Tuesday, January 08, 2008

The Sydney Test, Monkey's Uncle and The Whole Monkey Business

I think Indian media, bloggers and arbitrary people have gone about being stupid in the right order

1. Get emotional & stupid - check
2. Confuse patriotism with logic and sport. Call this game a "national honor" - check
3. State issues and concerns as ambiguously as possible - check
4. Use an extremely incompetent media to add more ambiguity - check
5. Use Navjot Singh Sidhu to represent India in foriegn television and completely destroy credibility - check
6. Burn effigies to ensure that that India is perceived as a more barbaric civilization than Australia - check
7. Show general lack of awareness about nuances of the game - check

Video Replays: Seriously, Indian media should start watching the sport more closely and actually hear what the experts have to say. Listen to the opponents argument clearly. Then begin your defence. Mark Nicholas has been doing a good job of experimenting and educating the audience. During the lunch breaks and Tea breaks he is showing viewers how umpires get to view no-balls and snicks. He is showing live demonstrations that are far more instructive and educational than naming a donkey "Mark Benson" in Patna. In 2002 Indian tour of England there was a controversy regarding Sachin Tendulkar's catch. Mark Nicholas, then in Sky Sports commentary team, did an extensive experiment. I believe they have repeated that experiment several times after that. They showed this during lunch show. They had Mark Nicholas (or an old English spinner) spread his hands on the ground. Palms facing upwards and the back of the hands touching the ground. The ball was placed on the fielders palms. The bottom of the hand was raised a little so that the tip of the hand made a 30-45 degree angle with the ground. The hands were between the ball and the ground and the ball was not touching the ground.

Then they placed the camera directly above the hand. You could see that this was a legitimate catch. Then they slowly moved the camera away from the fielder. As the distance between the camera and the fielder increased the ball began to appear to touch the ground. At some distance, which was lesser than the distance at which TV cameras are usually placed, the ball clearly appeared to be touching the ground. It appeared as if the fielder had grounded the catch. The fielder had not moved his hand and the ball was still on top of his palms. It was still a legitimate catch but the video showed otherwise. The camera resolves 3-D images into 2-D images. It approximates a dimension. It does not resolve the depth ratio very well. As depth becomes a factor in the video - the dubiousness of the catch increases. This is a well established argument (though not yet a fact) - Video is unreliable. Every team, by now, knows that if the catch is taken reasonably close to the ground, it will not pass the scrutiny of video umpire. In that it will only result in 3rd umpire giving clear 'outs' as 'not outs' (this does not mean that all 'not out' decisions necessarily meant 'out'). India is not the first team to experience this.

Look at Prem Panicker, much like the millions of smug self-righteous indignated Indians around him, put a photograph of Ricky Ponting. This photograph is a freeze-frame taken from a video. The picture is only worth a 1000 stupid words. There is a saying in Thamizh; "Seeing is not believing. Hearing is not believing. Thorough Investigation is the way to go." How true is this here. This picture although on the surface extremely convincing, means nothing. Ask yourself this. Do you see the Advt board behind Ponting? What is the distance between Ponting and that board? Can you estimate that reliably with this picture. All the depth/breadth information is compacted into 1 plane. 3D becomes 1D. Let us say Prem Panicker makes a patently ridiculous claim based on the picture. Hypothetically, let us assume, he says that Ricky Ponting's head is only 3 cm away from the Advt Hoarding behind him. If this photo was the only evidence we had, we cannot effectively argue back. We has no way of proving beyond doubt that his claim is wrong. It is only because we saw the game and we know that he was in silly point, can we safely say that the board was far behind. This photograph is not taken to scale. Even amateur photographs when zoomed in to heavy close-ups reveal a different picture. This photograph shows that Ponting's head is 1 cm away from the ground. Obviously, in reality, his head was much higher than the ground. Now can anyone claim that only his head-ground distance was distorted in scale (or) everything else was distorted in scale but his hand-clutching-the-ball-touching-the-ground was perfectly reproduced to scale. Much the same way this photograph distorts the dimension the separates Ricky Ponting and the Advt hoarding behind him -it also distorts the distance between the ball and the ground. Video only gives us the second dimension that is missing in the photo. It resolves the distance between Ponting and the board. But it does not resolve the depth.

My claim - if you think video is reliable. If Prem or the Indian commentators or Indian media thinks so - tell us why. People will believe you if you make sense. Make a logical argument. Is anybody doing that? The ball maybe touching the ground. But only maybe. It also may not be touching the ground. We cannot use the video to make any claim with any sort of reasonable certainity. We certainly cannot say it did touch the ground. I hope for education sake, Channel 9 buys that video from Sky Sports and show it 100 times a day like that Karnanidhi arrest episode. This will shut up people who are over-convinced about Ganguly's catch and Ponting's grounding of the ball. This may also wake up people who believe that video evidence is fair and reliable. This unreliability is the reason why Sunil Gavaskar, an Indian, heading the ICC committee, has not approved for technology ruling on low catches. They have left it to the on-field captains. This brings us to the second part.

Pact, No Pact, Ponting Shows 'Out' signal: Apparently Indians are indignated that Mark Benson sought Ponting's permission to give his decision. I was seeing this live much like everybody else. One frame shows Ponting showing the 'out' signal to somebody on the right of the frame. One frame shows Benson nodding to someone to the left of the frame and showing 'out'. There are 3-4 fielders, bowler, Bucknor and Ganguly between Benson and Ponting. Nobody knows conclusively who is talking to who. Nobody knows conclusively the timing of the events. The commentators are not sure. They are merely discussing "Did Benson ask Ponting?". As much as I searched youtube (above and beyond the fact that I was watching every minute of the telecast) - I did not see these 2 actions performed in a single frame. Not one frame. There is no conclusive evidence to establish that Benson sought Ponting's opinion. One naughty commentator speculates and millions of Indians begin to ride on a rumor that is only a definite maybe. Is anybody thinking critically? Is there at least one person who can set aside emotion and wonder if there is indeed enough evidence.

Ponting could have shown the 'Out' signal to someone after Benson had given his 'out' signal. Benson could have been nodding at Ganguly, Bucknor, Lee - for that matter anybody and given his 'out'. Ponting could have been signalling to Lee, fielder, Ganguly. But somehow Indians have a special eye that has detected that Benson was indeed referring to Ponting and vice versa. He might have been signalling to Benson - but do we know it for sure from a silly concatenation of videos? How? What is this mad rush to assume things?

Let us assume for the sake of million emotional folks that Benson did indeed ask Ponting and Ponting did signal 'out' to Benson. Let us assume that this was the case - That brings the topic to this incestual 'pact'. The Age, SMH and many sources report that visting captains make a 'pact' with Home captain -called 'Captain's Agreement' on how they will behave during doubtful low-catches catches. This 'pact' - allegedly - states that if the Square leg umpire has no line of sight - the fielder's word will be taken to determine if the catch is legit or not. Video replay will be used as a last option because of the reasons stated above - Video replays are unreliable and 99% of legit catches result in 'not out' decisions. This was the reason behind the pact.

