Response to: Second Test: Murali Vijay plunders a century as Aussies wilt in the heat

Read article

Forget the DRS - that is a debate for another time. The lack of DRS is no excuse for pathetic umpiring. The ICC really need to look at why countries are producing such poor umpires. The English umpire is quite a joke. His decisions have been consistently incorrect and against India. It took me back to the “good ole’ days” when we had totally biased home team umpires. I can understand the one-eyed Australian media and public being unable to be blunt about this but most of us know that the 1st test was spoiled by the umpiring and India lost a game that theirs for the taking.

What astounded me was to see the same English umpire back on the field today (for the second test)!!!! How do the ICC manage corrupt umpiring? There were 4 obvious decisions that were wrong in that game and not only were they all against India but they were critical decisions. 3 of India's top order batsmen were given out incorrectly and Australia's only batsmen was given a second go. I can excuse an umpire not giving an LBW when there is some doubt, but giving one when it isn't out, is inexcusable - I guess some of you arm-chair viewers will be unable to comprehend that concept.

I remember the good ole' days when the Aussie media used to slander the umpiring in the subcontinent, when the umpiring in Australia was so much worse (That's why most Aussie top-order-batmen were never given LBW here and most opponent batsmen were). It is not surprising that since umpiring became "professional" and statistics maintained on the quality of decisions, it is the sub-continental umpires who have proven best time and time again. Their pay-eligibility/scale should be dependent on the quality of their performance

A simple solution,  that will increase the pressure on cheating umpires is that, whenever a batsmen is given out, review the decision automatically and maintain a limit for the bowling side to review decisions that are not given out (as they do now).

Commenter

Cockeyed Observer

Date and time

December 17, 2014, 10:32PM

Response to: Boxing Day Test 2014: Ryan Harris back as Aussies relish Indians' whingeing

Read article

Give an immature, naive country kid captaincy and it becomes quite noticeable when they stand up against the more worldly skippers like Dhoni. Skippers usually let the young guns do the dirty work - unfortunately in the Aussie case, the skipper is a young gun - does nothing for international respect. But then, Michael Clarke was no different.

Commenter

Cockeyed Observer

Date and time

December 26, 2014, 12:48AM

Did Cricket Australia’s strategy go horribly wrong

Anyone who has been watching the international cricket this summer would have noticed the difference in the Aussie pitches this year. They are far more bouncy than before. It is no coincidence that the world cup is here and that the final will be played at the MCG. The MCG pitch has been changed so much for this final that we had some of the commentators refer to it as a “slab of concrete”!!

Aussies have historically maintained a home team advantage by having bouncy pitches, arguably the worst in the world. However, with bounce, so comes danger. So we are used to seeing 3 and 4 day tests in Australia and think none of it. We also see sub-continental players breaking arms and fingers at the WACA and attribute it to brilliant, aggressive bowling.

Statistically the Aussie pitches are outliers and therefore arguably the worst in the world. Not to be confused with statements made by players about the “grounds being great”. The facilities for the players and spectators are great and the spectacle itself, is great. However, that is not a reflection of the pitch itself.

All nations adopt some form of strategy to gain home advantage. The Aussie strategy has proven to be much better than the others as it is a real challenge for a touring team to play on these wickets as proven time and time again by the 3 day tests played over here. However, the strategy does have an element of danger associated with it.On one hand, one could argue that Aussie batsmen are used to the bouncy wickets and therefore there is less danger to them, but on the other hand, it could be argued that, there are a whole lot more Aussie batsmen batting on them and therefore the chances of such an injury is greater.

The Phil Hughes tragedy could very well be the outcome of the CA strategy for the world cup. However, it might have provided the opportunity to make these outrageous pitches safer for other nations.

Safer pitches or more Aussie wins and an advantage in the world cup – I guess, knowing the Aussie psyche, it’s a no brainer.

