Oh I just figured it out – I said in my next post that the worst word I used was Sierra Charlie Uniform Mike Bravo Alpha Golf Sierra, and that caused a “Your comment is awaiting moderation.” Found the trigger word!

I was very careful in my words…or at least, I thought so…The worst word I used was *editor: yep, that’s the one*

I was seriously worried there for a while.

I have to say with Kohli – I really think he overstepped the bounds when he put his hands on Aussie players. Not once, but twice – Warner and Smith.

The thing that amazes me, is that I remember looking up a video of the Smith/Sharma/Kohli incident on youtube, and found a video where the entire incident was blamed squarely on Smith. I think the video title was something like “Kohli on fire Smith gets a warning” and it basically promoted what Kohli did and vilified Smith for the incident.

Yet, a video that was posted on the Roar had the same incident but with subtitles of the clash – The words coming from Smith were innocuous to say the least. I think he started by having a chuckle at Rohit’s appeal, followed up by “I’m halfway down the pitch, mate.” Then Rohit had a ten-second delay (for some reason) and then did his over-aggressive “What?! WHAT?!” hissy-fit. At which point, Kohli comes down from second slip and puts his hands on Smith, and asks him if he thinks he’s a superstar. Smith’s reply was, “You think you’re a superstar, don’t you?” and “Good work, Mr. Reactive. Keep up the good work, skip.” I can’t find the video now unfortunately, but that’s my best recollection of the events.

And this is Smith’s fault? Really? It seems that it’s very one-sided in this whole argument, and it frustrates me no end. The arguments about what the Australians “always do” are based on one-off incidents, incidents taken out of context, perceptions, hearsay and circumstantial evidence. Arguments are presented against the Aussies for sledging, counter-arguments are made, and instead of providing proof, we go back to the same old arguments – as if simply saying something is true makes it true.

Ah there we go. I feel better now!

Two and a half hours now…I’m going through my original post, trying to figure out what I’ve done wrong. I’ll just go sit in the corner until someone tells me.

Hey Ronan,

An hour and a half later, and my comment is still awaiting moderation? Did I do something bad? I swear I didn’t give a send-off, I swear!

One of the problems I see in this whole argument is how singular incidents are quoted, often taken completely out of context or presented with a biased slant, and then stated as being the norm. Incidents include, but are not limited to, McGrath’s “Brian Lara’s c***” comment, Clarke’s “broken arm” comment, Mitchell throwing at the stumps at Kohli, the underarm incident, the Steve Waugh/Curtly Ambrose fight, “Monkey”-gate, the “pack of dogs” comment/response, etc etc.

Some of these aren’t even sledging incidents, per se. But they speak to the character of the Australian culture apparently. This is presented to us Roarers as what normally happens every time the Aussies play. And it’s all the Aussies. And we can’t support a team in which all Aussie members of the team do all these nasty things all the time when they play.

But it’s not.

It’s not all the team. People can only seem to highlight a few names when they make comments – usually Warner, Haddin and Johnson. That’s three people. “But it’s 11 on 1” – I would seriously doubt that all eleven members of the team are going hardcore, full-on abuse at one batsman at any given time. I think a lot of the Aussie team members come across as “nice guys” to be perfectly honest. Are there some that like a bit of a chat? Yeah sure, but most are quite happy to just keep working hard at getting the victory.

It’s not all the time. If 95% of the chat is pretty innocuous, as Ronan suggests (what was the other 5%, by the way, Ronan? Borderline stuff, I’m guessing but nothing too serious?), then this whole comment about how it happens all the time is garbage. The match goes on – in fact most matches go on – smoothly without incident. So much so, that often those who choose to complain about sledging make up stuff that isn’t there, which Ronan highlights in his article. Maybe you should make a cash offer for this proof, Ronan?

It’s not all nasty. Well, here’s the thing: I’m guessing on this point. I don’t actually know what is being said. But here’s a surprise for some of you who complain incessantly – neither do you! You are assuming that what is being is nasty or whatever. You don’t actually know. If this is the basis for proof or evidence of “over-the-top, boorish, arrogant…blah blah…poor, childish…blah blah…behaviour” then maybe we’ve been doing justice wrong in society. Apparently, it seems all we need is perception to send people to jail for being scumbags. Or would we send innocent people there too? I don’t know. But what I do know is something that TheTruth has highlighted – that only 2 out of the 60 infractions noted by the ICC in 2014 were issued to Australians. That’s 3.33*% in case you’re wondering. There are umpires out there on the field who are there to adjudicate issues related to the game, and this includes unbecoming behaviour. Essentially, what a few people are saying is that they don’t trust the umpires to make these decisions related to behaviour, and they want to become judge, jury and executioner themselves.

It’s not just the Australians. This is the part that really needs to be addressed. As we’ve pointed out 96.66*% of infractions are non-Australian. So why are Australians only targeted in this debate? I don’t think it’s merely a statement of jealousy, but it certainly only seems to come out when the Aussies are winning. “But my kid looks up to the team, and I don’t want them to become like Haddin!” Oh please, put your arm on his shoulder, look him in the eye and say, “Son, I don’t know what Haddin said in that particular incident, but it appears that he may have directed something not very nice to the other player. And while I can’t condemn him for something to which I have no quantifiable evidence whatsoever, I strongly believe it’s best if you – if and when you attain the commendable status of playing for our country – treated the opposition batsman with utmost respect in all situations. Yes, even when he threatens to punch your teammate in the face! After all, we both know that other international cricket-playing nations are well-behaved, just like you! Which is why we only support the Australian team when they’re losing, because when they win, we somehow see them do bad and nasty things, even when we have no physical proof at all!”

I don’t know…I’m over all the vitriol, arrogance and nastiness that comes from those who speak out against vitriol, arrogance and nastiness.

If you feel like it’s happening and you don’t believe anything is done about it, write to your Elite Panel of ICC Umpires or your Local Member of Council or something. Try to make a difference that way, rather than blame everything on the team that just out-performed a whole bunch of other nations (except once!) to win the World Cup, and write or comment in articles with little substance – just circumstantial evidence and hearsay.

Hazey the Bear out.

Yep, that’s exactly what it was! Classic!

Yeah good wrap-up on the match.

I think Maxwell’s wicket was simply Guptill undone by frustration. The previous half-tracker should have been thoroughly dispatched, but Guptill failed to put it away. Maxwell just delivered the ball where it needed to be and let Guptill make the mistake.

I also agree in regards to the bowling strength of Australia, but I think it goes a little bit deeper. It’s the way in which Clarke utilises his bowling throughout the innings. His captaincy while fielding has been good as he’s gotten the wickets through well thought-out plans, put the clamps on when required, and just continued to go about it. It seems like the other team is being competitive, but they all fall short of where they should be, whether accumulating a first inning’s total or chasing.

The future of Aussie cricket is looking pretty good with Smith and Starc as leading the batting and bowling respectively. These two will definitely be an impact for a good long while.

I think there’s a clue under Steve Smith’s grade…D F R S S – Steve Smith’s Daredevil-like hearing (based on the comic book, not the D-grade Ben Affleck movie) led to the review of Rahane’s wicket, so perhaps it’s something like Decision Feather-touch Review System….something. Maybe the extra S stands for extra Smithiness.

“Eventually the Sri Lankans were able to rid themselves of Mr Maxwell by tricking him into saying his name backwards, thereby forcing him to return to his home in the fifth dimension.”

‘LLEWXAM!” – That was the gruntish cry from Maxwell when he only managed a single of a hip-high full toss. Yes…yes it all makes sense now.

And elsewhere Ronan has mentioned that his definition of a “flop” is someone who is expected to perform well but will actually under-perform dramatically – I agree with this. There’s a lot of talk about Rohit Sharma leading up to this tournament, but the truth is that he struggles with Australian pitches, and in many people’s view, including Ronan’s, he’s going to struggle.