Now, how many Indians know about this pact? Which writer has referred to it so far? Kumble refers to it in his interview and it appears in 2 articles. Ponting refers to it in all his interviews. If it is true and Kumble agreed to the pact then Clarke or Ponting are within their right to show the 'out' signal. Even otherwise they can show the 'out' signal to appeal for a catch but its not necessary for Benson to acknowledge it or consider it. So even in the worst case if Benson did ask Pontings word for it, he is entitled to. Because Kumble agreed to it. Is there anyone talking about this? In 97 when India visited RSA, Cyril Mitchley made a 'Jonty Rhodes is a true Christian' argument to tell us all that Jonty's claim on Sachin's catch in the final was indeed true. How ridiculous was that? Now compare that situation to this - where there is a pact. The question is not 'Should benson ask Clarke?' - he can (if there is a pact). Kumble agreed to it. The question is "Can Clarke be trusted?"

The Logical Inconsistency: The next popular claim that the Indians are making is this. Michael Clarke stood his ground when he edged a catch to the slips and so his words regarding Ganguly's catch cannot be believed. What the Einsteins are saying here is that if he has displayed Behavior A in the past, he will only show behavior A in the future. Once a liar always a liar. Agreed. But let us be consistent on this. On the other hand, if Ricky Ponting has shown Behavior B in the past (he did not claim a catch) then the Einsteins believe that he will not necessarily show Behavior B in the future. Because their eyes were blinded by unreliable video - they believe a different rule applies to Ponting. Nobody can explain why different logic applies to Clarke and Ponting. Either people must be convinced that a player's current behavior has no causal relationship with his past behavior (I believe in this) and not use Clarke standing his ground as an argument (he could be very well lying but Kumble decided to get into bed with a liar) (or) People should assume that past behavior is an indicator of all future behavior and take Ponting's word as the ultimate truth (indian media believes only half of this). Its the jumping and dancing in the middle that is logically stupid. Ishanth Sharma stood his ground a good minute before he was given out. Does that make him the world's biggest liar?

India did not lose because Bhajji was charged as Racist: The real problem I have with Indian media is that although they may have valid points to bring up against Australians, the media is destroying India's credibility by confusing allegations and arguments. Harbhajan calling Symonds a monkey has no bearing on the defeat. It is irrelevant to the defeat. India lost the game because Ponting and Symonds were given not out when they were and Dravid was given out when he was not. (Remember - Sachin was plum LBW when he was in the 20s - he was let off and he made 154). It is a fact that if the decisions had gone the other way around (hypothetically if Symonds and Ponting were given 'out' when 'not out' and Dravid was let off when was out) Indians would have taken it and gone without complaints. It is not as if Indians would have not appealed or recalled the batsman. Indians did appeal for LBW when Ponting took an inside edge on to the pads. My problem is - what is the exact accusation against Australians? What have they done which the Indians would not have done or did not do - that directly contributed to India's defeat. In my mind the Aussies behaved exactly like the Indians.

My problem is everytime somebody asks 'what did the australians do' - the Indian bandwagon diverts the topic to bhajji's racism issue. That is not why we lost the game. Sledging is not why we lost the game. Bad umpiring is why we lost the game. What did the Australians have to do with that?

Thank god for Suresh Menon. He put the words I was searching for

If India's media are to be believed, the Indian players are angels, and anyone who thinks otherwise is an unpatriotic Gandhi-hater and should be condemned to watching Navjot Sidhu expressing his views on a dozen television channels.

Australian media is doing an exceptionally bad job. That does not mean that if they eat shit Indian media can eat shit too. Unfortunately, the Indian media is no better. In fact the Indian media is beating them at being biased and illogical. Prem Panicker in the column referred in the previous post uneccesarily uses words like 'condescending' to some 'white' author and refers to Sachin wanting to be 'not out'. The 'condescending' comment clearly is a sign of 'get the gora aadmi' jingoism. If anybody disagrees with Prem - whatever little they agree on is out of condescencion. What nonsense? 187 runs were addded because Sachin gave strike to tail-enders. Could Sachin have scored 187 runs by hitting out? All this silly posturing, filminess and a George Bush-like "are you with us or are you with them" is nauseating. There is no bigger shame to India than allowing Navjoth Sidhu to don the role of patriotic Indian and represent India in any forum.

I am terribly bummed with Bucknor and India's loss. Genuinely sad. If there is a legitimate greivance against the Aussies - I am willing to hear that. If Kumble is allowed to expand on the "spirit of the game" comment - maybe we will get to hear a legitimate grievance. But nobody seems to be interested in that. What was the pact about - What was violated? Was there a pact? These are more interesting questions in this entire monkey business.
P.S: If you came this far and are bracing up for writing a fantastic comment along the lines of "but benson did ask ponting. i saw interview" - I have handled that scenario in the post as well. Re-read that segment and the questions asked in the last para of the post? While you are at it - distinguish parts of this post that asks questions Vs make claims.


maxdavinci said...

such a pleasant relief to read something fresh.

I was being pulled towards the rediff style commenters but thanks to you, I've found my feet.

I don't wish to take sides because at the end of the day 8 players couldn't hold up for 70 overs(excluding the two so-called unfortunate batsmen)

Arun Sundar said...

Excellent analysis Hawkeye. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this post of u'rs. And that too the analysis of the catch and the video effect on it was awesome. So, was the Captain's agreement(which I wasnt aware till now and I hv been watching cricket for over 15 years! what a shame...lol!)

I agree on the Bajji's issue too. It is crazy to compare that and our defeat.

And this media directly means hype and they are just making the best out of it, irrespective of whether it makes sense or not. Its just like how Sun TV made full use of the Tsunami incident, by showing the same video footages in all their channels and over a million times in a single day.

sundar said...

Video analysis is hitting the nail on the head man!


check this out. I think that answers your question as to whether clarke can be trusted. *selective honesty is unworkable*. whats your thought?

Ganesh T S said...

Your write up is a fresh perspective from an Indian fan's viewpoint. I agree that the main reason we lost the game was due to extremely bad umpiring. In relevance to this (and some other points in the article), I have three comments:

(1) The umpires had a bad match: Fine, agreed. However, I would say only Mark Benson had a bad match (he gave decisions against both India -- Ricky Ponting not out caught by Dhoni -- and Aus -- Ricky Ponting LBW to Bajji--) maybe a couple more against India, but that would probably even out sometime. I am more concerned about Steve Bucknor. ALL his dubious decisions were against India. Please take into context that LBWs are iffy and the umpire is the sole judge. Let us concentrate on catches / stumpings etc. After all this hullaballoo I wonder where Steve's sense of political correctness went. If I remember right, from Cricinfo's reports, Rudi Koertzen apologized to Sangakkara for mistakenly giving him out in a crucial juncture in the recent Hobart test. Bucknor, the pig-headed, past sell-by-date umpire that he is, keeps mum. I have no issues with the BCCI and the whole country being up in arms against him. And this is not the first time that he has appeared anti-BCCI cricket team either.

(2) Ponting's sense of fair play / Logical consistency: Ponting plays in the spirit of the game only when Australia has the upper hand. Clearly evident when he decided that he might not have caught Dravid cleanly -- India were pretty early in the innings at that time (150 odd?) and Ponting had the cushion of his team's 463 behind him. When he claimed Dhoni's catch / Ganguly's catch through Clark, it was evident that he was running out of time to bowl the Indians out. That shows how integrity can be compromised when one's only goal is to win at all costs (including sportsmanship). I am sure many people who were Ponting's fans earlier would be extremely put off by his display in particular and the Aussie team's display in general in the Sydney test. The funniest piece I heard was from Gilchrist when he said that in his mind there was a possibility that Dravid hit the ball when he was wrongly given out. That one replay had the bat so much far away from the ball when the ball brushed the front of the knee roll, and the wicket keeper -- who incidentally happens to be following the ball's trajectory more closely into his own gloves than anyone else --claiming that it could have brushed the bat was the last straw in the sense of sportsmanship (I would have expected this from the Indian bowlers, mind you.. after all they don't claim that they are walkers and have keen sense of sportsmanship to the extent that Gilchrist has advertised himself).

I also have no doubt in my mind that Symonds's needling of Bajji and Ponting's report to the match referee was some sort of mind game that Ponting wanted to play on Bajji when he was going too strong for Aussies' liking. And one convenient way to make sure he doesn't face Bajji in the remainder of the series. I am all ears and eyes to know what Mike Procter based his decisions on.

3) It is not that this is the first time that India has lost a game. Why then does the cricket crazy public of India have this strong reaction? No doubt the combination of various factors like bad umpiring, 'baseless' charges intended as mind games, and obscene celebrations of a pyrrhic victory by what is clearly a team which clearly is losing its fan base by the day for its on-field practices, contributed to the present state of affairs.

It was obvious when the Indians started the tour itself that they would lose the series 4-0. The only question was how bad they would lose. When matches go abegging, through a combination of circumstances described above, in such a tour, it is no wonder that the Indian public has extreme reactions (many biased and illogical as you have indeed described).

Arksantos said...

My question is why did Ganguly stay? He had some doubts about the catch. Even if we all agree on the "3D to 2D" analysis, the question here is why didn't the umpire ask the third umpire? If that is because of the agreement, then a few overs later an appeal for a catch off Bhajji was referred to the third umpire, why did they do it? (technically, in the former case, the video can't be 100% certain, and in the latter case, the replay can be 100%) but still the philosophical question is why didn't the umps use the same system twice? So I dont think the umps were acting according to the agreement.

When all is said and done, I dont have a problem with the Australians, I didn't expect them to me magnanimous and they weren't.
I am just disappointed that India could not play out 70 overs. :(

Karthik Sriram said...

Hawkeye Annathey,

Indian media wants something to sensatonalise. Whilst they were making news videos praising India for a draw at Sydney, some bad umpiring decisions gave biscuit to their hopes of 1 days' praise-india-till-the-stars plans. So some fast thinking on their feet got them to create this pseudo-image that Ponting and Co. are a bunch of hooligans and that India was like a 2nd standard kid with its candy stolen by a high school bully. B.S

When Mr. Ganguly, came late for the toss at chennai (in 2001 - and from reliable sources, was on the phone {with who - anybody's guess}), making S.R. Waugh wait, the media describes it as Captain Courageous - while Ponting has made out to be a rude guy for claiming a dubious catch - what hypocrisy, I say!

And I know multiple occasions when the 'Right Hon'ble' Sachin Tendulkar 'Avargal' has refused to walk knowing he snicked one - this has happened a lot in D/N encounters under noisy circumstances. All that is okay and people still revere sachin tendulkar as though he walking this earth is God's grace or something, when Mr. SRT can't show even 1 WC or 1 MoS award in an away test series win as proof of his 'god'liness.

As u'd said, Steve Bucknor has lost it and like Venkatragahavan, mus make an exit rather than later - Venkat, Bird and Shepherd have done it - No harm for Bucknor to do it. As for Benson, he had a bad day and perhaps could do with better concentration next time on. But perhaps all this is god's own way for the Jayaprakash's and Bansal's we doled out not too long ago....

Harbhajan is turning out to be a Sreeshanth part two - talks and shows 'aggression' much more than the talent he shows/bowls. Seems like Symonds had told that he has an issue with being called Monkey and Harbhajan does that (even if provoked) and that seals the issue.

The only thing that needs to be clarified is Kumble, the no-nonsense character that he is ( he told captaining India is not that big a deal as people make it out to be) had told that only team was playing the game in the right spirit - why did he say that?


anantha said...

I did not see these 2 actions performed in a single frame

Actually, Channel 9 did show both them in a side by side frame (which I saw live). As in film from two different camera side by side in the same frame. This showed that Benson did ask Ponting. And the Channel 9 guys did an extensive analysis too.

But even with all this, haven't read an analysis as extensive as this! Awesome.

Anonymous said...

Ponting himself admitted that Benson asked him if the catch had been taken cleanly.I'm really surprised that Benson has gotten away lightly after the huge fiasco.

The pact was between the two teams.Apparently,Ponting had been trying this for a while but no other captain seems to have agreed. I can't understand how Kumble was naive enough to get into such a stupid deal. I don't think it is legal for the umpires to be a part of the deal.That is where I disagree with your arguement that it was right for Benson to have asked Ponting.The umpire has to make his decisons on his own or in consultation with his colleagues..not in consultation with the fielder/fielding captain.If Ganguly stood his ground,and rightly so if I may add,he chose not to abide by the pact and it would've been an issue for the captains to sort out after the day's play. Benson should've gone to Bucknor first and then to the 3rd umpire if they were still in doubt.Greater experts than you and I,including your favorite Richie Benaud, seem to be unanimous about this.
Otherwise an excellent analysis.I also think that as far as appealing goes,the Aussies did no wrong.The Indians would've done the same thing.But it was their reaction when appeals were turned down that was disgusting. Even with all your excellent logical arguments,I have no doubt that Ponting grounded the ball while taking Dhoni's catch.I'm willing to give him the benifit of doubt that he did not intend to cheat in this case. In the heat of the moment, he might not have relaised that he grounded the ball and hence appealed. Its his refusal to acknowledge that he might have been at fault that infuriates me. I can totally understand why Kumble made that comment about Aussies not playing in the spirit of the game.

Anonymous said...


