Its been nearly 72 hours since that dramatic Sunday when all hell broke loose down under. Thankfully, things are getting back to normal. The tour continues, so we have a match in Perth (where the worry I have is that the Aussies will trample all over us, aided by the famous Perth wicket and then people will wonder what the whole fuss was all about) and the teams (atleast the captain) seem to be on talking terms again. But the relief that things will return to normal should not overshadow the fact that what happened during those 5 days (and the night afterwards) has serious implications for cricket in general. In fact I feel there are three distinct issues that took place during the Sydney test, each one of them so serious that, had it even occured in isolation, would have proved quite damaging to cricket's reputation in world sports. The fact that ALL three of them happened in the same match explains the volcano of emotions that swept the nation. Hence, all three issues deserve a seperate hearing.
Issue # 1
The substandard officiating in the match
By now, reams of newsprint and hours of TV time have been spent on this, so I will not flog a dead horse further. Would like to make one point though: As human beings, we all get things wrong sometimes, just that this match did not see wrong decisions even out for both sides and when the side that has suffered the most loses so heart-breakingly there are bound to be extreme reactions (I can assure you the reactions would have slightly tempered had, say, Kumble and Dhoni batted out those overs). But what worries me more about the umpiring is that, in recent times, the officals have shown blatant ignorance of the game's laws (World Cup final anyone ?) or logical thinking. For e.g. in case of Ganguly, if both umpires are not sure whether the catch carried (as it was then) it should have either been refferred to the third umpire or the batsman should have been given benefit of the doubt. How can one ever trust the players on the ground in this ? (Pre-series agreement or not) Surely, Messrs Bucknor and Benson should have known better. So the ICC has a serious issue on hand: to improve the standard of world umpiring in quick time. Currently, the elite panel of umpires is really elite: only 8 members, of which one (Mr Hair) is no longer officiating and another (Mr. Bucknor) who will no longer enjoy the trust of the players irrespective of which game he officiates. (The best of them is an Australian and hence cannot officiate in Australia). So it needs to have more in that club. But the question is: are there umpires good enough to join the elite group ??. At least in India, the answer is no. The signs for cricket are not good indeed.
The ICC has also set a dangerous precedent by removing Bucknor from the next test. You bet that there will be games as worse as the Sdnyey test as far as the standard of umpiring is concerned. So does it mean that the ICC will start changing umpires after every badly officiated match ?
Issue # 2
The whole racisim row
Probably the most serious and the saddest of them all. At first, it reminded me of an incident in my childhood. I must have been in the 5th standard or so. While playing with a guy a year younger than me, I inadvertently let a cuss word escape my mouth. He promptly reported the incident to my mother, who then gave me more than a earful. What I am trying to get at is this: not everything that is spoken on the field deserve to be reported, especially if no one apart from the two parties has heard or seen anything. In most cases, you cannot give justice based on one man's word against another. Hard evidence needs to follow. Given this, Bhajji has certainly been convicted without a fair trial and the appeal against the verdict was certainly required. But here again, to hold the entire tour to ransom based on two demands was not on, in my book. When writers in other countries argue about how India is taking undue advantage of the situation given its power in world cricket, there are not entirely misplaced. Finally better sense has prevailed and the tour goes on.
Also, another dangerous precedent has been set: the ICC might need to appoint a battery of lawyers and judge along with the match referee for each match, especially if all teams decide to report everything that has been said on the field. And in due course of time, we will have microphones attached to every player on the field. And what about abuse from the dressing room ??? So have mics there too !!.
Issue # 3
General player conduct on the field
In addition to sledging and racist comments, this also includes general conduct on the field as well as the yardsticks applied by the players to various situations. Here, quite a few instances come to mind. Ponting's continued insistence (in the press conference) that he had held a clean catch off Dhoni was shocking to say the least. In fact, it is interesting to note that he himself bought up the word 'integrity' during the press conference. Most of the journalists would not have thought of it till then. The Aussie captain also proved himself to be a 'master' at judging the legitimacy of dubious catches couple of hours earlier, during the Ganguly dismissal. How we could have been so confident so as to raise the dreaded finger when even TV replies were inconclusive, we would never know. Then there was Adam Gilchrist. Normally renowned to one of the fairer players in the Aussie side, he is the one who is known to walk after edging without waiting for the umpire's verdict. But still, his was the most vociferous appeal when Dravid thrust his pad out while facing that delivery. He would not have been more than 2 meters away from Dravid and he surely would have quite clearly seen that the ball was miles away from Dravid's bat or glove. Yet, you turn your throat sore in appealing. Now, I dont expect cricketers to be saints, but trying to spread a saint-like image while conveniently indulging in double-standard does nothing but expose you as a person (Witness Ponting saying: "If you have to question my integrity, then you just have to look at the first innings when I didnt claim the catch at slip"). But after seeing the Ponting in the 1st innings vs the 2nd innings, we do question his integrity. After all, in such cases, a man with conveniently changing morals is worse than a man with no morals at all.