Response to: Adelaide set to host emotional Test opener

Read Article

Haven’t we become one of the most self-pitying societies? If this had happened to any other country, we would be calling them wimps (the tough guys that we are) for not playing and making statements like "the best thing for them to get over this is to play the test". We are a bunch of totally self-centred, insular hypocrites.
In our typical arrogant manner, we think that the reason that other countries are empathising with us is because WE are such great people. Let me suggest that on the contrary, the reason they empathise is because THEY are considerate, great people. If something similar had happened to a sub-continental player with a few tests under their belt, we wouldn't even have known about it - I'm told that this has, in fact happened and yes, we didn't care a damn.
We need to take a real good look at ourselves! Maybe CA and the rest of us could learn a thing or two from the Indian team and the approach they are taking about this matter. If it had been the other way around, one can just imagine the arrogance and incentive crude behaviour we could expect from the Aussies,. Can't say we are renown for our diplomacy within the cricket world (or without for that matter!).

Commenter

Cockeyed Observer

Date and time

December 01, 2014, 11:21PM

All grandioso statements and threats from the Wallaby coach

Read article

More feeble threats and grandioso statements from the Cheika. I guess when you have one of the worst tours, one has a tendency to get into this sort of nonsense.

Clearly Cheika cannot be held totally accountable for the results of this tour and in many ways it’s probably a good outcome for the Wallabies. If they had done well, they would have become even more arrogant (if that is at all possible).

What puzzles me is that, it is world renown that our scrum is our fundamental weakness. Rather than focussing on fixing this, Cheika steps right into the politics and brings Beale back into the game! The backs are still competitive (although not as dominant as during some of the “golden” eras) and if at all Beale makes them worse. Cheika should get his mind out of the politics and focus on coaching, and in particular, the problem in the forwards.

Beale was a total waste of time in both the last games. As I predicted, Cheika made the political decision to fly him (first class no doubt) all the way to UK to play in the team and make a lacklustre contribution. Unfortunately, for the next few years, he is going to be defending his decision, so Beale will be an automatic selection in the team. Otherwise the public will laugh at him (those who are not already) for unnecessarily bringing the game to disrepute and making some of the more fair minded people cringe! That’s the behaviour of a proud, arrogant coach!

It was laughable to see Genia on the bench and Nic “I ve-gotten-two-invisible-balls-under-my-armpits-and-I-will-pick-a-fight-regardless-of-my-size” white on the field. Nick Phipps was just two slow, and was trapped over and over again.

I guess it’s tough to be a coach with a “we are mates” approach and not fill the national side with your mates from the state team you coach. Particularly when you coach the wealthiest Super 15 team and can buy any player you want. So you think you already have the best players!

Cooper has his weaknesses, but I felt the Wallaby backs looked particularly dangerous in attack when he was out there and it was a matter of inches in passes that made the difference between scoring and missing out. Just don’t think Rob pony-tail Horne is fast enough to be a winger and that might have made the difference on that great Folau pass.

I felt that the Wallaby backs still out played what was put against them by the Northern hemisphere teams. The Wallaby teams off-loads were creating havoc in the opposition defence. However, the forwards were out played in pretty much every facet of the game and our kicking game needs to improve significantly.

The English teams tactics were somewhat like their soccer teams - Kick the ball into the box and hopefully one of your attackers will head it in. Similarly, here we had the Gary Owens with the hope that the Wallabies might stuff up and unfortunately we did oblige! Not surprisingly, the English had no intension of playing the game in their half.

There was some criticism of the Wallabies running the ball, but I’m not sure that we should be too harsh on the team on that front. One only scores tries when one has possession of the ball – this is very much an All-Blacks philosophy. We have a pretty good running game and so we should use it! It will always be tough to beat the Northern Hemisphere teams playing their style of rugby.

It’s gonna be a tough 11 months and it will be quite difficult to back the wallabies going all the way at the world cup. There are so many issues to sort out – some of them requiring political will. The leadership, the forwards capabilities and techniques, the lack of talent and a pool and of course the demi-god status we are giving idiots like Beale.