Pretty much anon has summed up my feelings so i dont want to bore you with my crap again....agree that indian media feeds of this like vultures and donkeys are being harassed that does not take the fact away that Aussies are Cheats, I say this becuase ponting thinks it's convenient to take his word on catches and not on edges. Off tangent, May i add Gilly is the biggest crook of them all.. He proclaims himself a walker and says he appeals when he knows that the batsmen is out and appeals when he is not sure... so that the umpire can decide. so are we to conclude that everytime gilly does not walk he is not out and every time he does not appeal the batsmen is not out... BS i say...if he is a walker just walk dont brag....Remember Lara 1994 at mohali.. that is walker right there for you..Lara never said he was a walker.. he just walked....

India were Bucknored and Bensoned. End of story. No amount of Stupid Indian media bashing and logical analysis can take that fact away. India would have probably appealed for everything that the aussies did. India would not have talked about integrity and crap when we all knew what Ricky was up to.. win at all cost.

If ponting had said "yes, we had a couple of favorable decisions and moved on nothing would have been said, He was talking as if he was a saint and therin lies the problem. If he had integrity why did not he walk when he nicked the catch. Again he had every right to stand his ground i'm fine with it, what i'm asking is Why the double standards? He left that caught behind to the umpire, why did he become the umpire for ganguly's catch. I'm perfectly fine with the pact, but that should have been applied only after benson consulting the square leg umpire and if you see the video bucknor was on the other side behind ganguly's back and i'm pretty sure benson did not consult him and went straight to Ponting.

I won't comment on the racial thing, we dont know what happened there. That did not cause india to loose the test.


//And I know multiple occasions when the 'Right Hon'ble' Sachin Tendulkar 'Avargal' has refused to walk knowing he snicked one - this has happened a lot in D/N encounters under noisy circumstances. All that is okay and people still revere sachin tendulkar as though he walking this earth is God's grace or something, when Mr. SRT can't show even 1 WC or 1 MoS award in an away test series win as proof of his 'god'liness //

Dude, No batsman need to walk, that's my personal opinion. But if some one decides he is honest and needs to walk they can. That does not have to do with sachin's integrity, that's the way the game should be played that does not in anyway reflect his integrity. i would definitely take's sachin's word than symonds or ricky. I think sachin has done enough to please us all he does not need to show a WC medal or an away man of the series to show his godliness. take the away victories of india in the recent past and i'm sure sachin would have been an integral part.

- Ganesh

Rakesh said...


you are the stupid indian fan that haweye is talkin about. you simply say cheat without substantiating.

why are aussie cheats? if benson asked ricky when he shld not have it is benson's fault? why is it ricky's fault.

why are you worried about what he projects himself to be?

Anonymous said...


//you are the stupid indian fan that haweye is talkin about. you simply say cheat without substantiating.//

Dude, if you had seen the 2nd test do you need any proof for that.. come on man get real... just dont argue for the sake of arguing...

//why are aussie cheats? if benson asked ricky when he shld not have it is benson's fault? why is it ricky's fault.//

Simple.. They stood their ground when they nicked and claimed a catch when that should have been left to the umpire.. Ponting need not have raised his finger to benson even if he had asked him. The double standards is what makes me call them cheats.

//why are you worried about what he projects himself to be?//

was it not the whole premise that ponting was arguing that he played the game with integrity.

i call a spade a spade as i see it if that makes me a stupid indian fan so be it..

BTW, Hawk knows that I'm a Westindian fan more than an indian fan.. if a Windies fan is pissed with the 2nd test imagine the emotion ridden stupid indian fan who is awake all nite to see the game getting pissed..

Any way regards,

- Ganesh

Venkat said...


From what I saw, Ponting grounded the ball - it even appeared he leaned on it to get up after the 'dive', it wasn't the resolution of the 'depth ratio' issue in that case...
I quite agree on everything else you say - Expecting Clarke to walk and saying if he didn't walk, he should not be trusted is a pile of monkey poop - that Gavaskar was crowing about, it sounded good at the moment, but after the emotions settled, it sounded naive.

And like you've said - the media is doing what is expected of it.

But the way I look at it - it may be illogical, but it's poetic justice for what the likes of McGrath and Slater have said and done in the past and got away....

The Oz team complaining about racism is just 'rich' - we have arrived and should actually be celebrating :-)

Anonymous said...


//Expecting Clarke to walk and saying if he didn't walk, he should not be trusted is a pile of monkey poop//

Dude, He didnt nick it to the keeper he edged it to the slip... I laughed my ass off when this fool was standing for what?

Any way Regards,

- Ganesh

Anonymous said...

1. Cricketers (whoever it may be) CANNOT be trusted to make fair decisions - especially in crucial junctures of the game. Anybody who has played the game at any level would know this.

2. It was stupid of Kumble to make such a pact with Ponting (if such as pact was made). Ponting has been trying to get such a pact for a long time now and I think Kumble is the first one to succumb.

3. Australians definitely get more incorrect decisions in their favor and I believe it is more so because of the kind of pressure they exert on the officials. They play the psychological game a lot better than the others and there is nothing wrong with it.

4. The racial charge against Harbhajan is just a case of psychological pressure applied at just the right time and the just the right manner - Harbhajan was just beginning to frustrate the Australians and taking India closer to overhauling the Ist inn total when the whole racial saga happened.

5. Bottom line: Australia won the 16th consecutive test match. They had just as much bad luck as India in this test match - (Hawk - thanks for pointing out Sachin's LBW). They played superior cricket - they batted more authoritatively, they bowled more accurately, fielded brilliantly and played smarter cricket. They deserved to win.

6. As for India: Sachin and Laxman batted well. RP, Kumble and Harbhajan were marginally above average in bowling. Fielding was pathetic. Running between the wicket was pathetic.

7. I expect the racial charge to be overturned - I can't understand a 'monkey' comment to be more upsetting than 'bastard'. If this racial charge is not overturned, it demands that sledging be banned altogether.


Rakesh said...


look at how you cntradict yourself in 1 min.

Dude, No batsman need to walk, that's my personal opinion. But if some one decides he is honest and needs to walk they can. That does not have to do with sachin's integrity, that's the way the game should be played that does not in anyway reflect his integrity.

you think aussies are cheats because

Simple.. They stood their ground when they nicked and claimed a catch when that should have been left to the umpire..

and you say

If he had integrity why did not he walk when he nicked the catch.

one thing is sure. you did not read hawkeye's post at all. not that you would have understood it anyway. on top of it you are thinking you call a spade a spade. dont you think indians would not have appealed for non-existent catches. didnt ishanth sharma stand his ground. so indians are cheats too?

you are stupid allright.

Anonymous said...


