So, Mr. Andrew Symonds is "shattered" after Judge Hansen delivered his verdict in the "monkey" incident. He says that his "blood boils" if anyone questions his integrity!! These are the words coming from the batsman who stood his ground despite nicking an edge to the 'keeper in Sydney. In the post-match interview, he said that he is out only if the umpire says so. And, in the next match at WACA, he showed his bat to the umpire, indicating that he had nicked the ball and hence, not LBW.
So, what integrity is Symonds talking about? His integrity stands shattered by these two incidents. In the Sydney test, he says that the umpire should judge whether he is out or not, and in the Perth test, once the umpire decided he is out, he questions the decision by showing his bat to the umpire. Here is a man who is not ready to stand by his own statement. And he is talking about integrity.
Let's go through the incidents of Sydney. Harbhajan pats Bret Lee on his bottom and acknowledges the delivery bowled. Symonds, who had no business for what transpired between Harbhajan and Lee, walks in and says something to Harbhajan. Harbhajan, being irritated by Symonds comments responds in a manner, which the Aussies treat as their fiefdom. Symonds misinterprets the response (well, it just goes to justify that he has a brain, no larger than a monkey's) and then suddenly Hayden and Ponting have heard everything that transpired between the two. But in their testimony before Hansen, neither can recall the exact words used!! So much so for the integrity of the Aussie cricketers.
Symonds admitted during the testimony that he went to Harbhajan and said something first. So, Harbhajan rightly retorted back to the Aussie, which Symonds didn't expect at all. Therefore, judge Hansen was right in saying that Symonds started the entire incident. Now, where is the issue of "questioning" Symonds integrity(?) when he himself has admitted to being the initiator of the conversation.
The Aussies used the legal process laid down by the ICC to have Harbhajan punished. But, couldn't come up with the evidence to nail Harbhajan. So, the legal process which the Aussies took shelter under, itself dumped their claims. Then, why is Symonds sulking? And in this entire incident, has Bret Lee got to say anything on whether he felt it appropriate for being acknowledged by the opposition on the field? If he was okay with that, then Symonds had no business at all to say anything to Harbhajan. And if he said that, then he should be ready to face the consequences.
P.S. Symonds should not be too worried about the words "teri maa ki c*****". The Aussies themselves say that the word "bastard" is a term of endearment for them. The term sticks to a person only after some incidents that occur in that part of the body!!
So, what integrity is Symonds talking about? His integrity stands shattered by these two incidents. In the Sydney test, he says that the umpire should judge whether he is out or not, and in the Perth test, once the umpire decided he is out, he questions the decision by showing his bat to the umpire. Here is a man who is not ready to stand by his own statement. And he is talking about integrity.
Let's go through the incidents of Sydney. Harbhajan pats Bret Lee on his bottom and acknowledges the delivery bowled. Symonds, who had no business for what transpired between Harbhajan and Lee, walks in and says something to Harbhajan. Harbhajan, being irritated by Symonds comments responds in a manner, which the Aussies treat as their fiefdom. Symonds misinterprets the response (well, it just goes to justify that he has a brain, no larger than a monkey's) and then suddenly Hayden and Ponting have heard everything that transpired between the two. But in their testimony before Hansen, neither can recall the exact words used!! So much so for the integrity of the Aussie cricketers.
Symonds admitted during the testimony that he went to Harbhajan and said something first. So, Harbhajan rightly retorted back to the Aussie, which Symonds didn't expect at all. Therefore, judge Hansen was right in saying that Symonds started the entire incident. Now, where is the issue of "questioning" Symonds integrity(?) when he himself has admitted to being the initiator of the conversation.
The Aussies used the legal process laid down by the ICC to have Harbhajan punished. But, couldn't come up with the evidence to nail Harbhajan. So, the legal process which the Aussies took shelter under, itself dumped their claims. Then, why is Symonds sulking? And in this entire incident, has Bret Lee got to say anything on whether he felt it appropriate for being acknowledged by the opposition on the field? If he was okay with that, then Symonds had no business at all to say anything to Harbhajan. And if he said that, then he should be ready to face the consequences.
P.S. Symonds should not be too worried about the words "teri maa ki c*****". The Aussies themselves say that the word "bastard" is a term of endearment for them. The term sticks to a person only after some incidents that occur in that part of the body!!
No comments:
Post a Comment