This thread reminds me about something I read on FML earlier today. Had to do with a chimpanzee chucking his poop around.
I'll address a few points generally, here:
1. I shudder bringing up the Sydney 2008 test match in public. The very fact that that game has so much bad rep now, almost 2 years after it happened, shows that it was not just another umpiring controversy. People are forgetting that there was the racist taunting and all these other undertones in that game, which gave it such a bad name. If one wishes to compare that Test match to the series in 2001, I will bring up a point that I brought up back when Sydney 2008 happened. Umpiring mistakes are a part and parcel of the game of cricket--there's no changing that. As a cricket viewer, I understand this. I do not complain when reasonable mistakes happen. LBW's are hard to judge. While it is frustrating to see LBW's go against the team I am supporting, I understand the number of elements at play. I have much less sympathy for umpires who continually miss nicks, though. Loud nicks that could be heard at the ground. This does not mean that the umpiring team had a bias--it just shows that they were not performing at their best. Steve Bucknor was one of the greatest umpires in international cricket for a long time. However, he should have called it quits a long time before he did. Umpiring is a complicated job and I believe he was not up to task. All that said, the issue is dead and buried so there is no point bringing it up over and over again. The 2001 series happened before ICC instantiated the elite panel and all that. It is arguable (and indeed heavily suggested) that domestic umpires around the world were quite partial. To discount that series win, which took place at a time when Test cricket was not high profile and the ICC was run more like a hobbyist organization than a corporation to the new rules, etc. in 2008 is inaccurate, at best.
2. The South Africa controversy had to do with Mike Denness. People seem to have forgotten what happened in the current climate where everyone loves to take a stab at Indian cricket. To recap, after the 2nd Test match, Mike Denness imposed the following rulings:
(a) Sachin Tendulkar - 1 Test match ban for ball tampering
(b) Virender Sehwag - 1 Test match ban for "excesive appealing"
(c) Sourav Ganguly - 1 Test match ban and 2 ODI ban for "inability to control players"
(d) Harbhajan Singh - 1 Test match ban for excessive appealing
(e) Shiv Sunder Das (opener and short leg fielder) - 1 Test match ban for excessive appealing
(f) Deep Dasgupta (wicket-keeper) - 1 Test match ban for excessive appealing
With one foul swoop, Denness actually suspended more than half of our players, including our wicket keeper, captain, opener and star batsman. Not only that, but had all the bans been approved and served, it would send a really poor message to cricketers around the world. It would have taken a lot of the passion and intensity out of the game. I watched that game live and the appealing was not out of the ordinary for a team whose bowling strength lay in spin (Ganguly was our third seamer!). IIRC, the ICC have since rectified the "excessive appealing" clause to be more concrete and not as "open" to personal interpretation.
