Buchanan was right (partly)

[rickyp]

firstly, this is not my post, i take nil credit for any of it. This was created and originally published by Beatnik off the bigfooty forums. I read it and immediately asked for his permission to read it here, I personally found it a great read. Hopefully you will all be able to take a good read of it too and see a different opinion on a few issues.

once again, this is not my post. Here is a link to the original post: http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=304656

anyway here it is:

having read Sunil Gavaskar's criticisms of Australia's attitude, I was reminded of a prediction by John Buchanan that at the time seemed to me to be a little paranoid and yet several years on, he seems to have been proven (at least partly) correct

first some background...

Buchanan predicted several years ago that Australia were so dominant that the rules of the game would end up being changed (read more)

what actually happened is that the rules changed 'off' the field rather than on

having broken all manner of records, the Aussies were set upon for not being 'nice guys' - their cricket could not be criticised so other teams and a largely-bored cricket media pack started to pick at the smallest things

the Aussies were not tampering with the ball, doctoring or tampering pitches, abusing spectators, walking off the field, forfeiting matches, taking drugs (granted, one took a masking agent) but apparently all of these things were lesser evils than...wait for it...being too self-confident and reminding others of just how good they were

nice guys...

so regardless of the apparent double standard, the Aussies tried to be 'nicer guys', particularly leading into the 2005 Ashes series:

Punter tried to implement an honour system for fielders claiming catches...and were were told to stick it by the newly (and temporarily it turned out) agressive Poms

Gilly pioneered the concept of walking...and was criticised for trying to manipulate umpires

...in short, the Aussies were damned if they did, damned if they didn't

fighting fire with fire...

then we lost The Ashes as the English caught us on the hop with a brand of attacking and aggressive cricket - England were right to be congratulated on playing with such spirit after years of defeat, it was possibly the most exciting series in the past 5-10 years and brought Test cricket alive once more

* when Collingwood clashed with Hayden, he was described as brave and assertive;

* when Harmison hit Langer repeatedly, the world applauded the tough, uncompromising brand of cricket being played;

* when Pietersen talked trash to the Aussies, the bleating masses admired his pluck;

* when Fletcher baited Punter in the press; he was simply being a masterful tactician

the aftermath...

I hear you ask, was there any respect or compassion shown to the vanquished 'nice guy' Aussies who lost the Ashes but made a few new 'mates'?

other than Freddie Flintoff there was none of course - only weeks of excessive celebrations, premature predictions of the Aussie demise and claims of a new era of English cricket...the world joyously tap-danced on the supposed grave of Australian cricket dominance ( )

across the world, the Aussies were called soft; some players were said to be too 'chummy' with the enemy; Ponting's captaincy was questioned - apparently the Aussies had taken their collective eye off the ball and were too concerned with the niceties of the game rather than winning

hook. line. sinker.

double standards...

so Ponting went on a mission to turn his team into a hard, mean Test-winning machine and mentally devastated a new generation of English cricketers Down Under but were the Australians similarly applauded for their attacking, uncompromising cricket?

hell no, instead one of the ICC official representatives - that racist little teapot Sunil Gavaskar - has slipped back into sad and childish sniping of the world champions

he has made no criticisms of Pakistan protecting drug cheats, ball tamperers and pitch doctorers; no condemnation of the disturbing English lack of team spirit this summer; nothing on the appalling comments by one H. Gibbs (which incidentally seem to have been modelled on Sunil's own published racial steretypes); nothing about the bitterly divisive inner (and often outer) turmoil his favoured Indians have experienced in the past two years

but he has found time to dust off that old chestnut, "the Aussies call me names", just prior to a World Cup campaign! his timing is so poor as to be comical - India's political power within the ICC obviously means he can make innappropriate comments without fear of being called to account for his conflict-of-interest

as I said, Buchanan was partly right - the cricket world did move the goal posts but it was insidous and petty rather than transparently progressive

I hope that Punter and co. do not fall for the 'be a nice guy' trap again -as long as they play within the rules of the game, results are all that matter

* steps down from soap box *

 

[smssia0112]

What an interesting and true post, thanks for posting it on here, I can't stand half the stuff posted on BF, but it's good to see there are some decent posters on there. Agree with every word, I've said it before and I'll say it again; people hate Australia because they're good.

 

[The_gas]

Good read.

 

[sohum]

What an interesting and true post...

And what exactly is the definition of true? :

It was good to read an Australian perspective on the event that actually made sense, though I do not agree with many parts of it.

