Cricket again

This story on baggygreen.com.au really got up my nose this morning.

Before I start ranting, I will point out that I am not one of "those Australians" that "doesn't see what all the fuss is about", as the general cricketing public has often been referred to since the Sydney Test. There is plenty of room for improvement of the behaviour of both cricketers and spectators in the recent past, but the smarmy condescension of Peter English in this article is beyond belief.

Mr English's use of the good behaviour (which I wholeheartedly applaud) of both teams and the crowd as an excuse to not-so-subtly attack their Australian counterparts is both odious and counter-productive. Surely any cricket writer worth his salt should be able to report on the harmonious atmosphere without sly and demeaning digs at an absent party? Anyone reading this article would think that it was Australia's recent history that included games being stopped due to rioting crowds, that Australia's board had threatened to cancel a tour if the ICC did not dance to it's tune or that an Australian captain had threatened to take his team from the field because he didn't agree with the no-balling of one of his bowlers. I'm sure that even the Indians and Sri Lankans would agree that there are incidents in their collective pasts that they would rather not have occurred, that reflect badly on their cricket, but apprently the fact that they are not Australian on this tour absolves them of any wrongdoing.

I am glad that the cricket watching public of Brisbane last night were well behaved during the half a game they got to watch, and I truly hope that it continues. Australian crowds can sometimes get rowdy and uncomfortable to be in, but as anyone who watched "An Aussie Goes Bolly" last week will agree, I know with whom I would rather be watching my cricket.

p.s.
Because I am a sucker for punishment, I also read this article by the aforementioned journalist about the fining of Rohit Sharma for dissent. It could be because I am sensitive but this sentence "The Sri Lankans were convinced Sharma had edged the ball to Kumar Sangakkara, but the replays showed Rudi Koertzen made a serious error." I found to be in stark contrast to the hammering Adam Gilchrist and the Australians copped during the Sydney Test for appealing when Rahul Dravid was "incorrectly" given out. To make matters worse, I found this on the Fox Sports web site.

"Murali initially failed to appeal but went up in support of Sangakkara, who later said he heard a noise."

Is this fair and balanced journalism?