Wanted to add this. I did not see when sachin was given not out for an LBW shout when he was 20. Let's not try to bring that discussion here, because Hussey and Symonds were as much lucky as sachin was in their 2nd innings so, i would not really count the LBW decisions as wrong or right, they are at best subjective...it's the catching, walking or not walking and the umpiring decisions that are under scrutiny here...

let's mildly put it this way, it's India's turn now to give it back to the cocky aussies.. albeit in a logical or illogical way... ;-)

Bottom line is OZ still get their money, indians get their money ICC have their coffers full and everyone is happy.... :-)one good thing to come out of this fiasco is the challenge system(when it is implemented that is) and the reduced amount of sledging aka "mental disintegration"

- Ganesh

Anonymous said...


do you lack basic reading skills.. i was talking about tendulkar there and you bring ttendulakr and ponting in to that picture.

listen, walking and claiming a catch are two different things.. sachin never walks and never claims a catch.. whereas ponting never walks and claims a catch... which was at best dicey...

go and read my comment again. did i ever say that indians would not have appealed i indeed said that indians would have appealed the same way as the aussies would have.

and you make your argument based on a 19 year old kid playing his first test match who was visibly stunned at his dismissal and you think he was standing his ground...

get real and get a life.. as i said before dont argue just for the sake of arguing...

Any way Regards,

- Ganesh

GeoKaiser said...

i have been following ur blog for quite a while now. Most of ur posts make sense or rather made sense,except the two posts on the Sydney test controversy.
My two pence tho :
a)The agreement was only between the captains.Period.As far a i know, neither Benson nor Bucknor were (or can be )party to tit. So logically Benson had no business asking Ricky Ponting.If Ganguly did not take the fielders word, Benson has to refer it to the 3rd umpire.
b) No sane person can expect the other batsman to walk. Similarly fielders will claim catches - itz akin to writing both the answers in either or choice questions. itz the duty of the examiner to be vigilant and call the bluff. So expecting the Aussies, not to appeal and to walk is a dicey thing to do. Becoz we arent walkers either.But Clarke pushed it a bit far - may be he tried his luck with Bucknor. Btw, if u watch the replay, the expression on Rahul Dravid's face was priceless. Within a span of few secs it changes from jubilation to mild trepidation to downright horror. :)
c) Letz cut the crap. I dont care if Bhajji called Symonds a 'monkey'. But, if u feel that one party is telling the truth and then pass a judgment based on that then it opens a pandora's box and sets a bad precedent.As they say itz innocent until proven guilty. So if there is no video or audio evidence to back Symond's claim, Bhajji along with BCCI shud sue the hell out of Symonds and Proctor, even if Bhajji had indeed called him a monkey.
c) India did not lose the game becoz of bad umpiring. However, a pair of incompetent umpires coupled with some terribly idiotic batting in the second innings is a sure recipe for disaster. Hope they never try the strategy of batting out the entire day to save a test match in another test match. After, the Aussies declared, i was expecting India to come out firing on all cylinders and mount a ODI style run chase - easier said than done tho ;).
d) Sportsmanship,spirit of the game my foot. Play for ur honor/pride and not with honor, and if that means turning a test match into a no holds barred Ayothikuppam street fight, so be it.

EV said...


Romba kozhappaadhinga..

hawkeye solradhum karaktu maadhiri dhan irukku..

ganesh solradhum karaktu maadhiri dhan irukku..

idhu vera yaar thappum illa.. velaya vittutu idha follow panra ennoda mistake dhan..


Anonymous said...

Hawkeye, a few points:
1. Clarke's behaviour A is not quoted to say that he will exhibhit behaviour A forever. The point is Clarke is not an angel and is not so trustworthy that his word should not be taken as gospel which is what happened in Ganguly's dismisal - you have made a nice try to somehow distort that and try to paint anyone making this point as a jingoistic, idiotic , "once behaviour A, always behavioru A" argument making person. You know the logical inconsistency in the argument you have made but I'd be darned if you accept it. Right, let me say it again "Clarke's word should not have been taken because a fielder's word is not final, especially so if he doesnt have a proven record of truthfulness. Even if someone does have that record, that fielder's word should also not be taken.". Any problems with that? I guess you put all people who questioned Clarke's word into one bucket of logical idiots who say "once behaviour A, always behaviour A". Good enough to browbeat some Aaj tak type debaters. But note enough for a logical debater. You can now question your own logic of putting all who hold a opposing view in one bucket. I suspect if you will do it.
2. It's the same with Ricky Ponting. I didnt commit robbery once doesnt mean I will never do it. Thats a logically stupid claim - you have a problem with the logic of Aaj Tak types but you dont have a problem with this kind of stupid logic from Ponting?I admitted not catching cleanly once so I should always be trusted. Just as you make fun of the people who say "Michael Clarke cannot be trusted because of his one offence and then go on to say Ponting was good once doesnt mean he is good forever", can I do the same to you because according to you "Clarke's word can be taken because once behaviour A doesnt mean always behaviour A" but "Ponting's good behaviour once means he is good forever". I guess you dont say that but you still say nothing wrong with Aussie behaviour. Are you suggesting that Ponting should be believed unquestioningly - in other words, if I question Ponting's i ntegrity, should I be denied Visa to Australia. Wasnt that a silly comment from Ponting? When I say that, why do you think I am worrieed about India;s loss and am saying effectively that "India lost because Aussies behaved badly"? I am not talking about India's win or loss. I am talking about bad behaviour per see. If you go on calling people bastards and sledging, someone will give it back to you, and that someone will give you something thats offfensive to you. So what do the Aussies expect, they will offend otehrs in a way thats culturally acceptable to them but not to others whereas otehrs should think about "What will offend these pious aussies, what will not and then say only things that dont offend Aussies?". I mean, what use calling an Aussie Cricketer bastard - he is not going to be offended. Whole point of sledging them back is lost, isnt it? Are Aussies going to define whats acceptable sledging and whats not? Why cant you address this without bringing in stupid Indians? Lets discuss the facts not Indian responses because it is easy enough to ridicule the stupid Indian responses

Anonymous said...

Anantha and others, there is no point showing the facts to Annathey hawkeye. He just refuses to criticise Aussies. I dont know why. Look at the facts:
1. Ponting himself admitted Benson asked him. Hawkeye is in denial bringing in his superb debating skills to talk about split frames and unconvincing proof. I can't believe that having read reams of Prem Panicker's "Crap" and other crap about the incident, he didnt manage to read Ponting's admission. Possibly a casee of selective memory assuming he is taking on the Rediff type debater.
2. Linking questioning of Aussie behavioru with India's loss. I didnt do that. Even many stupid Indians who presented incoherent arguments to Aaj Tak didnt do that. Our Man HawkEye has cleverly presented it as "Anyone questioning Aussie behaviour is saying that India lost because of that". I am sure he knows thats not the case. But anything goes when you are trying to prove your point. To me, these are separate issues
A) Aussie sledging is a precursor to the racist remarks. This is brought upon Cricket by the Aussies starting off with mental disintegration in the 90's- if someone mentally disintegrates as did Harbhajan, and which Aussies will proudly say they triggered, what can you say about his actions in that state?Even the law doesnt recognise a mentally instable person as a murderer. He is given a different treatment. By avowing to disintegrate mentally their opponents, Aussies have brought this upon themselves
2. Symonds claiming hurt at a mere epithet is an insult to his ancestors who suffered at the hands of whites. They not only had to suffer the epithets. They went through physical and mental humiliation, they were tortured by the whites. For Symonds to compare that with the epithet from an opponent whom he clearly riled with the intent to bring out that behaviour from him - I would say it is an insult to his own ancestors.

