Home   Forum   Wiki   Notes   Register   FAQ   Sitemap   About Us   Contact Us  

Why no(less !!) female participation in newtfmpage DF?

Topic started by subha (@ 164.164.98.2) on Mon Oct 13 03:34:45 EDT 2003.
All times in EST +10:30 for IST.

Guys,
I am a silent watcher of DF for quite sometime. I have always wondered why there is not much female participation is discussions in this internet world.Any idea? Does they lack knowledge about TFM in general? No girl has sound technical knowledge about music? Or they hide behind a guys name and post?

---

Responses:

• Old responses
  
• From: interpreter (@ 4.3.119.114) on: Wed Nov 12 13:52:36 EST 2003
  
  Prabhu,
  
  varavu-selavu kaNakku paarthittirundhaen. unga kitta irundhu aedho our item innum newtfmpage makkaLukku baakki nikkidhey! pudhusaa enna saakku sollalaam-nnu yoasikkaReengaLa? ;)
  
  
• From: Kum_Laden (@ 64.229.20.251) on: Wed Nov 12 14:03:30 EST 2003
  
  interpreter,
  
  Prabu thoonkitaru.. Neenka Budget Pathmanathanai vidavum mosam. Manisarai thoonkavum vida maateenkappa.. :)
  
  
• From: . (@ 161.114.64.71) on: Wed Nov 12 14:04:07 EST 2003
  
  Kum i never made any accusation :) Just saying that SL seems to produce most bowlers with suspect actions - Warnaweera, Dharmasena, Murali. Something wrong with coachign system.
  
  Forget about kicking Aussies - its a privilege to watch them play!
  
  
• From: . (@ 161.114.64.75) on: Wed Nov 12 14:05:36 EST 2003
  
  and when did aussies 'cudnt handle'? been thrashing SL since 82!
  
  Interpreter, reason solliten andha threadlaye :) too busy!
  
  
• From: Kum_Laden (@ 64.229.20.251) on: Wed Nov 12 14:29:02 EST 2003
  
  Did you go coma during 96 world cup? Or were you caught in the fight following india's defeat to SL in the same world cup semi-finals? The tour SL made to Aussie just before the 96 world cup.. from then on until early 98, Ausie was kicked a#ss by SL! Only South Africans were an equal in those days to SL.
  
  
• From: . (@ 161.114.64.75) on: Wed Nov 12 14:41:51 EST 2003
  
  >>The tour SL made to Aussie just before the 96 world cup>>Ausie was kicked a#ss by SL!<<<<
  On dusty pitches only! I dont think SL has done anything significant abroad except the test v Eng in 1998.
  
  
• From: . (@ 161.114.64.75) on: Wed Nov 12 14:42:48 EST 2003
  
  -----The tour SL made to Aussie just before the 96 world cup----
  
  KL, as far as I can read, SL lost that series 3-0. The match Murali was pulled up for throwing, he had 1-224. 3 sixes to Slater on Day 1. I think Aus would have plundered more if Murali had continued to bowl.
  
  In fact, Darrell Hair was 3 yrs late. I first saw Murali vs Eng in Mar 1993 and immediately I commented to my pal that this action will raise interest. Neliyara paambu maathiri kai pona appuram koththu-nu sollaama vera enna solluvaanga!
  
  
  
• From: Kum_Laden (@ 64.229.20.251) on: Wed Nov 12 15:41:25 EST 2003
  
  I am not talking about test matches here.. The last match India lost is an ODI and where the heck is test coming from......
  
  The World Series which was during the SL tour to Aus, Srilanka beat Aus twice even without Murali! Thats in the foreign ground. From then on past the world cup World knows who was ruling the one dayers until the politics started in the SL team in 98. I happen to watch Murali during their practices in a close distance and he isnt even close to whatever u call it pambu suthing etc.. Murali was part of a team and the 'team' had other 10 players than murali too!. I am not watching cricket after The Matchfixing thing started out, i belive they called Harbajan Singh a chucker too? ( or is it some other guy ) Its something they have against South Asians so get it and stop ausie-butt-licking!
  