 

[rickyp]

care to name them, and actually prove why they arent true please

 

[sohum]

care to name them, and actually prove why they arent true please

No, it's not really my hobby regurgitating arguments that have been floating around the forum in every single Australia vs. Rest of the Cricket World thread.

 

[smssia0112]

And what exactly is the definition of true? :

It was good to read an Australian perspective on the event that actually made sense, though I do not agree with many parts of it.

It rings true to me. If you have an opinion then either share it or don't, don't just say you disagree with something then not elaborate. That's a pointless post.

 

[YOTC]

Told you they wouldn't appreciate it enough..

 

[sohum]

first some background...

Buchanan predicted several years ago that Australia were so dominant that the rules of the game would end up being changed (read more)

what actually happened is that the rules changed 'off' the field rather than on

having broken all manner of records, the Aussies were set upon for not being 'nice guys' - their cricket could not be criticised so other teams and a largely-bored cricket media pack started to pick at the smallest things

This is largely hypothetical. There's actually no way to prove how the media works--it is almost anarchy. To assume a cause and effect relationship between Australia's on-field success, on field behavior and the opinions people formed on them is, in my opinion, just an attempt at trying to infer victimization. It's not like Australia have been banned as rude on-field overnight. If you care to do some research, Australian sides of the past have a tendency of carrying too much aggression into their game. It reflects in their on field performance and there is absolutely no argument against the fact that they are that damn good, but that is not the point that is being argued.

the Aussies were not tampering with the ball, doctoring or tampering pitches, abusing spectators, walking off the field, forfeiting matches, taking drugs (granted, one took a masking agent) but apparently all of these things were lesser evils than...wait for it...being too self-confident and reminding others of just how good they were

I do believe an instance or two of match fixing has been shoved under the carpet. Again, there is an inference being made (and it is by no means backed up by solid proof, but by more inferences) that teams overnight decided to go after the Aussies' on field behavior. It's a conspiracy theory at best--perhaps the other 9 test nations and the ICC had secret meetings and unfurled an elaborate plans to bring down the Oz machine.

Gilly pioneered the concept of walking...and was criticised for trying to manipulate umpires

He is inferring that Gilchrist decided, in what seems to be an urgent defense meeting called by Cricket Australia, that he would do his bit by walking. I do not agree. I think you are born with this characteristic of honesty and, one could also say, sportsmanship. You will notice that most supporters around the world do not dislike Gilchrist. They admire him. They adore him. It is also an eyebrow-raising point that Gilchrist, in this regard, stands out of the Australian team.

...in short, the Aussies were damned if they did, damned if they didn't

Really, Australia seem to be at the wrong end of the stick in every cricketing issue.

then we lost The Ashes as the English caught us on the hop with a brand of attacking and aggressive cricket - England were right to be congratulated on playing with such spirit after years of defeat, it was possibly the most exciting series in the past 5-10 years and brought Test cricket alive once more

* when Collingwood clashed with Hayden, he was described as brave and assertive;

* when Harmison hit Langer repeatedly, the world applauded the tough, uncompromising brand of cricket being played;

* when Pietersen talked trash to the Aussies, the bleating masses admired his pluck;

* when Fletcher baited Punter in the press; he was simply being a masterful tactician

This is one part I agree with, mainly because I am in no position to comment about it (seeing that I didn't really follow the Ashes closely). Though it seems that most of the comments reproduced here seem to have come from a sampling of the media that was highly concentrated in English tabloids--people who evidently had got tired of bagging their own team as they lost to the Aussies over and over again.

the aftermath...

I hear you ask, was there any respect or compassion shown to the vanquished 'nice guy' Aussies who lost the Ashes but made a few new 'mates'?

Right. So although it isn't outrightly stated, a strong suggestion is made that the Australians lost the Ashes because they had given up their aggression.

other than Freddie Flintoff there was none of course - only weeks of excessive celebrations, premature predictions of the Aussie demise and claims of a new era of English cricket...the world joyously tap-danced on the supposed grave of Australian cricket dominance ( )

The world against Australia, again. It's funny how no other country comes to the support of Australia. Not even their buddies who seem to be the ones bent on "countering the Asian bloc".

across the world, the Aussies were called soft; some players were said to be too 'chummy' with the enemy; Ponting's captaincy was questioned - apparently the Aussies had taken their collective eye off the ball and were too concerned with the niceties of the game rather than winning

I guess the Indian media glossed over all of this. Perhaps it wouldn't have made good reading. Ponting's captaincy has been questioned. I question it, myself. Many neutral and non-neutral users on this forum have questioned his captaincy. This just builds on the conspiracy theory.

hook. line. sinker.

double standards...

so Ponting went on a mission to turn his team into a hard, mean Test-winning machine and mentally devastated a new generation of English cricketers Down Under but were the Australians similarly applauded for their attacking, uncompromising cricket?

Ah! Ponting to the rescue. It's a shame Australians have to resort to "mental devastation" when they show they have so much talent. They produced the best batsman in the world--Don Bradman. They produced (arguably) the best bowling pair in the world--McGrath and Warne. Yet, it seems they need to use "mental devastation" to turn into a hard, mean Test-winning machine. Also, this mental devastation isn't quite mental. The West Indies of the 20th century used mental devastation. It doesn't matter how many accounts you take of players who played against them--there was an air of intimidation with almost no physical interaction.

hell no, instead one of the ICC official representatives - that racist little teapot Sunil Gavaskar - has slipped back into sad and childish sniping of the world champions

Love the metaphor. It must be true.

he has made no criticisms of Pakistan protecting drug cheats, ball tamperers and pitch doctorers; no condemnation of the disturbing English lack of team spirit this summer; nothing on the appalling comments by one H. Gibbs (which incidentally seem to have been modelled on Sunil's own published racial steretypes); nothing about the bitterly divisive inner (and often outer) turmoil his favoured Indians have experienced in the past two years

This is an interesting paragraph. Not only is it factually incorrect at times (Gavaskar did in fact comment on the Gibbs issue in an Indian newspaper, saying that he deserved what he got) but it is also assuming that Gavaskar is a media-whore. As Chairman of ICC's Cricket Committee, Gavaskar is supposed to make sure that cricket is being played correctly and in the correct spirit.

As for the Gavaskar issue, I'm divided. I believe this is a good read. I won't say it's true though, since everyone is entitled to their own opinion, regardless of whether they want to go through and prove it or not.

I hope that Punter and co. do not fall for the 'be a nice guy' trap again -as long as they play within the rules of the game, results are all that matter

And, magically, at the end of the post he highlights the very basis of everyone's angst with Australia. Winning is not everything. How you win is also important.

It rings true to me. If you have an opinion then either share it or don't, don't just say you disagree with something then not elaborate. That's a pointless post.

And on a final note, my problem is not with your opinion (or your attitude, for that matter, even though I may make sarcastic remarks regarding both). My main problem in this thread is your assumption that what is clearly an opinion is true. Truth is not a matter of opinion.

 

[smssia0112]

As I said, it rang true to me. Just because I said it's true doesn't mean the whole world has to stop and agree, everything on this forum is an opinion, not a statement, anything someone says is their opinion and that's why this is a forum.

You make some very good arguments there, some I agree with, I will respond to them a bit later when I have more time.

 

[symonds_sixes]

That article is 1000% true, I applaud that guy who wrote that, someone needed to say it.

And, magically, at the end of the post he highlights the very basis of everyone's angst with Australia. Winning is not everything. How you win is also important.

Actually winning is everything in Australian culture. It's a very successful attitude. I hate when people say they play to have fun, I think you'll agree that you have more fun when you're winning. This is why Australia have been so dominant because they'll do everything (within the rule book) to win. Maybe if countries like India adopted this strategy they might actually become world champions rather than being a middle of the table cricketing nation like they have been since their inception

 

[rickyp]

Great post Sohummisra, hopefully more people can follow both sohum and the poster from bigfooty and create some more quality.

Sohum, the only reason I asked for a reason instead of just stating disagreement was because I'm sick and tired of people just saying they disagree, it doesnt lead anywhere and doesnt help the conversation one bit.

 

[sohum]

That article is 1000% true, I applaud that guy who wrote that, someone needed to say it.

It isn't true. Half of what he said is not infallibly provable. He also included statements that were plainly incorrect. If you are going to look over all this and claim the article is true, you might as well go back to thinking the world is flat.

Actually winning is everything in Australian culture. It's a very successful attitude. I hate when people say they play to have fun, I think you'll agree that you have more fun when you're winning. This is why Australia have been so dominant because they'll do everything (within the rule book) to win. Maybe if countries like India adopted this strategy they might actually become world champions rather than being a middle of the table cricketing nation like they have been since their inception

Did you read my final points? I don't argue at all that Australia are very successful at what they do. But they have, in the process, lost the very nuances of the game that made it gentlemanly. Gentlemen don't insult each other whilst playing a game of cricket. Things definitely will change given the money going into cricket but if we have to resort to the Australian's behavior to be top in the world, I'd rather live forever in mediocrity.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

I agree with quite a bit of it, expect Suni Gavaskar. He is the most non-racist commentator/expert I have seen!
That, and the Aussies are more than just agressive at times. I mean, picking on young debutants when you have the greatest bowlers in the world in your team? Why do you need to do that?

 

[sputnik]

This is largely hypothetical. There's actually no way to prove how the media works--it is almost anarchy. To assume a cause and effect relationship between Australia's on-field success, on field behavior and the opinions people formed on them is, in my opinion, just an attempt at trying to infer victimization. It's not like Australia have been banned as rude on-field overnight. If you care to do some research, Australian sides of the past have a tendency of carrying too much aggression into their game. It reflects in their on field performance and there is absolutely no argument against the fact that they are that damn good, but that is not the point that is being argued.

i think your mistake is a lack of understanding of how the media work - once upon a time I would have agreed more with your chaos theory model of the media/reality relationship

however, when the modern media are reporting news, then you might be right but there has been a shift towards sensationalism and adversarial journalism - in simple terms this means that concentrated, monopolistic media behemoths like NewsCorp seeks to set the news agenda rather than report it

therefore it can be concluded that the media are not an objective reporter of news but have an agenda to the way they frame newsworthy events - that agenda is of course...circulation

there are few sales in the boring routine of covering Australia thumping all and sundry - there are many sales in creating controversy and that is exactly the angle that 'the media' have taken

by creating and then focusing on the controversy surrounding the 'way' the Australian team plays rather than the results they achieved, they create news where there was none

did you follow all that?

I do believe an instance or two of match fixing has been shoved under the carpet. Again, there is an inference being made (and it is by no means backed up by solid proof, but by more inferences) that teams overnight decided to go after the Aussies' on field behavior. It's a conspiracy theory at best--perhaps the other 9 test nations and the ICC had secret meetings and unfurled an elaborate plans to bring down the Oz machine.

the use of the term conspiracy theory is a cop out - at no stage have I said there was a coordinated plan by either the ICC or other nations to characterise the Australians in this way

I quite clearly defined the motive/agenda as belonging to the news agencies around the world - opposition team captains just jumped on board when the opportunity arose to land a few punches on a team which has been so dominant for so long that they have redefined the way the game is played

He is inferring that Gilchrist decided, in what seems to be an urgent defense meeting called by Cricket Australia, that he would do his bit by walking. I do not agree. I think you are born with this characteristic of honesty and, one could also say, sportsmanship. You will notice that most supporters around the world do not dislike Gilchrist. They admire him. They adore him. It is also an eyebrow-raising point that Gilchrist, in this regard, stands out of the Australian team.

you have misrepresented me - possibly deliberately

at no stage did I imply Gilchrist's actions were a cynical attempt to paint the Aussies in a better light - you alone made that association

evidence of Gilchrist being criticised for his sportsmanship is on the public record and my entire point is that his altruistic approach to the issue of walking has been turned against him as part of a groundswell of criticism of the Aussie team's attitude

if he played for any other nation he would be lauded in the same way that Freddy was for his empathetic actions with Brett Lee when the 2005 Ashes were won

if anything, your comments re: Gilly reinforce my point

This is one part I agree with, mainly because I am in no position to comment about it (seeing that I didn't really follow the Ashes closely). Though it seems that most of the comments reproduced here seem to have come from a sampling of the media that was highly concentrated in English tabloids--people who evidently had got tired of bagging their own team as they lost to the Aussies over and over again.

i accept your point that you have not consumed enough media to make an informed judgement - i have consumed a lot of media on the topic, and that is why i felt comfortable publishing my theory in the first place

aren't you a little embarrassed admitting that the theory is wrong and then admitting that you don't have enough background to pass comment??

Right. So although it isn't outrightly stated, a strong suggestion is made that the Australians lost the Ashes because they had given up their aggression.

wrong. i suggested that prior to the Ashes, the Aussies were not judged on their results but criticised for not being 'nice guys as though the way of winning was more important than winning itself

then when they lost (for many reasons including poor preparation, complacency and stiff opposition) they were not paid any credit for being 'nice guys' simply that

if you cannot see this double standard then there is little else I can do to help you comprehend the original post

The world against Australia, again. It's funny how no other country comes to the support of Australia. Not even their buddies who seem to be the ones bent on "countering the Asian bloc".

read the post again - i did not say it was the world against Australia...simply that the tall poppy syndrome had led to the Australians being held accountable to a different set of criteria given the small hope of winning on the field of play

i can't help but think you are being deliberately obtuse

I guess the Indian media glossed over all of this. Perhaps it wouldn't have made good reading. Ponting's captaincy has been questioned. I question it, myself. Many neutral and non-neutral users on this forum have questioned his captaincy. This just builds on the conspiracy theory.

I have already dealt with this issue - you mustn't digest much cricket content outside of India

let's put it in terms you might be more familiar with...

Gavaskar has seen fit to slander the Australian cricket mentality once they returned to their hard nose approach but made no comments when the Aussies were in 'nice guy' mode leading up to the 2005 Ashes

Ah! Ponting to the rescue. It's a shame Australians have to resort to "mental devastation" when they show they have so much talent. They produced the best batsman in the world--Don Bradman. They produced (arguably) the best bowling pair in the world--McGrath and Warne. Yet, it seems they need to use "mental devastation" to turn into a hard, mean Test-winning machine. Also, this mental devastation isn't quite mental. The West Indies of the 20th century used mental devastation. It doesn't matter how many accounts you take of players who played against them--there was an air of intimidation with almost no physical interaction.

how does that relate to my point?

so Ponting went on a mission to turn his team into a hard, mean Test-winning machine and mentally devastated a new generation of English cricketers Down Under but were the Australians similarly applauded for their attacking, uncompromising cricket?

wtf are you on about?

Love the metaphor. It must be true.

i guess if you cant argue the issue, you resort to faint sarcasm

This is an interesting paragraph. Not only is it factually incorrect at times (Gavaskar did in fact comment on the Gibbs issue in an Indian newspaper, saying that he deserved what he got) but it is also assuming that Gavaskar is a media-whore. As Chairman of ICC's Cricket Committee, Gavaskar is supposed to make sure that cricket is being played correctly and
in the correct spirit.

so by only pointing out that he commented on Gibbs, you accept that he made no comment on the "criticisms of Pakistan protecting drug cheats, ball tamperers and pitch doctorers; no condemnation of the disturbing English lack of team spirit this summer; nothing about the bitterly divisive inner (and often outer) turmoil his favoured Indians have experienced in the past two years"

and no, Sunil is doing nothing to ensure the game is played with the 'right spirit' or he would have commented on the other issues rather than attempt to influence the outcome of the WC by attacking the reigning champions to advantage his own preferred team (not that it amounted to much)

Gavaskar's innappropriate comments regarding the Australian team and later his despicable comments regarding the tragic loss of David Hookes have done more to bring the game into disrepute than any amount of sledging on field

As for the Gavaskar issue, I'm divided. I believe this is a good read. I won't say it's true though, since everyone is entitled to their own opinion, regardless of whether they want to go through and prove it or not.

another cop out - the post you saw fir to reference uses the fact that some ex-pat Saffas abused the South Africans and the comments of a long-ex player to characterise the Aussie cricket team as poor 'sports'

let me get this straight - when Sunil does it he is not representing the Indian cricket team but when Deano does it, he is representing the Aussie team

you can't argue it both ways my friend

And, magically, at the end of the post he highlights the very basis of everyone's angst with Australia. Winning is not everything. How you win is also important.

talk about missing the point!

my entire point was that the 'how you win' theory is a ruse designed to salve the wounds of losing teams being consistently thumped on the field by the Asussies...

...if it actually mattered, people like you would have appluaded the Aussies for their 'spirit of the game' efforts and defended the Aussies against criticism of caring too much about the niceties of the game

either you fundamentally misunderstood the major part of my post or you are cynically interpreting it to perpetuate the myth that the Aussies are somehow unworthy winners to ease your angst at their dominance of your own team

i know which way i lean but i'll each individual poster make up their own mind about your motivation

And on a final note, my problem is not with your opinion (or your attitude, for that matter, even though I may make sarcastic remarks regarding both). My main problem in this thread is your assumption that what is clearly an opinion is true. Truth is not a matter of opinion.

and yet you are happy to present your own opinions as truth???

ffs, stop hiding behind sanctimonious pedantry and abstraction - at no stage did i present my theory as an objective truth, just my observations of a series of double standards in the public discourse surrounding the cricketing nations

if 99% of people said it rang true then great - if it didn't for you then that's also great...you are entitled to that opinion

i am also entitled to my opinion that your arguments lacked rigour and coherence

peace
beatnik