Now there are probably a lot of sub-continent players that may be expected to do well, but yes, for the sake of argument, Ronan has singled out Sharma. But instead of criticizing him by taking his comment out of context, please provide the Sri Lankan or Pakistan players who are likely to “flop” in the tournament. I think it would be helpful to add to the discussion instead of unnecessary criticism and unrelated topics like Warner and Finch’s record in India etc.

Hey Ronan,

I suppose it depends on which rankings you look at. I didn’t know NZ were third favourites from the bookies perspective (which in hindsight makes sense given that is as much home ground advantage for us as it is for them). Essentially I agree with your definition but looked at it from the general ODI ranking perspective.

Pretty much agree with everything you’ve suggested Tom.

It’s hard to go past SA vs. Aus – two form teams with players in form. It all fits nicely.
I think given NZ is ranked fifth in the ODI rankings, having them listed as smokies is actually more fitting than England (ranked third…somehow!).
Wickets – I think Mitch Starc is on track for a decent tournament. He’ll be devastating, particularly in those early matches against the minnows.
Runs – Definitely AB DV. Even when SA loses, he looks amazing.
I too hope that du Plesis has a poor tournament, but I have a feeling Darwan’s downward trend continues. Which in turn will lead India to a poor showing.

All in all – agreed!

Sahas,

I don’t make a lot of comments on the site for various reasons – long-time-listener, first-time-caller kinda thing – but could it be that Rohit Sharma’s performance on foreign decks, in particular Australian wickets, is called into question because…I dunno…the tournament is being played on Australian (and NZ) wickets?

Not sure what your point is…If the tournament was being played in the sub-continent, sure, we could talk about Warner and Finch’s records in those situations til the sacred cows came home. But since it’s being played in Australia and NZ, perhaps that’s the context of the discussion?

It’s looking lively for him already, Suneer.

Hey all,

I think you’re right Benjamin – Lyon I think is crucial for this moment and he needs to perform well in these conditions. If he repeats what he did in Adelaide, Australia will get the 10 wickets. Looks pretty good from his first ball, just needs to have his line across to those footmarks.

“A solid start. However, I’m predicting him to retire hurt with a strained rising inflection by the third day of the Sydney Test.”

In related news, apparently Clarke is in doubt as a commentator for the Sydney Test. During warm-up with the Channel 9 crew, it appears that he may have split an infinitive.

I can’t make any promises. Especially now that I’m craving KFC all of a sudden…*surreptitiously hides cash-filled brown paper bag with KFC logo*

“Secondly, at no point did he succumb to the habit of calling cricket balls ‘cherries’, ‘nuts’, ‘pills’, ‘rocks’, ‘tomatoes’, ‘Mogwais’ or whatever it is that James Brayshaw is calling them these days.”

Gold. Absolutely gold. But I fear it’s only going to get worse. I have this theory – Brayshaw is commentating his way towards the next KFC ad. In years gone by, commentators would include adjectives in their description of well-played cricket shots. “What a marvellous shot!” “Oh, that’s a superb stroke!” Etc, etc. But not ol’ Brayshaw. His vocabulary must be limited to a select range of action words. “He’s smoked that through extra cover!” “He’s absolutely crunched that!” And thus we have a new KFC advertisement, with Brayshaw’s commentary voicing over the slow-motion shot of KFC cooking strips of chicken (“He’s smoked that!”), and kids taking a bite (“He’s absolutely crunched that!”) as they advertise their next product: Smokey BBQ Crunchers.

So with that in mind, it’s clear that Brayshaw will be calling cricket deliveries “chicken nuggets” before too long.

Maybe we’re thinking about this whole DRS thing wrong. So far it’s either been “umpires only” or “players can review”…I’ve been considering this a little differently and I think it should be considered on modes of dismissal. I know the biggest concern is that players have a role in umpiring, but let’s be honest – they already do. They appeal, affecting the umpires decision, and when catches are close to the ground, they can say “yes it carried” or “no it didn’t” and batsmen, in general, accept this quite happily. It’s a minor role, but a role none-the-less. My suggestion would be to add one minor addition to that role, as explained below…We know what we have. We have slo-mo, hot-spot, snicko, etc…so let’s try to make the most of them, still give power to the umps out in the middle, but allow mistakes to be kept to a minimum, and keep the game delays to a minimum.

