More sober and insightful than this article is a letter to the editor of The Australian Financial Review of 8.1.2008:
"I suggest the Australian Cricket Board go to Pakistan for a lengthy stay. If they do not return, cricket in Australia will be better off."

Those Aussies are so racist they give those eastern europeans and their offspring law degrees. How is Tony Mokbel these days Mirko?

Like most crises, the present cricket crisis has been a long time coming. Indian cricket, the financial powerhouse of the game, has long been seeking to exert much greater influence. Australian boorishness has turned so many people off. Finally the two have collided.

That the unpiring was bad is beyond doubt; and while good and bad decisions will even out in the long run, a single game is not long enough for this levelling to occur. Had every umpiring decision been correct it is quite likely Australia would not have won. Symonds certainly didn't help matters by almost bragging about being given not out. While I do not believe he should have walked, I do believe that when subsequently asked whether he had snicked the ball he would have been much better advised to have claimed uncertainty.

While it is clear that "monkey" is quite hurtful to Symonds, one wonders if this is really a racist taunt or is it related to his somewhat outlandish coiffure and trowel-applied zinc cream. It has not been reported that black English, South African, or West Indian players have been similarly abused in India. Once a team (or its supporters) find a way of getting under the skin of a player it becomes relentless. The "Hadlee is a w@nker" chant, while clearly not racist, was hurtful to Sir Richard and highly effective in putting him off his game.

Perhaps the Indians might discover that asking a Tasmanian "Show us your scar!" causes some offence, and might thus target Ponting. Would that be racist?

The author's drawing a mighty long bow to connect indifferent umpiring and sledging in a cricket match to calling Australia 'one of the most racist countries in the world'. Really need to build a logical argument.

re walking, Bradman would only walk if he knew he was well and truly out otherwise he would wait until the umps finger went up, ditto Miller, Benaud, etc. The umps decision is final.

Playing the game and walking-the argument of not walking when one should is a major moral argument.The analogy of breaking road laws to rush patients to hospital can be taken as far as the argument that we need to incarcerate around 83 000 people in gulags and torture them to make sure we have all the information we need to sleep well in our beds, even if 82999 of those incarcerated are innocent of anything but wanting to look after their familes. The end (whether winning a test match, or torturing civilians) has never justified the means. Ambulance drivers are still liable for prosecution should they jump red lights and injure a pedestrian.It is not permissible to torture and imprison without trial and deny the right of Habeus Corpus to people suspected of being trrorists. Why? It just isn't cricket.

Symmonds should have walked

Australia one of the most racists countries in the world? What absolute crap!

Students mainly from nice Western countries? More crap! Universities are chock-a-block with non-whites who are given the opportunity to stay here permanently after they finish their studies. And, the greedy tourism operators and Minister for Tourism would get Martians in if they were available.

As for the Indians, an arrogant race if ever there was one, they are simply not good enough to beat Australia and have spat the dummy because of this.

Bagaric retains a Baltic chip on the shoulder. This ‘racism’ nonsense is getting dead boring, and he and anyone else who thinks Australia is “one of the most racist countries in the world” can stay right away and/or leave any time they like.