Spanky in "reasonable news article" shock

Seems the fiddykiddler can actually write some common sense. See here

"INDIA'S performance in chartering a plane to take the players back home in the event of an independent judge finding against them in the Harbhajan Singh case counted amongst the most nakedly aggressive actions taken in the history of a notoriously fractious game. If this is the way the Indian board intends to conduct its affairs hereafter, then God help cricket.

It is high time the elders of the game in that proud country stopped playing to the gallery and considered the game's wider interests. India is not some tinpot dictatorship but an international powerhouse, and ought to think and act accordingly. Brinkmanship or not, threatening to take their bat and ball home in the event of a resented verdict being allowed to stand was an abomination. It sets a dreadful precedent. What price justice now?"

Doesn't take much to win you skull - he only had to change which team the common sense was directed at

A sad reminder that he wasn't always the tossbag we've all become too familiar with.

He contributed to the press mania.Bit late to whinge now.We all knew how it was going to go once India threatened to go home,as did he,but he preferred to focus on Australia's behaviour.

Mick Sawyer wrote:Doesn't take much to win you skull - he only had to change which team the common sense was directed at

Farkin oath. He can slag those subi gibberers off till the cows come home, but pick on my and "his" team, and farkin look out.

No, skull, far too many cheap shots in that article for my liking.

Mate, cheap shots are all that he normally has. At least the article started off in the right manner!!

skully wrote:

Mick Sawyer wrote:Doesn't take much to win you skull - he only had to change which team the common sense was directed at

Farkin oath. He can slag those subi gibberers off till the cows come home, but pick on my and "his" team, and farkin look out.

Apparently he'd been knocked back by Trev the night before he wrote the 'Sack Ponting' article. Sexual frustration is no excuse for bad behaviour, but it does explain a bit.

Zat wrote:Apparently he'd been knocked back by Trev the night before he wrote the 'Sack Ponting' article. Sexual frustration is no excuse for bad behaviour, but it does explain a bit.

What a load of utter crap .....





































As if Trev would knock him back .

Might explain Trev's irregular forum hours lately. After a good session with Robers and his cane, sitting down at a keyboard (or anywhere else) would not be top of anybody's 'to do' pile.

Fred Nerk wrote:Might explain Trev's irregular forum hours lately. After a good session with Robers and his cane, sitting down at a keyboard (or anywhere else) would not be top of anybody's 'to do' pile.

.............. particularly if his piles were done ...............

It is obvious but to the most blind that Roebuck is doing an equal=equal here. He had lost a fair bit of goodwill in Australia with his earlier stand that Ponting should have been sacked, now he has done a most cynical about turn and decides to *not see how BCCI forgived Brad Hogg* but now focuses only to see the blinkered PoV of the Australian media.

Extremely cynical move by Peter Roebuck.

What's the difference between Buckeroo and a bucket of shit?

the Nerk in between.

The bucket.

Over the years, India have often been represented by gentlemen with high principles and a strong sense of sportsmanship. Australia have not been so fortunate.

He sounds like a Mudge/Tom hybrid.

Er, didn't he say something about how he was surprised India hadn't packed their bags and flown back home or something after the Sydney test?

"Over the years, India have often been represented by gentlemen with high principles and a strong sense of sportsmanship. Australia have not been so fortunate."

Must admit to wondering who/what old Robers was wittering on about there.

I also remember Roebuck giving Ponting an almighty bake after this whole farce blew up. At that stage it was an on-field personality clash between Harbi, Punter and Symonds. He (and many others) called Ponting's role in the affair to account and there was little disagreement with that verdict on here, although most saw his call for Ponting to be sacked as a tad premature at best.

But since then it has become board v board and it has been India throwing the weight around, with the Hogg allegation starting that phase, the threats, all the way through to that ridiculous posturing yesterday with the chartered plane. Three weeks ago Roebuck was talking about an on-field handbag-swing. Now it's a wholle lot bigger issue altogether and different parties are involved, it's not just two or three dim hot-head players with overheated egos, it's one national cricket board v another. Roebuck's views have not changed one iota.

He said he wouldn't have been surprised. He didn't say he would have approved.

Roebuck has been trying to backpedal since the Punter article made the front page. Strangely he couldn't see how that was going to inflame the situation.

Aye, a limey tool of the first order. I'll be a smart@rse and rev it up my hosts. But geez, that caused some trouble, so I'll now slag off the subis (you know, evening things up). Classy fiddykiddler.

He might seem to be having a bob each way and playing the carping critic, and that can be tiresome, but as I said in my last post the Ponting bake and today's article are not about the same issues.

I believe Ponting behaved like a dickhead in Sydney. I believe the Indian grand poo bahs have carried on like bully boys and prima donnas practically ever since. I can't see any logical barrier to holding both those views at once.

All things considered Spanky is a spank monkey.

Given the spankees were 19, is he really a kiddiefiddler?