Neuroscience - the solution to the Bhajji-Symonds argument??
The cricket world is in an uproar with regards to the Harbhajan - Symonds issue. While many blame racism, I beg to differ - the answer lies, but obviously, in the realm of neuroscience!
To help you better understand, you need to first be aware of the facts. These are outlined below.
"This is what happened before our confrontation," Symonds said in the Herald Sun. "Brett Lee had just sent down a delivery and Harbhajan took off down the wicket. When he was returning to his crease, he decided to hit Brett on the backside. I have no idea why he did it.
"I was standing nearby and when I saw what happened, I thought, 'Hold on, that's not on'. I'm a firm believer in sticking up for your team-mate so I stepped in and had a bit of a crack at Harbhajan, telling him exactly what I thought of his antics. He then had a shot back, which brings us to the situation we're facing."
Now, many believe that the basic problem is that Symonds accuses Harbhajan of calling him a "monkey" - a racist term. However, I think the crucial point has been missed by one and all.
Let us proceed logically, Symonds says "....he decided to hit Brett on the backside. I have no idea why he did it......"I was standing nearby and when I saw what happened, I thought, 'Hold on, that's not on'."
This raises two obvious questions.
1) Brett Lee was allegedly hit in the rump (touchy, derriere, JLo etc.) by Harbhajan.
Brett Lee did not complain about anything (that we are aware of). Why? Is it because his he really enjoyed it? Or perhaps, his nerve endings are a little off?
Medical science tells us that the backside has a lower concentration of nerve endings than most other parts. However, people still manage to feel it when they are hit on the Beyonce. How is it then, that Brett Lee, a supremely fit athlete, did not? One must, therefore, logically conclude that there is a problem with his nerve endings, a problem for pure neuroscience!
Another major point is that Symonds thought "..it was not on....I'm a firm believer in sticking up for your team-mate".
Now, why did Symonds think it was not on? We have seen the Aussies celebrate wickets on TV, and slapping the hindquarters is one way of congratulating your teammate (watch it next time if you don't believe me). Perhaps Symonds felt his territory was being threatened? It would certainly make sense, as team bonding is a valuable tool. Perhaps he felt Bhajji and Brett might become very good friends after that (chaddi-buddies/langotiya yaars, if you will), and this might take away some of Brett's hostility? Obviously, Brett Lee did not think there was any such danger, as his lack of action later proved.
One must, in the end, not forget what started the whole thing, "...Harbhajan took off down the wicket. When he was returning to his crease, he decided to hit Brett on the backside...."
Why did Harbhajan do this? Did he felt he could reduce Brett's hostilities by befriending him? Perhaps, in the light of what transpired, it was a deviously calculated ploy to elicit the necessary response from Symonds - Australia's best batsman in the first innings. We are all aware that teams today watch videos of their opponents before games to strategize. Perhaps this was one of those cunning stratagems? Whatever be Bhajji's intention, we may never ever actually know!
Perhaps, then, it's not just a matter for neuroscience, we must consult the psychologists as well!!
To help you better understand, you need to first be aware of the facts. These are outlined below.
"This is what happened before our confrontation," Symonds said in the Herald Sun. "Brett Lee had just sent down a delivery and Harbhajan took off down the wicket. When he was returning to his crease, he decided to hit Brett on the backside. I have no idea why he did it.
"I was standing nearby and when I saw what happened, I thought, 'Hold on, that's not on'. I'm a firm believer in sticking up for your team-mate so I stepped in and had a bit of a crack at Harbhajan, telling him exactly what I thought of his antics. He then had a shot back, which brings us to the situation we're facing."
Now, many believe that the basic problem is that Symonds accuses Harbhajan of calling him a "monkey" - a racist term. However, I think the crucial point has been missed by one and all.
Let us proceed logically, Symonds says "....he decided to hit Brett on the backside. I have no idea why he did it......"I was standing nearby and when I saw what happened, I thought, 'Hold on, that's not on'."
This raises two obvious questions.
1) Brett Lee was allegedly hit in the rump (touchy, derriere, JLo etc.) by Harbhajan.
Brett Lee did not complain about anything (that we are aware of). Why? Is it because his he really enjoyed it? Or perhaps, his nerve endings are a little off?
Medical science tells us that the backside has a lower concentration of nerve endings than most other parts. However, people still manage to feel it when they are hit on the Beyonce. How is it then, that Brett Lee, a supremely fit athlete, did not? One must, therefore, logically conclude that there is a problem with his nerve endings, a problem for pure neuroscience!
Another major point is that Symonds thought "..it was not on....I'm a firm believer in sticking up for your team-mate".
Now, why did Symonds think it was not on? We have seen the Aussies celebrate wickets on TV, and slapping the hindquarters is one way of congratulating your teammate (watch it next time if you don't believe me). Perhaps Symonds felt his territory was being threatened? It would certainly make sense, as team bonding is a valuable tool. Perhaps he felt Bhajji and Brett might become very good friends after that (chaddi-buddies/langotiya yaars, if you will), and this might take away some of Brett's hostility? Obviously, Brett Lee did not think there was any such danger, as his lack of action later proved.
One must, in the end, not forget what started the whole thing, "...Harbhajan took off down the wicket. When he was returning to his crease, he decided to hit Brett on the backside...."
Why did Harbhajan do this? Did he felt he could reduce Brett's hostilities by befriending him? Perhaps, in the light of what transpired, it was a deviously calculated ploy to elicit the necessary response from Symonds - Australia's best batsman in the first innings. We are all aware that teams today watch videos of their opponents before games to strategize. Perhaps this was one of those cunning stratagems? Whatever be Bhajji's intention, we may never ever actually know!
Perhaps, then, it's not just a matter for neuroscience, we must consult the psychologists as well!!
posted by Firebringer at 6:50 PM
6 Comments:
lol..i liked this post...but the answer is really very simple-bhajji,despite being a heterosexual male, had to succumb, even momentarily, to the perfection of hotness that is brett lee-hence lee's beyonce(LMAO)was attacked.and like u said,lee,who by now is used to his own reflection,didn't think twice abt what happened.
and yes, symonds was probably defending his territory.so there u have it! see sometimes u have to see things from a woman's perspective to understand cricketers!
I'm a woman. I do not think Brett Lee is hot. Richard Gere, yes. Pierce Brosnan, Y-E-S!
Not the point. LOL! One of your best posts in a while.
Lee's JLo? Beyonce? Are you really THAT female-starved? =))
Good post...Brat!
It is butt obvious that the Monkey (yes, I shall continue to use the 'M' word...my Mum calls me a monkey all the time whenever I make faces at her...maybe I should report her to my Granny) was jealous! Unfortunately, he failed to realise that Bhajji's attention was not all that it was "cracked" up to be!
lol !! yeah ...guess the Monkey was just instinctively defending his territory !!
@ nenlos- brett lee not hot???????
SACRILEGE!!!!!!!
Post a Comment
<< Home