  I read an article by Srinaktn on Sportstar before on this 'niliyara pambu or whateve u trying to say' thing so if you are trying to open up your mind, Read it! I just got it for you from the sportsstar archives..
  
  http://www.sportstaronnet.com/tss2526/25260660.htm
  
  "On dusty pitches only!" -- So they usethat pitch just for Aussie innings or both sides'? Bulls#hit!
  
  "In fact, Darrell Hair was 3 yrs late." --- Bulls#hit!
  
  
  
• From: . (@ 161.114.64.75) on: Wed Nov 12 16:14:42 EST 2003
  
  Kum, ODIs have to taken with a pinch of salt. You can easily hide ur weaknesses and get away.
  
  The ball doesnt reach knee length on asian pitches. Like He-Man's battle cat expect the Kumbles and Anurasiris to roar on such pitches :)
  
  Equating SA with SL is an insult to SA - they comprehensively dominated ODIs in India, Pak and Aus from 97-98!! Won Tests too!
  
  You're right about Singh. I was doing group study with my pal when he asked me to check the new debutant's first over(Ind vs Aus, Calcutta 97-98 test). I had one look and commented "debut-la vandhu koththu poduthu!". Just then Ian Chappell commented 'He's a lot like Murali' and we laughed :) I've never felt comfortable with the Chauhans, Harbajans, Muralis, warnaweeras, Afridis! Asian actions are more side-on than chest-on which is the classical style followed in Eng and Aus.
  
  Sportstar site is blocked for me. I did write in Letters to the Editor of Sportstar(Nov 8, 1997) - "Murali may be declared clean but has any offie used so much wrist like he does? that gives him an unfair advantage!". I concluded saying "Lanka have to prove themselves on outside tracks. The '99 WC will prove the issue one way or the other". And it did!
  
  ---Its something they have against South Asians ---
  Ha, they have always enjoyed playing the South Asians :) Why Murali or Kumble, they would've hammered the life out of Lance Gibbs.
  
  
• From: Kum_Laden (@ 64.229.20.251) on: Wed Nov 12 17:01:58 EST 2003
  
  Prabu,
  
  By 98 the politics started playing a bigger role in SL Team, In 99 with the aging of Ranatunge, De Silva, Out of form jayasuriya etc led to a failure in my openion. Anyway i certainly belive Neither Murali no Harbajan is a chucker. I copy paste the Srikanth article and i dont think you or anyone are closer to the scene than Srikanth is!
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  OVER THE TOP -- K. Srikkanth Column
  
  
  A controversy which refuses to die down
  WE are in the midst of another 'chucking' row. This is one controversy that refuses to die down.
  
  What bothers me this time around is how the controversy resurfaced again. Even before Ruchira Perera was called, doubts were being cast again on Muttiah Muralitharan's action.
  
  We had Adam Gilchrist, who being a contemporary cricketer, has no business to pass comments on Muralitharan's action, especially after the International Cricket Council had cleared the cricketer, calling the Lankan a chucker.
  
  How is it that whenever an Asian side is in England, the action of some bowlers come under scrutiny. I remember when India once toured that country in the late 70s, Karsan Ghavri's action, while sending down pace, was put under microscope. This was immediately after he struck Mike Brearley on the helmet in a tour game. The list goes on.
  
  
• From: KL (@ 64.229.20.251) on: Wed Nov 12 17:02:14 EST 2003
  
  The manner in which the present controversy came about, and its timing, do raise suspicions in my mind. Gilchrist does not deny making the statement, but says a journalist had picked it up without his knowledge.
  
  Whom is he trying to deceive? If Gilchirst passes certain remarks at a public function where he happens to be a guest of honour, surely he is going to be quoted.
  
  And Gilchrist's unfortunate remarks were bound to be picked up in England. Was the entire episode stage-managed to put pressure on Muralitharan and Sri Lanka. I feel the Australian Cricket Board let Gilchrist off very lightly.
  
  Here was a bowler, on the path of recovery from a serious shoulder surgery, on whom serious aspersions were being cast again. How much mental torture can Murali possibly bear?
  
  It's very simple. Muralitharan has been cleared by the ICC that has concluded that the Lankan has a deformity in his bowling arm. Why can't people accept that. After all, somebody has to be the deciding authority.
  
  We are in a situation where a bowler with over 400 Test scalps at a phenomenal strike rate hardly receives any credit from a section of the cricketing world. It is sad.
  
  In any case, the entire chucking controversy and the various correction procedures hardly make any sense. It should be a simple two-way process. The umpire should be given powers to call a bowler straightaway, and then, the ICC, within a week, should deliver its verdict on the umpire's decision. And that verdict should be accepted and respected, unlike in Muralitharan's case, where sheer jealousy appears to be causing much of the trouble.
  
  
  
• From: KL (@ 64.229.20.251) on: Wed Nov 12 17:02:35 EST 2003
  
  The procedure should be easy and effective. Instead what we have here is a complicated, confused approach, that does everything apart from finding a quick answer.
  
  By robbing umpires of what is their right to 'call' a bowler, the ICC puts itself in a corner. I find nothing wrong with Darrell Hair 'calling' Muralitharan. However, once ICC has overruled that, where is the question of the off-spinner's action coming under a cloud again. Yet, do not deny the umpires of their right in the first place.
  
  Let's assume that a bowler throws in the mind of an umpire, who still cannot 'call' him during the match. What if the same bowler picks up 10 wickets in the game and leads his side to a crucial victory, it might be a series clinching effort.
  
  It just doesn't make sense. The ICC should allow the umpire to make a ruling during the Test, and then decide on it sooner than later.
  
  Instead, we are in a rather hilarious situation. Somebody like Harbhajan Singh gets 'called' and he has to travel all the way to England to get his action corrected, by Fred Titmus of all people!
  
  Now I believe that India has two of the foremost former Test off-spinners Erapalli Prassana and Srinivas Venkatraghavan, who are well qualified to guide a youngster like Harbhajan.
  
  
  
• From: KL (@ 64.229.20.251) on: Wed Nov 12 17:02:51 EST 2003
  
  I also cannot understand how a bowler, who has been punished for throwing, can recover so quickly. Miracles do happen in cricket!
  
  It's absurd, and any sane person will laugh at the very idea. These illogical procedures are being followed just to please some in the ICC. Now Brett Lee's action was questioned. Would the Australians send him to Kapil Dev, who was an exemplary paceman. I doubt very much.
  
  The Asian cricketers and cricket are invariably at the receiving end. When any Asian bowler is suspected of chucking, the media, especially in countries like England and Australia, highlight it.
  
  When the player in question is someone like Brett Lee, then everything is played down. This much is blatant.
  
  The Western media, especially in Australia, has the habit of closing ranks and going after a particular cricketer in the enemy camp. A player, who is a marked man.
  
  Pakistan's Shoaib Akhtar's action made so much news for the wrong reasons. I am not holding any brief for Shoaib, but if he chucks, then what is Brett Lee doing. Is he squeaky clean? Does he possess a clear, copybook action. The truth is Lee's action is as clean or wrong as that of Shoaib.
  
  Yet we found the Pakistani at the receiving end for most part of the last two years, while Lee was hardly bothered. This, I believe, is not fair.
  
  Going further back, there was more than an element of doubt about left-arm spinner Phil Tufnell's action. It did appear to me that he was straightening his arm when he sent down the quicker one. However, Tufnell's action never landed him in trouble.
  
  
  
• From: KL (@ 64.229.20.251) on: Wed Nov 12 17:03:06 EST 2003
  
  Despite all the fuss made about Ruchira Perera's action, the real target was a much bigger cricketer - Muralitharan. It is time for the Asian countries to unite and fight this bias and prejudice.
  
  It must be said that with so much technology being used, the actions of more and more bowlers are coming under scrutiny. It was different during the 70s and the 80s, when I played most of my cricket.
  
  And even as I grew up, I had people telling me that West Indian Gilchrist was furiously quick, had a mean short ball that put fright into the batsmen, but possessed an extremely doubtful action. Yet, I do not think anybody got conclusive evidence about Gilchrist's action.
  
  The issue of 'chucking' affects the very soul of cricket. It is vital the ICC acts decisively while handling this sensitive issue.
  
  It would be so much better if a bowler with a doubtful action is corrected while playing domestic cricket. He should never be allowed to proceed to the highest stage, that is Test cricket, without the necessary adjustments. If somebody has a problem, get him early. Do not wait and watch.
  
  
  

---

List all pages of this thread

Post comments