Much Ado About Cricket

When Michael Clarke captured Ishant Sharma's wicket to give Australia an unlikely victory in the Second Test in Sydney, I thought: India didn't deserve that. They had batted gallantly and fought hard to stave off defeat, and had come agonisingly close to succeeding. Then, in five remarkable balls, Clarke took three wickets and snatched victory from the jaws of a draw.

Since then it appears that all hell has broken loose. There are several issues involved, and in the present frenzy, it is difficult to separate them; but it is imperative that this separation occurs, otherwise the dispute will not be resolved, and the damage it is doing to cricket will not be healed.

First, there's the issue of umpiring. There is no question that, in this match, the Indians suffered a number of poor umpiring decisions, at least some of which adversely impacted upon their fortunes. They have a right to feel aggrieved. But it is also true that copping bad decisions is part and parcel of cricket: there isn't a person who has played the game, at whatever level, who hasn't suffered from a bad umpiring decision. But along with the disappointment that naturally results from such incidents, you also - hopefully - learn to accept that umpires are human; and that being human, they from time to time have bad games and make bad decisions. In other words, you learn to swallow your sense of moral outrage, knowing the odds are pretty good that you'll eventually benefit from a bad decision made in your favour.

With all due respect, it appears that the Indian team, and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) have forgotten this cricketing truism. Feeling aggrieved is one thing; accusing an umpire of incompetence (or is this really a coded accusation of bias?) and demanding the removal of that umpire is something else altogether. For starters, prior to the introduction of the international umpiring panel, touring the sub-continent was proverbial for suffering at the hands of sub-standard umpiring; the Indians are frankly the last people who should be pointing the finger on this score. More importantly, the last three wickets which Michael Clarke captured had nothing to do with bad umpiring; and plenty of Indian wickets fell as a consequence of poor shot selection. More than bad umpiring, the Indians contrived at their own demise.

If this weren't bad enough, the International Cricket Council's (ICC) craven submission to the BCCI's demands that one of the two umpires who officiated in the Syndey Test be removed has only made matters worse. Umpire Steve Bucknor has now been effectively tried and convicted of incompetence, without the benefit of either due process or an appeal - unlike the Indian player accused of racism (see below). For an umpire, who is supposed to be sacrosanct in the respect they are afforded, to be treated in such a shabby manner by the game's administrators, only reinforces the message that if you complain loud and long enough, and if you have the financial muscle to back your complaints, you'll get your way regardless. The ICC might call this pragmatic - I call it gutless.

Next, there is the issue of poor sportsmanship. On this point, the Indians are on much more substantial ground. Frankly, the conduct of the Australian players in the immediate aftermath of their victory was pretty deplorable. Sure, they had every right to be jubilant; but the essence of sportsmanship is being able, in the moment of your victory, to acknowledge the efforts of your opponents and pay them due regard for the competition they provided. The scenes of the Australian players carrying on like drunken teenagers and urging the crowd into transports of triumphalistic ecstasy was distasteful to say the least. If you were coach of a team of 10 year olds who behaved in this fashion, you'd bang their heads together and tell them to behave themselves - I don't see why adults should be exempt from this requirement. Compare this with the grace and dignity with which the English player Andrew Flintoff consoled the Australian players after their narrow loss in the Second Test of the 2005 Ashes series, and the response of the Australians in this latest match was, by contrast, shabby in the extreme.

Then there's the issue of sledging, which also comes under poor sportsmanship. The Australians are notorious sledgers; they are by no means the only ones who sledge, but they are the ones most closely associated with this practice. Let me be clear: sledging is not gamesmanship, the skill of gaining a psychological advantage over your opponent - it is personal abuse, pure and simple. And it seems to me that the Australians long ago forgot the difference between the two. Passing personal remarks and insulting comments is not the same using your skill as a player or adopting a personal approach that intimidates the opposition into surrendering the psychological initiative. Putting opponents off their game by abusing them takes neither skill nor intellect; it's just school-yard bullying transported to the cricket field.

I don't know if the Australians engaged in any sledging in this match (though it seems highly likely that they did), but it does appear that their past habit of doing so at least provided the fuel for the present explosion of indignation and accusation. And when it seemed as though, in their pursuit of victory, the Australians made dubious appeals and claimed wickets that were not theirs to claim, instances of past sledging ignited feelings of grievance and victimisation among the Indian players and officials. I believe that it was these past instances of bad behaviour by the Australians, as much as any instances of sledging in the recent match, which Indian captain Anil Kumble had in mind when he accused the Australians of not playing in the spirit of the game. And I think the Australians need to take a good, long hard look at themselves and realise that victories accomplished, to whatever degree, by sledging are hollow victories indeed.

Finally, there is the spectre of racism. I wasn't on the field when Indian player Harbhajan Singh allegedly called Andrew Symonds a "monkey". I wasn't at the hearing in which match referee Mike Proctor sustained the allegations against Singh and imposed a three match ban. I don't know what evidence was adduced, for and against, the allegation. But at least Singh has had the benefit of a hearing, and will be able to lodge an appeal - which is more courtesy than has been afforded to umpire Bucknor. If Harbhajan called Symonds a "monkey" - the taunt that Indian crowds yelled at him during Australia's recent tour of India -then he deserves to be banned. If he is innocent, the Australians must be examined as to why they lodged the complaint, and made to account accordingly.

Racism must be stamped out of all walks of life. In the past - and the last South African tour of Australia comes to mind - sections of the Australian public racially abused players from other countries. Fortunately, Australia's cricketing and civil authorities have taken steps to prevent this from reoccurring - more than the Indian authorities appear to have done with respect to the racists among their own spectators. And for the BCCI to demand that Harbhajan be cleared or else the present tour will be cancelled is a disgrace; this is a demand that undermines the integrity of the whole process. Granted, the Indians are to an extent entitled to feel miffed that it is one of their players who are among the first to be suspended under the ICC's racism code, especially given the history of racism which Indians, Pakistanis, West Indians, and others have had to endure. But in order for the code to be effective and to have integrity, it must apply to all without exception, regardless of historical injustices; as soon as conditions begin to be placed on the application of the code, it becomes a farce.

So, how does this get resolved? To begin, the captains must take the lead and set the example by their own behaviour. They must be seen to be engaging one another in a spirit of sportsmanship and mutual respect - and not just for show, but genuinely, as part of their integral approach to the game. And the players must follow the example set. And the cricketing boards of the various nations must respect the independence and sanctity of the umpires and disciplinary officials. The "talking" has to be done with bat and ball, and not at press conferences or through the issuing of threats and ultimatums. Any other course simply cheapens the game and makes a mockery of the values which it supposedly represents.

Talk to you soon,

BB