Stumpings/run outs – Reviews to be initiated by the on-field umpire (as it already is)…Although, having said that, can the on-field umpires please, PLEASE, make some decisions without always resorting to the review? I know you can do it!

Bowled – On-field umpire…’nuff said. Although if there is a missed no-ball, can be overturned by third umpire. But again, if the umpires on the field could get it right in this regard, it would help keep the game tickin’ over nicely. I don’t understand what has happened to umpires, but like you Kev, it frustrates me no end when they miss it, or call it after the fact.

Caught behind/close fielder (such as bat-pad) – On-field umpire…HOWEVER, a player should be able to comment to the umpire if they haven’t hit the ball. If they relay this simple message, then review. Otherwise, keep walkin’ pal. If the on-field umpire isn’t sure if there’s an edge, take it upstairs, but only if there’s doubt.

Caught – On-field umpire…refer if there’s any doubt on whether it carried, and only then if the batsman doesn’t want to take the fielder’s word for it. Which should never happen. ‘Cause of the spirit of the game and such and such.

LBW – On-field umpire…Reviews allowed to be made upstairs if need be – i.e. check if unsure if it pitched in-line, impacted in-line, etc etc., but I think the umpire should be okay to make the decision nine times out of ten. Again, the batsman should have the right of reply to say, “Actually, Mr. Umpire Sir, my bat did indeed make contact with the ball.” At which point the umpire should say, “Well then, let’s check it out and ensure your wicket is legitimate.” Or alternatively, “I know ya clown, but it hit pad first. On yer bike…” Or words to that effect. I think players trying to judge if it pitched in-line or what-have-you has undone any good work of the DRS. LBW decisions, I believe, would form 90% of incorrect decisions by players to review, and therefore, shouldn’t be part of it.

Now…what about those “howlers” that disadvantage the bowling side? Well, these happen few and far between. Most of the times, they are 50/50 decisions which really the umpire probably has correct, or has a legitimate reason for deciding as they have. However, on the off chance that the umpire has made a grievous mistake, the third umpire should have the ability to over-rule. Because let’s face it, if there is a possible wicket, A) the fielding side will appeal, and B) there should be time for the third-umpire to say “Hold play, I think there’s a wicket here” after seeing a replay.

So essentially – Umpires on the field make the decisions, can refer if they feel the need, the batsman can only refer if they’ve hit it (or haven’t) depending on the decision, and the third-umpire can over-rule if need be.

I think this type of system allows the umpires to feel like they’re in control, it allows mistakes to be kept to a minimum, it regulates the speed of the match, and it should encourage the spirit of the game to be upheld. I don’t think it’s about making the players do the work of the umpire, or undermining them, just making sure we have the right result if a mistake is made.

Warner played it as though it wasn’t going to turn that sharply. The delivery probably was better than it looked, but the look of surprise on Warner’s face seems to indicate it was very unexpected. Probably didn’t think the pitch had that kind of movement.

I like what Wade has done – He’s taken his time adjusting to Dilshan and then played two delightful strokes for boundaries – not too hard, just nicely timed and placed.

And as I write this, he’s just smashed Kula back down the ground with authority…

Hey sheek,

I agree that 222 was competitive, and (for the sake of argument) had it been clear that the game would not have had a chance to continue after the rain, I don’t think the Sri Lankans would have been too upset. After all, they were chasing 222 on a tough-ish track…they had to survive a pumped up Starc for ten overs of that as well!

But…once there was talk of the Duckworth-Lewis, all of a sudden their eyes would have lightened up. 130-140 off 25 with all ten wickets? Whoo hoo!

I think if there were no rain, it would have been a far more competitive, and fair, match than if had they played with reduced overs.

But as you say, it’s not up to us, it’s up to him – He knows his stuff.