhajan say it again at the SCG? As you say, there is no video or audio evidence. Does that mean it wasn’t said? In chemistry, my field of work, is there video or audio evidence for the existence of atoms? No. Does that mean atoms do not exist? One has to look at the indirect evidence, which leads to no doubt that atoms do exist. Obviously the situation is not so clear with the events of the SCG. But my argument is simply that the indirect evidence – the prior history (see above), the reactions of players at the time, subsequent events – all strongly suggest that the offending word was said by Harbhajan. Do you really think the Australian players would have gone ahead with the Hansen enquiry if they weren’t absolutely convinced of Harbhajan’s actions?

  Another piece of such indirect evidence is that it took days before Harbhajan came out with the version of events whereby he had said something else that the Australians misheard as “monkey”. If he had really said something else, why didn’t he say so immediately (including to Mike Proctor), as opposed to waiting for days to reveal this?

  Similarly with Tendulkar. It is a matter of official record that he told Mike Proctor that he didn’t hear what was said. Then at the Hansen enquiry a month later he claimed that he definitely heard what Harbhajan said, and it wasn’t the word “monkey”. Does this sound plausible to you? What, did Tendulkar undergo psychotherapy whereby suppressed audio memories from the past became clear again? I remember well what you wrote in your comments yesterday, but I don’t remember what you wrote last year. This is the way the human memory works, not the way implicit in Tendulkar’s on-record statements.

  Probably you think I’m being obdurate, but really, I’m just trying to explain to you why you haven’t been able to change my mind on this specific incident. But as I said, I do take your points in general.

  Does it all matter? Probably not. Most likely Symonds would have careened out of control anyway. On the positive side, Harbhajan does seem to have become a better person. Not just because of this, but also because of the Sreesanth slap, etc. He is a tremendous cricketer who really has that never-give-in spirit of spinners such as Warne, Kumble and Swann (see a recent cricinfo article by Peter Roebuck). Now he seems to be marrying this with a better outlook on life, and he is a real force in world cricket because of this.

  Finally, I have always said that it is relevant to compare Bollyline with the Darren Lehmann racism incident. What happened in Lehmann’s case is that he was returning to the Australian dressing room at the Gabba having been dismissed in an ODI vs Sri Lanka. Annoyed at this, he said “Black c***” as he went into the Australian dressing room. One Sri Lankan player, the 12th man, heard him say this. It would have been easy for Lehmann just to lie and not admit to saying it. After all, it would have been only one man’s word versus another. But he admitted it, and he copped the 5 match ban, which included part of the 2003 World Cup. (Ironically, this is what allowed Symonds into the Australian side for that World Cup!).

  Now compare Bollyline. Said on the field of play versus in the dressing room. Heard by several Australians versus only one Sri Lankan. Said after an assurance that it would not be said versus no prior history. And so on.

  Maybe this comparison gives you a feeling for why the Australian players were so upset by Bollyline. By and large the Australian way is to admit a mistake and cop it sweet, as with Lehmann. I guess the Australian way is to expect that others will follow this lead. But not in this case.

  Nor in the case of Howard for ICC president. As Malcolm Speed said, “Australia and New Zealand have previously accepted nominations despite reservations.” But it seems this lead has not been reciprocated.

  Reply