So, a lot has happened over the past 72 hours, and lets hope all the affected parties: the players, ICC, the cricket boards and world cricket in general, takes the right lessons out of it.
Cheers
Amit
Issue # 1
The substandard officiating in the match
By now, reams of newsprint and hours of TV time have been spent on this, so I will not flog a dead horse further. Would like to make one point though: As human beings, we all get things wrong sometimes, just that this match did not see wrong decisions even out for both sides and when the side that has suffered the most loses so heart-breakingly there are bound to be extreme reactions (I can assure you the reactions would have slightly tempered had, say, Kumble and Dhoni batted out those overs). But what worries me more about the umpiring is that, in recent times, the officals have shown blatant ignorance of the game's laws (World Cup final anyone ?) or logical thinking. For e.g. in case of Ganguly, if both umpires are not sure whether the catch carried (as it was then) it should have either been refferred to the third umpire or the batsman should have been given benefit of the doubt. How can one ever trust the players on the ground in this ? (Pre-series agreement or not) Surely, Messrs Bucknor and Benson should have known better. So the ICC has a serious issue on hand: to improve the standard of world umpiring in quick time. Currently, the elite panel of umpires is really elite: only 8 members, of which one (Mr Hair) is no longer officiating and another (Mr. Bucknor) who will no longer enjoy the trust of the players irrespective of which game he officiates. (The best of them is an Australian and hence cannot officiate in Australia). So it needs to have more in that club. But the question is: are there umpires good enough to join the elite group ??. At least in India, the answer is no. The signs for cricket are not good indeed.
The ICC has also set a dangerous precedent by removing Bucknor from the next test. You bet that there will be games as worse as the Sdnyey test as far as the standard of umpiring is concerned. So does it mean that the ICC will start changing umpires after every badly officiated match ?
Issue # 2
The whole racisim row
Probably the most serious and the saddest of them all. At first, it reminded me of an incident in my childhood. I must have been in the 5th standard or so. While playing with a guy a year younger than me, I inadvertently let a cuss word escape my mouth. He promptly reported the incident to my mother, who then gave me more than a earful. What I am trying to get at is this: not everything that is spoken on the field deserve to be reported, especially if no one apart from the two parties has heard or seen anything. In most cases, you cannot give justice based on one man's word against another. Hard evidence needs to follow. Given this, Bhajji has certainly been convicted without a fair trial and the appeal against the verdict was certainly required. But here again, to hold the entire tour to ransom based on two demands was not on, in my book. When writers in other countries argue about how India is taking undue advantage of the situation given its power in world cricket, there are not entirely misplaced. Finally better sense has prevailed and the tour goes on.
Also, another dangerous precedent has been set: the ICC might need to appoint a battery of lawyers and judge along with the match referee for each match, especially if all teams decide to report everything that has been said on the field. And in due course of time, we will have microphones attached to every player on the field. And what about abuse from the dressing room ??? So have mics there too !!.
Issue # 3
General player conduct on the field
In addition to sledging and racist comments, this also includes general conduct on the field as well as the yardsticks applied by the players to various situations. Here, quite a few instances come to mind. Ponting's continued insistence (in the press conference) that he had held a clean catch off Dhoni was shocking to say the least. In fact, it is interesting to note that he himself bought up the word 'integrity' during the press conference. Most of the journalists would not have thought of it till then. The Aussie captain also proved himself to be a 'master' at judging the legitimacy of dubious catches couple of hours earlier, during the Ganguly dismissal. How we could have been so confident so as to raise the dreaded finger when even TV replies were inconclusive, we would never know. Then there was Adam Gilchrist. Normally renowned to one of the fairer players in the Aussie side, he is the one who is known to walk after edging without waiting for the umpire's verdict. But still, his was the most vociferous appeal when Dravid thrust his pad out while facing that delivery. He would not have been more than 2 meters away from Dravid and he surely would have quite clearly seen that the ball was miles away from Dravid's bat or glove. Yet, you turn your throat sore in appealing. Now, I dont expect cricketers to be saints, but trying to spread a saint-like image while conveniently indulging in double-standard does nothing but expose you as a person (Witness Ponting saying: "If you have to question my integrity, then you just have to look at the first innings when I didnt claim the catch at slip"). But after seeing the Ponting in the 1st innings vs the 2nd innings, we do question his integrity. After all, in such cases, a man with conveniently changing morals is worse than a man with no morals at all.
So, a lot has happened over the past 72 hours, and lets hope all the affected parties: the players, ICC, the cricket boards and world cricket in general, takes the right lessons out of it.
Cheers
Amit
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment