You think Ponting exhibits better sportsmanship than Sachin?
I know I didn't say that, but I will have to say that Ponting isn't a good person to compare with Sachin (in simpler terms, Sachin has shown more sportsmanship than Ponting)
sohummisra added 27 Minutes and 9 Seconds later...
The very reason this discussion is even continuing is because I did see them. Besides, your response has nothing to do with what I said. What part of my comment are you responding to? This is what I said: "If that is what he did, I can assure you that he would have been fined, as players of all reputations have been fined when showing dissent at an umpire's decision. Hence, it is pretty obvious to me that you are seeing what you want to believe, and not what has actually occurred." Are you arguing that players have not been fined at showing dissent at an umpire's decision? If Sachin was indeed showing dissent, then I argue that he would definitely have been fined. And hence my conclusion follows. In the future, why don't you actually read what you're responding to.
How am I suppoused to know why Sachin didn't get fined? Maybe he didn't get fined because the last time he got fined (for excessive appealing) and a suspension for ball tampering, the Indian media, fans, and parliament threw a huge fit although TV cameras clearly captured Sachin ball tampering.
Me and you all saw what he did. Lets simply agree on this. He should not AT ALL have done it, the end.
I'm not the one making assumptions. You're the one who has only brought up examples from this series. I'm only drawing conclusions based on what has been presented to me.
Well, it was the most recent series, so I was under the impression that we would all remember it (and therefore it was a decent-enough example to use)
Of course, the bat pointing should have had nothing to do with the appeal system
Which one? The "showing his index finger" from the dressing room incident? I agree that he probably shouldn't have done that but that is hardly enough evidence to tarnish his whole reputation. Or the "pointing at his bat" which I was unable to see from any footage your provided.
Well I didn't provide the footage at the time, although I could, but since YouTube videos are banned... 
You're the one with a one-item agenda to prove that Sachin is a poor sportsman. So if people were to believe you, then it would indeed disrepute his career. There are solid reasons why Sachin will be hailed as a great, both on and off the field--reasons that you have continued to ignore and hence there is no point in reiterating them.
I hate to bring this back up, but BALL TAMPERING IS NOT SPORTING.
And this is different from the Oval Scenario. There was TV proof that he tampered with the ball, got a 1 test ban. If Indian Parliament, Media, and Fans could accept that he tampered, then possibly he would have served his punishment.
What reasons have you given sohum, of Sachin being a sportsman? Please, let's hear them. I haven't seen them, but it is very possible I have missed them. Exactly what has Sachin done to qualify him as a sportsman, like Gilchrist, or Lara.
There was no "clearly did not edge it" kind of thing happening. If you happened to see the replay, it was a pad-bad vs. bat-pad issue. I'm not sure if you've every played leather-ball cricket, but it is quite easy to mistake the order in which one happens, especially if your bat also hits the ground around the same time. And your whole "change the umpire's decision by waving their bat at them" is meaningless, since it got referred to the 3rd umpire anyway, so there was no real issue of the batsman's opinion getting in the way of the decision-making.
I'm not sure if I had put the right video, but I'll describe it.
It was Prasad v Tendulkar, hits Tendulkar on the back leg. He points / waves his bat at umpire, given out anyway (I guess this umpire decided not to believe Tendulkar or w/e). Tendulkar calls for referral, decision of umpire is upheld.
Now here's another one. Murali v Tendulkar. Tendulkar sweeps the ball, the ball hits the back of the bat, Jayawardene takes an excellent catch. Given not out by the umpire because he couldn't see the back of the bat. Tendulkar stands there (doesn't point his bat at this occasion), Jayawardene refers it.
And replays show, and as Tendulkar should have known (if you've ever played leather ball cricket) that the ball had hit the bat. No question of a bat-pad or pad-bat issue there, which I completely agree with you, is a difficult decision to make for even the player.
Sure, "waving the bat around" (which I'm still to see) is going to hurt the umpire's decision-making skills, but I think umpires are above that. Batsmen all around the world have pointed at their bats in close calls. In fact, that is one of the surest events preceding an event where the batsman shows dissent to the umpires decision. It's not as if Sachin is the only player to do this, and hence it is just on to single him out.
Which you won't ever be seeing till either an exception is made, or the rules are changed.
Just because others do it, doesn't mean Sachin should, now does it? Did Gilchrist ever do it? Nope. Did Lara ever do it? Nope. Did Jayawardene ever do it? Nope (well to my knowledge anyway)
You get the point. Those that are considered sportsman don't do it.
Now let me make one thing clear. I'm not singling Tendulkar out at all. The reason we're here is the comment made that Tendulkar is a sportsman.
Now first off, you've given no examples / proof that he is a sportsman. Secondly, there are more examples against Tendulkar being a sportsman (and I despise those who cheat - ahem ball tampering)
Thirdly, I believe (or I hope) that I have not said Tendulkar is unsporting (there are far worse people) But I completely cannot agree with the idea that he is a sportsman.
Sure, and while you're at it, why don't you compare his behavior to his contemporaries. Because there is no point in measuring something if you don't have any idea as to the semantic meaning of the values you measure.
Sachin was not trying to "fool" the umpire on field. Let's analyze the three examples you provided by that criteria:
(1) Sachin shows the "index finger" from the dressing room
after the decision has been made by the
third umpire.
First analysis is that it has nothing to do with the on-field umpire. Second analysis is that it is irrelevant in any way to any on-field decision-making since the umpire is not going to turn around and look at Sachin in the dressing room before giving someone out.
(2) Sachin sweeps, edges and waits for the umpire to make the decision. As it happens, Jayawardene asks for the referral and he is found to have edged it.
This is the case of the batsman simply holding his ground. Tendulkar has not made any motions as to whether he had hit the ball or not. Hence, he was not "fooling the on-field umpire". In fact, in the days without referral technology, this used to happen 3-4 times a day, especially in the subcontinent with bat-pad catches. If anything, this example destroys your argument of fooling the umpire since Tendulkar did not attempt to divulge any extra information to the umpire.
(3) Sachin plays the ball, and is adjudged to be out LBW. He believes he nicked the ball before it hit his pad (compared to what actually happened--it was pad-bat) and hence asks for the referral, which is turned down.
Again, there is no attempt to fool the on-field umpire. If there were no referrals, we would not be having this discussion, since Sachin would be walking off, since you cannot overturn the umpire's decision. If Sachin had shown dissent, he would have been fined, as well.
In summary, your whole argument holds no water from the "fooling the on-field umpire" point of view. The only part I can agree with you is that he shouldn't have been divulging his point of view from the dressing room on Sehwag's dismissal. Apart from that, all I can see is a bit of intense cricket. I've seen far worse examples of batsmen pointing at their bat than what happened in this series.
One final example to show why you've got it all wrong. If indeed Sachin had done all these things as you see them through your eyes, this series would have been quite controversial. In at least one case, Sachin would have been fined because he would be overruling the authority of the umpires. As it happened, this series was relatively straightforward from a controversy point of view, and hence that proves once and for all that your argument is unproven.
Argument proved wrong in all aspects.
Also, in the future, please don't do the "replies in bold" nonsense. It is so much harder to quote and decimate each one of your points.
:
