All of this fuss over a game of cricket.
What was so special about it all? Relations between the Australian and Indian teams have been festering somewhat since Australia's tour of India in October 2007. Australia won the series of seven one day internationals, while India convincingly won a one-off Twenty20 International. But it was not the cricket that made the headlines in that series, it was the controversial 'monkey chants' that greeted Andrew Symonds at various grounds, and some intense confrontation between the players on the field and in the media.
After India's underwhelming performance in Melbourne, the first two days of this test seemed promising. There was potency in some of India's bowling, there were runs scored by Laxman and Tendulkar, and the Australians seemed a bit uncomfortable. Hovering over all this was the fervent media discussion of Ricky Ponting's attempts to lead Australia to a record 16th straight Test win.
Australia entered the fifth day 215 runs ahead of India, with six wickets in hand. There was much conjecture over what the day would entail. Would Australia try and slog the ball early and declare quickly to get the win? Would they play it safe and look for the draw by batting as long as possible? The one thing that seemed clear was that India's chances of winning the game were very slim.
What eventuated, thanks in large part to Ricky Ponting's somewhat brave decision to save the declaration until shortly before lunch, was an enthralling, gripping end to what was an incredible match. Australia batted slowly in the morning sessions, and it was not until the session before lunch that the bats really started to swing. Gilchrist, Hogg and Lee all fell cheaply while trying to increase the scoring rate, and Ponting declared shortly before lunch, leaving India 331 to score in something like 90 overs (the number of overs itself was incredible and would have taken until 9 or 10pm to complete).
India, led bravely and stoically by Anil Kumble hung on until the very end. Kumble played a tough, brave innings, and for a while he received excellent support from the needle in Australia's side - Harbhajan Singh. It was not until part time spinner Michael Clark was brought into the attack that things started to go awry. With seven wickets down, and only a few overs left in the days play, Clark came on and took three wickets in one over to spell the end for India, and give Australia an unassailable 2-0 lead in the 4 test series.
Image taken from SMH.com.au
Monday morning, and the headlines are rife with controversy following the match. Right through lunch time they have continued to pour out. Firstly, Harbhajan was suspended for 3 matches following an ICC hearing on Sunday night. Then India made counterclaims that Brad Hogg had called an Indian player a 'bastard'. There were claims that India would fly home, abandoning the series. Ricky Ponting's integrity was called into question, and then he responded angrily. Ex-players weighed into the debates about sportsmanship and cheating. There certainly was something special about this game.
The fact is, it did raise some very interesting and contentious issues regarding racism, sportsmanship and drawing the line regarding what is acceptable and what is unacceptable.
Much of the controversy has surrounded the claims of racism, and Harbhajan's suspension for directing a racist word towards Andrew Symonds. India then made claims that Brad Hogg labelled an Indian a 'bastard'. Against the backdrop of the accusations levelled towards Indian crowds on the recent Australian tour, the tension between the two teams could not be higher. But it is the age old question, should what is said on the field be left on the field? Many people have pointed out that Australia has a history of being very good at sledging, whether by use of racism or otherwise, and as such they say that Australia's complaints in this instance smack of hypocrisy.
It is a tough call as to whether this sort of incident should be left on the field or not. Ultimately, the ICC has decided that racist comments are out of bounds, and the match referee has determined that Harbhajan's comment was a breach of the code of conduct. For this reason, one cannot really argue with the decision to suspend him. I don't want to condone racism, but it is disappointing though.
Greg Baum, writing for the Sydney Morning Herald outlines the history of the use of the word 'monkey' as a racist taunt. I have to agree with Baum though, that really this matter should have been sorted out on the fields, with the umpires instructing Harbhajan to pull his head in. I think it really is arguable that the term 'monkey', in the context of the cricket game, and all the circumstances, at best has a very weak connection with racism. I can't speak for Andrew Symonds, but surely he is big enough and nasty enough to handle the situation? It is hardly a case where Symonds has been disadvantaged or mistreated as a result of Harbhajan's actions. In fact, at the end of the day, Australia won the match.
Things were shaping up very nicely for the rest of the series. Harbhajan has a remarkably abrasive effect on the Aussies, and this is highlighted by Pontings lacklustre performances agaisnt him in recent times. Harbhajan does not seem to be the sort of fella that would back down from a fight, and he was a real talisman for India in the first two tests. It is sad that he will miss the rest of the series. Unless of course India appeal the decision.
And then there is the issue of walking and the sportsmanship of owning up to dropped catches. Adam Gilchrist has long been known as a 'walker'. Many other high profile players though are not. In this match, Andrew Symonds, Michael Clark, Ponting, and Sourav Ganguly all stood their ground after appeals had been made. Andrew Symonds caused quite a stir when he came out and said he knew he was out when India appealed for a catch when he was on 30, but he stood his ground, was not given out, and went on to make more than 150 runs.
Many people (both Indian and Australian) have labelled this as 'cheating'. I think this is an unfair, but perhaps not inaccurate, assessment. To 'cheat' is generally to use deception or some other misleading conduct to derive personal gain. 'Cheating' could be interpreted more broadly than this, or more narrowly to mean 'breaking the rules'. On this narrow basis, the actions of the 'non-walkers' is definitely not cheating. The rules of cricket do not place any obligation on a batsman to walk if he 'knows he is out'. In fact 'knowing he is out' is a bit of a misnomer, when he cannot be out until ruled out by an umpire.
Should batsmen have to walk? There is no requirement to do so at present, but should they 'be good sports' and do it anyway? It could be said that not walking sets a bad example and that, as role models to children, cricketers should set high standards of ethical conduct. However, there is merit also in children understanding different roles people hold, and the way systems of rules and discipline work. Under this view, batsmen should allow the umpire to make their decision, and should not walk. While I understand that some think it is unfair that a batsman who knows he (or she) is out should not have to walk, I think that he (or she) should leave it to the umpire to make the decision. What goes around comes around, and you only have to review Ricky Ponting's dismissal in the first innings (a very dodgy LBW) to see how things go around.
There is a lot at stake in an international cricket match these days. Leaving it to the goodwill of the players is a risky business. India and Australia apparently had a 'gentleman's agreement' that each side would take the other's word regarding questionable catches in this series. However, barely a day after the second test Anil Kumble questioned the honesty and integrity of the Australia's in respect of some close catches. This highlights the difficulties when the players become involved in the decision making. India were certainly not innocent of some attempts to manage the remaining time, and thus Kumble's comments have to be taken with a grain of salt.
If the ICC determines that the game would be better if batsmen walked, then so be it. But until then, I think it is the 'walkers' who are the ones playing outside the rules. Sure they might have higher standards of ethics, but this is not an ethics competition. It is a cricket match.
Image taken from SMH.com.au
There is a much used phrase that something is 'just not cricket'. After the Second Test, a re-working might be appropriate - 'it is not just about cricket'. It is about so much more than that. And it is a shame that so much attention has been devoted to these other issues, overshadowing some first class cricket from the likes of Tendulkar, Laxman, Lee and Symonds, and leaving the rest of the series to be a dead rubber.
No comments:
Post a Comment