3. Just because I want to distniguish myself from Stupid Aaj tak type Indians, I wouldnt go and lick Aussie ass and try to justify everything they do. It is important to maintain balance and Hawkeye has failed that test here, simply doing the mirror image of Aaj Tak going to the other extreme

Anonymous said...

As for the video evidence argument, applying the same logic, run outs should never be referred to third umpire nor for that matter stumpings - because if Ricky Ponting touching the ground was optical illusion, so is any video evidence about bat hanging in air hence he is run out cases that happen almost everyday in international cricket.
We can apply the same argument to Runouts and Stumpings as well. Effectively, what we are saying is go back to manual decisions -dont depend on technology. I shudder if we have to depend on Bucknor's decision withoug even the few referral s to third umpire he makes.
3, What about the Symonds stumping decision by Oxenford? That also optical illusion, Hawkeye? What are you trying to prove here? That you are different from jingoistic Indians? I think thats pathetic because your stand is always going to be defined by the pathetic jingoistic Indians because you want to be different from them - you are their slave, you dont have a opinion of your own - others define your opinion - how sad is that :-)

Anonymous said...

And Suresh Menon's comment "Indians are not angels" that apparently sums up your thoughts. Who denied that hawkEye? We are pointing out instances where Aussies didnt show good spirit - again, think of Ponting refusing to countenance that he might have grounded the catch. If you want, point out instances of similar nature by Indians. Who stopped you? Again, for a man who goes so much by logic, what is your logic in assuming that "Just because someone points out or claims that Aussies dotn play in the right spirit, they must be justifying Indians as angels". Nice logic that, eh?

raj said...

Hawkeye you always wanted to be different. And it showed in your blog very well.
Arrogance - Ponting is an arrogant fellow. Period. And so are their team members. Though they are good at sport for some reason they dont trust that always. Remember what is the first thing they do before every series.... "TARGET" some specific guys in the other team and start playing right there much before the first day, first ball. If this is not arrogance then what else is?
Sledging - Ok they are the gurus of sledging I dare say. Are they not? Once Ganguly started to give it back to them then they started to back off.. or may be reduced it?
Anyone who dont remember the sarwan-mcgrath duel??
Integrity - Crap. Ponting claims that he is responsible for his team's behaviour and he vouches for them. BS. Symonds after the first day's play ADMITTED that he nicked. Why the hell he didnot walk? Is Symonds' not part of Ponting's Integrity Pact with his team members?

I dont know hawkeye why are you so biased. Well I am not one of the fans who bring the patriotic stuff here and blindly support whatever our guys do but I dont want to think Aussies are demi-gods and whatever they do is golden.

Ponting lost all the admiration etc etc that I had for him after his arrogance. Not that any cares really...

Regarding video stuff.. I agree with you to a good extent. If it is so inconclusive why the hell it is existing?? Its not the matter of whether referring to video will reverse the decision or something but whatever is done should be consistent. Anyway with the dumbass that was sitting as the third fellow, we would not be guaranteed to get right or wrong decisions.

My question is why no action against this Oxenford(or whatever) and Benson..

Anyway nothing is going to change because we write and argue and counter-argue(!)... Its just a vent of feelings......


Anonymous said...

//idhu vera yaar thappum illa.. velaya vittutu idha follow panra ennoda mistake dhan..//

Waah!! Shot thro the covers for 4.. not a man move....correct very good point...

take ennoda and put namballoda.. :-)


- Ganesh

Anonymous said...


//c) India did not lose the game becoz of bad umpiring. However, a pair of incompetent umpires coupled with some terribly idiotic batting in the second innings is a sure recipe for disaster. Hope they never try the strategy of batting out the entire day to save a test match in another test match. After, the Aussies declared, i was expecting India to come out firing on all cylinders and mount a ODI style run chase - easier said than done tho ).//

whoever saying india should have batted well is not a sane person.. dude batsman get out, bowlers get hit and fielders drop catches thats the game.

what effing business does bucknor has to rob dravid and benson and ponting have to rob ganguly.. so will you say india would have drawn the test if they had not been out.

India lost becuase of Umpiring. period.


Karthik Sriram said...

Would India lose 4-0 or 3-0??


Karthik Sriram said...

The first thing evident is Kumble was foolish enough to accept a pact with Ponting which was like in case of doubt in the umpires mind, the fielders word is final. So Benson asking Ponting is not WRONG.

And Hawkeye, forgot to tell you one thing about your video analysis... by the ancient rules of cricket, the benefit of the doubt always goes to the batsman. So, in case the videos of Ponting taking the catch off Dhoni was dubious, Dhoni should have been declared not out.

But the icing on the cake in this match was the 3rd umpire screwing up symonds' stumping decision...

But still, when lots of people here say that Clarke whose integrity is under question can't be relied upon, then sachin whose integrity nevers counts as he never walks was given the bush by proctor when hearing Harbhajan's case....


Anonymous said...


One last question... Did you see the game till the end on the final day?

- Ganesh

SauravFan said...


dude! the experiment with video recordings of catches was also done on channel 9. It was shown during the ashes. When sky sports did it twas' simon hughes who was the fielder holding the ball not mark. but splendid man! thank god there is one sensible Indian who made this point. I thought our entire country was stoopid.


you say you disagree with the author but all your points seem to be in agreement with him. whats up mate? are you agreeing or disagreeing?


my gawd! nobody read the post. none of the anonymous folks have reading skills.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Hawkeye mama,
I have never played cricket or watched a test match or 1-day or whatever you people call it these days, so I don't know yaar inda Prem,Bajji,Pointing etc.

But let me try to correct your mistaken observations on video.

When you use a tele lens, distances are compacted in the direction of the camera. ie. if you connect eyepiece to center of object with a straight line, distances are compacted along that line. Not perpendicular to that line. Just along that line.

So this advertisement board is behind that chap's head, the distance between the head & board is compacted, it looks like the board is close by when in fact it is 100s of feet away. Very common artifact, also very desirable artifact - this is the whole reason you use tele in movies for eg. You want isolation between hero-heroine & all the group dancers, you purposely go far away and use tele even though you can just go close by & shoot them with 50mm. That way especially if you use a small dof say 2.8, the group dancers will be a blur & hero-heroine will appear isolated, fresh & clear. You do this on purpose.

Now in this case, this chap playing cricket in field, photographer not allowed on field ( I guess ). So he uses I'm guessing a 400mm prime tele plus a 1.4 TC, now your 400mm prime is calibrated for 4.0 & the 1.4 TC will add 2 stops, so you are stuck with a minimum dof of 5.6 at which the lens is sharpest, so you will simply use that. You won't try to increase dof to 16 & show the reality ie. both advertising board & that chap's head in focus, because junta wants to see the chap, not the board. Also if you change from 5.6 to 16, you will fuck up your shutter and won't be able to freezeframe since not enough light. You want atleast 1/2000 sec or so, given the speed at which these balls travel. You can't get that with plain sunlight, you need reflectors & five-six Baby Baby or two-three Baby junior, lots of c stands & sandbags & crew - if you take all that & go, your cricket stadium will start looking like some Kodambakkam set, so ofcourse you won't have all that.

So at 400*1.4 = 560mm, with 5.6 dof, your chap's head will look much closer to that adv board than it is in reality - can't help it. So when you focus on chap, the board will be blurred - also can't help.

Now that chap's head plus ball plus hands plus grass, all are in same focal plane. You understand naina ? Adhu ellam oray plane daan. At that distance, with your 560mm, all these 4 objects are in focus. So there is no faking AMONG those 4 objects. Got that ? You are faking between chap & board, because those are 2 DIFFERENT focal planes, so distance compacted, so fake. But in 1 given focal plane, no faking. So if that chap's ball touches grass and chap's hand touches ball, nothing is fake there - what you are seeing is plain reality. It means the ball fell on the ground, plain & simple. There is no way to fake it with this lens in this setup since they are all in 1 focal plane.

Now, thinking out loud, I can think of two ways to fake it in a different setup and/or different lens.

1. You will need a real plane, I mean aeroplane, helicopter etc. You put the 560mm on the aeroplane, shoot the ball from above ie. aerial shot. Then hand will obscure ball & you can claim there is some faking because distance will be compacted, because if you join the center of ball to your eyepiece in aeroplane above by straight line, all distances compacted along that line due to tele.

2nd way - you stand next to that chap with a fisheye. I mean when that chap is catching the ball, you stand right next to him and hold a 10mm lens set at say 16 dof. Now with a 10 @16, things that are very close will look far far away, so you can claim that ball is not touching ground.

Now both setups I've outlined above are impossibleon cricket field - neither is cameraman on helicopter nor is he standing next to the fielder. So that leaves us with the original setup viz underpaid videographer on stadium boundary holding a 400 with 1.4 tele parallel to field of view at 5.6. In that setup, the picture is entirely honest w.r.t ball+chap, nothing can be faked in that one given focal plane. Ofcourse picture is fake w.r.t chap+board because of 2 different focal planes, but that is not of interest here.

So bottomline andha picture solluvadhu ellam unmai. Ball fell to ground, that is reality. The rest ie. media hype, Karunanidhi, Indian audience, patriotism etc - ellam noise.

Best etc.

mahesh said...


very good explanation. The point is this was first shot in a video camera and then the frame was frozen to c& p as a photo graph. so your assumption is wrong and most of it doesnt hold here.

Anonymous said...

magesh mama,
neenga camcorder-la shoot pannungo, cellphone-la shoot pannungo, no difference. What you have is a RAW still of a AVI, adha web-ukkaga JPG la format pannerkan.

AVI->RAW->JPG has no affine transform. No scaling, no skew, no shear. So distance ratios are invariant. Meaning you scale up the chap's head to his real size, the ball will also scale up to its real size, but so will the grass, hand etc, so ball will still touch the ground.
Why don't you take that picture & show it to a photographer, or better yet, a physics professor at some uni ? He will tell you same thing I told you. Its not a manipulated ie. photoshopped picture, it is a still of a videograb. It is honest because all items in focus ie. ball+hand+chap+grass, are all in 1 focal plane. Doesn't matter if you shoot the still with a camera & animate it with keyframes, or do the reverse ie, shoot pal @25fps & do screengrab to take a still. You will get exact same result. Please do some physics in your spare time, everything will become clear.

mahesh said...

k thatha,

the photo does not show clearly the ball touching the ground. If I zoom and even if there is even 1 nano meter gap between ball and grass, won't that 1 nano cm also increase in scale along with the head, grass, ball etc.

enna thatha summa mangalaana padam kaamichu dabaikkarel.

mahesh said...

k thatha,

antha videograb doopennu periyaval ellarum solraa. neenga athalernthu porikki edutha RAW pathi ellam pesarel. video approximation thaane.

camera is also at an angle from the ball. the focal line between ball and camera is not parallel to the ground. engalukkum vishiyam theriyum aakum. affine transform periya vaarthai ellam solli boochi kaatathengo.

Anonymous said...

Dei mageshu,
naan pesardhu Mechanics and Optics ie. Newtonian dynamics, nee yedho Quantum level la pesarai. If you want accuracy on an atomic scale, you won't find it on a cricket field. You should go to a lab and play cricket under an electron microscope with one proton for cricket bat & electron for cricket ball. You will create some black hole & hopefully get swallowed in it alongwith your muddled logic.
See you don't even need this much depth, you use straightforward 2D analytical geometry. If a conic has a tangent at some point, that tangent is still tangent no matter how you shoot it. Here conic is ball, tangent is grass. No matter how you show it, as long as you don't shear/skew the conic, you are ok.

mahesh said...

K ambi,

If a conic has a tangent at some point, that tangent is still tangent no matter how you shoot it

tangente illainnu solren. nee baatukka tangent tangent solre. what if it is not a tangent. Can you prove it is a tangent?

if video can be reliable only under lab conditions then video is unreliable. enna naan solrathu. amarkalama!

Anonymous said...

mageshu, if videograb is doopu, then ofcourse all bets are off. But that will put this whole busines into conspiracy theory territory. You will need a dishonest cameraman colluding with a dishonest avid guy doing a realtime skew of a videograb all to fake some cricket catch about which they should have known in advance ? Highly dubious.

Ippo nee tangent illai nu solrai. It is not for you to say & me to accept/reject. We are not going to seee if it is a tangent or not by measuring gap between ball & grass using vector calipers. Ellam ballpark estimate. If average guy thinks it looks close enough & umpire concurs, thats it. Unakku apdi padalai naa go to opthamologist, maybe you have hypermetrophia. This is just some stupid cricket game, adukku poi ivlav araichi.

Mahesh said...

dei loose dpi gpi mozha neelathukku comment nee thaane ezhuthine. yen unakku vera velai vetti illaya

I can SEEE said...

ha there u go - take a non popular stand on a popular issue and get some umpteen comments on it LOL!! when wud our white dick sucking mentality go -

Ponting's catch was not grounded?!?! - get yourself some more eyes - u have hawk eyes and still cant see em - god save you!! clarke's catch, watching channel 9 wont get u anywhere - did you see him rolling after he took the catch?!
no one blames aussies for appealing etc in terms of spirits - ponting appeals for a catch he grounded (yes i can see with my eyes) - ok he didnt know he did it in the heat of the moment, but after seeing the replays in the dressing room he comes to press conference and has the guts to scream at a journalist - MORON!!
and whts the problem with aussies when umpires screwed up?!! mmm i wonder why ALWAYS the touring team get bad decisions in AUSTRALIA!! when aussies are touring elsewhere umpires never seem to be in favor of em - did u consider that mr.expert?! and this being the 16th win and the bet amt on that why not an 'investigative journalism' on umpires fixing - stop being a worshipper and see things in perspective!!!