We will simply have to wait and see!

Response to: Kangaroos' 16-12 win over England saves Australia's Four Nations hopes

Read article

The Aussie win-at-all-costs mentality brings another victory! A great team effort one would have to say - that is a Team-Australia effort - which of course included more than the men in Aussie jerseys!!

Anyone who's watched the NRL knows that the referees are totally political beings. Which part of the 4 nations organisation decided that it was a good idea to have Aussie refs?! It must have been the commercial area. Keep the Aussies in the running - MONEY!!

Are the Aussie players embarrassed that they needed the referees help to remain in the competition??. No, the Aussie mentality is quite different, we all know that.

It's no different to cricket or any other sport, we used to like criticising sub-continental umpires for being biased but never noticed ours being even worse. But it helped us win, so it didn't matter - Aussie top order batsmen were never given out LBW and some of the run-out decisions were simply appalling - but all of that never gets into the record books.

In a few weeks time we might be the 4 nations champions. Are we gonna worry about the fact that we got there because the referees cheated?! I'd love to see just one Aussie player come out and say that it really was a try. The typical win-at-all-coast mentality is to simply say, it was a referees decision, we have no say in the matter.

No doubt, we will have an article by some former coach or player putting forward some typical dumb logic (as we so often get from them), to explain why it wasn't a try.

Love to see what penalty will be dished out to the ref who knowingly made an incorrect ruling to change the outcome of the game and tournament. I suspect - EL-ZIPPO!!

Commenter

CockeyedObserver

Date and time

November 03, 2014, 8:54AM

In response to: “We've been dealing with world's most dangerous jihadis for decades”

see article

"This would present a more unstable and volatile nuclear threat than the Communist regimes of the Soviet Union and China at the height of the Cold War". This statement alone, suggests that this article is written from the perspective of the White-supremacy-Gung-ho-Saxon-crusader "mob" (I guess I should explain myself – most of the phrase is self-explanatory except for, perhaps, the Gung-ho-Saxon part, which I use to refer to nations with predominantly Anglo Saxon stock, in particular the US, GB and Australia, who charge into wars in the most Gung-ho fashion – an “axis” that is struggling to maintain the power structures of old.). It suggests that it was the "Commie bastards" who were creating instability whilst the peace loving '"Angelic capitalists" were the poor victims - awwww didums!

Sure, if an attempt to take 3 billion people out of poverty and breaking the shackles that the white-supremacy-gung-ho-Saxon-crusader "mob" had on the world's trade and economies is considered to be instability, then, it was instability that was justified- a good thing. But I can understand the mob being incapable of understanding or agreeing to that.

Whilst people love to suggest that the middle East has been unstable for aeons, it has been no more unstable than Western-Europe. The instability in it's current form is the result of the mob's interference and intellectually inept decisions, based on a book that is many thousands of years old – Another view that will not be accepted by the mob. The mob do not take responsibility for creating instability, all they have ever wanted was to do good to everyone!!

The Middle-East will continue to be unstable until the "mob" stops interfering and there is an even balance in power between the majority of the region rather than a minority that is funded,armed and propped-up by the "mob". It is not sustainable that a minority remain in control of a region.

Maybe the solution to the area is a single Caliphate lead by a nuclear powered Iran. There will be a level playing field which invariably stops the bullying and abuse that has been inflicted for 400 years by the "mob". Oooops!! What an outrageous suggestion!!! Breaking the shackles of the mob has always been liberating for billions, as was the case with WWII.

Extreme-right-wing-Zionist propaganda!

Cockeyed Observer

Date and time

November 24, 2014, 9:28AM

PS: The censorship of Fairfax on their comments was frustrating me. So,  I decided I would return to my own blog – one that I have neglected for awhile. What follows is a comment that was rejected (not surprisingly, I might add) by Fairfax.