Let me say just what I truly think on this issue.
Yes Aussies do play it hard, yes verbal insults are swapped, sometimes needless sometimes over the top.
More often than not a failure to understand another culture is on display, it should stop.
The umpiring was bad, not for the first time, in tests against England and games against Australia India gained from bad decisions by the same umpire.
The history of that taunt is clear, it happened in India and was denied, yet after it was proven no we got it wrong came from India.
In fact more than twice the Indian cricket board said it never happened it was a lie.
By far the worst sins here lay with India, Australian polls are being overloaded with voters from that country.
Effigy's are being burnt in the streets yet we still find those who think anything other than a side who should have been better lead is quite wrong? read todays ,yesterdays and the day before on line Australian news paper, then research other views look for Indian pages.
This is now past cricket.
It will get worse.
See the story showing lip readers from India seeing the worse word you can use in that country being used about an Australian bats man and an umpire.
Glass house and thrown stones come to mind cricket can survive without India
money or not.

Sadly, you are right Corri, and this is precisely why Test cricket will slowly fade away and die.

>>Sport at the highest level is now more about tv ratings, gate takings, sponsorships and commercialism than possibly the sport itself.<<

The present controversy will be papered over with a few platitudes, after both teams and their management staff have been given some re-education on the lines of "you do understand who pays your wages, don't you?" Which is, as Corri points out, television.

The end result will inevitably be that the role of the umpire will be eroded further, and technology will be introduced to "eliminate" the incidence of wrong decisions.

The result may well be that fewer bad decisions are made, but somehow I doubt that it will reduce the number of complaints, given the inconclusive nature of some aspects of the replay - whether a catch has been "grounded", for example.

It will also give the fielding side licence to appeal for everything. After all, they have nothing to lose. If on the other hand the team is allowed a quota of adjudications-by-replay, as tennis players are allowed with line calls, we will still have the complaints that "if only" they had not run out of their allotment.

The game will as a result become unwatchable, begin to lose its TV audience, and slowly die.

The shorter versions of the game might however benefit greatly from more technology. It is not difficult to imagine how the marketers could make it an integral part of the "excitement", by replaying every incident on the big screen, and allowing bets to be made on the verdict.

It would be a positive boon to 20-20. The replays would be shown to the baying crowd, who would then decide the batsman's fate in the traditional manner, thumbs-up or thumbs-down.

How good would that be, bringing the drama of the Colosseum to the MCG.

And us old geezers will be left dribbling into our mugs of cocoa and quaintly muttering into our beards, "whatever happened to cricket?"

Pericles, I think we're finally on the same page! Though I do not possess a beard I certainly will lament the loss of test cricket - which I also believe is inevitable.

20/20 cricket is made for commercial television, and the introduction of technology to adjudicate only offers greater scope for ad breaks.

How do you justify a game that goes for 5 days, is watched from start to finish by only the most purist cricketing fans and quite possibly can end in a draw. Very few outside the cricket world can even fathom the idea of this form of game.

Equally, as players are offered ludicrous contracts paying greater rates in 2 - 3 hours than a five dayer - well, what choice would you make? Even the best of us have families to consider, our longer term prospects.

I had the opportunity to watch this last test (virtually) start to finish, spending a number of days at the ground glued to the action with my binoculars and headset ... loved every minute, but like the game I'll evolve and continue to watch the one dayers, even the 20 / 20 - inadvertantly accelarating the decline in the true form of the game.

One of the problems of old age is the number of memories.
It used to be a given that any cricket team visiting India was going to loose because of the bias of the Indian Umpires.
When the ICC brought in a panel of International umpires the idea was to get right away from bias and have a free and fair game of cricket.

How unfortunate that India, with its one billion cricket adherents is once more ruling the roost.

At Sydney, India, having thrown away a chance of a win, played for a draw. They failed.
As far as umpiring is concerned, you win some and you lose some.
With his head of hair and amazing agility, one of the most brilliant cricketers in the world does look a lot like a monkey.
Sikhs can be the most charming people. But some are not.
Now that cricket is no longer "just a game" lets agree to have all cricketers join Actor's Equity and get on with the show.

Come on! this grumpy old cricket fan loves test cricket.
Do me one favor please?
Just forget the dribbles from ex English cricketers in the press.
read the Australians comments.
Ask how can an Indian use that word to an umpire, not monkey another player a worse word.
And ask your self is one side lieing?
Why has it got to be the Australian side?
spoiled brats indeed!
The history, unchallengeable history of use of the word monkey as an insult by Indian crowds and the charged player, the spoilt brats , sorry Indian cover up of those story's lets play cricket, without giving in to thuggery or without India!