Akhil said...

About the catch by Clarke, Sourav Ganguly has said on TV that he saw the ball did not carry. I am sure his words can be taken seriously.

As for Benson asking Ponting, the video shows Benson asking someone on his right side behind the stumps. Surely, he wouldn't be asking Ganguly and no other Aussie was talking. There was one replay which showed Ponting running towards Clarke just after he had taken the catch. He made a gesture asking Clarke if he had taken the catch. Club this with what Benson did and there's no reason to believe whom Benson asked. Ganguly did not utter a word. He was only looking at Benson for the decision.

Thank you for the log post. Sorry I am not convinced.

BTW, do you also have an explanation on similar lines for Symonds not nicking the ball? I am sure there would be something we common folks don't know.

SeeThisOne said...

Hawkeye, mate, relax! No amount of depth analysis or 2D and 3D will convince people other than your sycophants, for whom this analysis is only next to the theory of relativity!

Get real! The ball was grounded, and we, at the stadium saw the replays that the umpires ignored. Punter was booed out of the ground.

India was defeated by a team of 13. The question of whether India would have won the match if there was a better umpire can be debated and I would not want to be drawn into that.

We are ashamed by what Punter and his boys did. We don't give a rat's ass about the umpires. I am really amused by your tribe, especially 'rakish' who seems to be frothing at the mouth defending you from the real world. May the 2 of you live happily for ever...

chengayan said...

Hey Hawkeye,

your loyalty to Ponting & co is amazing. You always dont begin to argue your case talking about the 'happenings'.You begin your arguments by stating all the reactions (half of them may be stupid)to the 'happenings'. You drag a stupid Siddhu in to it and flag him, flay the over reactions of the indian media and then build your case.Very clever indeed. But not every one will be taken in by your amazing arguments.

Even Ponting admitted that Benson asked him, and he signalled Ganguly out.In the light of the stupid pact between him and Kumble i see nothing wrong in Ponting accepting his fielder's word and saying the catch was clean. But u come out and say, Ponting may have given the signal to someone else and did it after Benson gave Ganguly out.comeon man get a life!

As per your view that the aussies did nothing wrong and only jingoistic indians and the stupid indian media were raising a furore, i would like to ask u some qs.

If the aussies did nothing wrong, why a very respected cricket writer calls for Ponting's head?

why so many former aussie players have condemned thier own team.

why even australian legends of different sports, belonging to hall of fame have said the aussie team have to change the on field behaviour?
Why Ponting and co thinks it is their birth right to abuse others by dragging the mother's, sisters and wives of thier opposing players and no one should retaliate?

What happened TO Mr.Ponting's 'If the umpires heard nothing whatever happens on the field stays on the field?
Why Mr.Ponting who can do no wrong according to u, has come out and said they could have done things differently given another chance?

Why Mr.Ponting is not reacting the same way to all that is being said by his own media and sporting legends, as he reacted in response to Sunny's call for better behavour ? Is he scared he may lose his job?

Why do u think indian players and public should not feel outraged by the the way the ICC hearing was conducted? Stupid Procter himself accepted the umpires did not hear anything.Neither ther were able to provide any footage,audio or video, to prove thier cliam.I did not expect stupid Procter to beleive the word of Sachin.I expected that he would ask the aussies some concrete proof.Nothing of that sort seem to have happened.Yet he comes out and say one group was telling the truth and he is satisfied beyond doubt(!!!) that Harbajan abused the aussie in racial way.His way of conducting the trial would be laughed out of any court.

Let me come to Mr.Angel Gilchrist.
In a TV interview the so called gentlemen says, he did not know wheather Dravid nicked the ball but was only appealling to Umpire cause he had a doubt.But if u see the footage u can clearly see he was not appealing but celebrating by throwing the ball in the air.So much for MR Clean Gilly.

And why Mr.Procter did not seem it fit to punish Mr.Ponting when he claimed a catch when he was actually using the ball as a suport to get up from the ground.Did not the same man punish the then paki skipper Rashid for claiming a bump ball? Does he think the aussies have a god given right to cheat and not others?
May be you think all the australians having a go at Mr.Ponting & co, have signed some meaty commercial contracts with India and scared they may lose it, and talking trash?

Next I am expecting u to come out and say that Ponting is saying what he is saying because he is scared he may lose a couple of indian commercial contracts!
When defending Mr Ponting, it seems anything goes for u.

Rakesh said...


thanks for the mention mate.

we, at the stadium saw the replays that the umpires ignored

I love you. Replays in stadiums are apparently not video according to you.

Maybe we can even allow spectators to adjudicate on all catches and LBW. Maybe everytime they jump on a bump catch. we should give out! what say!?

readers of any blog are intelligent. at least hawkeye got a few talking about videos and pact. nobody else did.

Cricket said...

What happened at Sydney is a complex issue to comprehend, but the Indian media definitely did its best confuse matters further. There was an interesting article on this theme on cricinfo today.
Your video analysis was quite impressive, and so was the fact that you finally took the view that the Indian media is going too far with it's views. Again, the article on cricinfo today was right on the money - check it out.

Priya said...

This article reminds me of a friends wife - contradicting everyone else's views is the best way to get attention.

Your page got more hits (and some sorry comments) than you are probably used to ...so congratulations!!

Hawkeye said...

anti and akshil,

while listing several possibilities I also listed the possibility of benson asking ponting and ended the post with questions on the scope of the pact.

when writing this post I had not seen the interview but regardless i have handled that scenario also.

Anonymous said...

So much for our sportsmanship, recall our tour to England. Granted the jellybeans was English's fault but our attitue and body language in the tour was like of barberian, especially Sreesanth.

If Clarke is a cheat, how about our ODI captain, Dhoni?


Anonymous said...

Few points on your post
" 3-d becomes 1d... " on photograph > No it dosent.

Your argument through the question, 'can u tell the distance between poting and adv...'
> if the photograph is taken from an angle perpendicular to the line to be seen, distance can be approximated. Difficulty arises only when photogrph is taken in the same line which we are trying to measure. That is the difference and flaw in your argument. Vertical distance between ball and ground can be judged at this angle.
(it will be difficult if it was a google image..i have not been very articulate but i hope u get the point)

There are other obvious mistakes as wellin your argument, and I ma really surprised how can u be so rude and condescending at other people in your posts while u yourself have got it all wrong.

Very disappointing.

Mike said...

Nice Blog
I need a help !!!!!!!!!
I need a details about Business India visa .what will be charge for that and procedure.

sexy said...







Anonymous said...