The thrilling conclusion to the some-what controversial second cricket test between Australia and India left me somewhat satisfied - the fact that I had spent my entire Sunday on the couch in front of the television was of little consequence considering the outcome of the match.
If you haven’t heard by now, at one stage, Australia required three wickets to win on the fifth and final day, of the second test with approximately three overs to bowl – a very unlikely event. India’s captain, Anil Kumble, had seemingly done enough to ensure the draw. However, part time bowler Michael Clarke managed to complete this astonishing feat in less than one over, taking the wickets of three tail end Indian batsmen to secure Australia’s 16th consecutive test victory – equaling the record set by Steve Waugh’s side in 2001. Screams of both astonishment and delight erupted concurrently throughout my neighbourhood as many suburban households witnessed the end of what was truly one of the most remarkable test cricket matches of recent times. I had to chuckle when Clarke, who had a terrible match with the bat, stated after the game that he took more wickets than runs.
Unfortunately, this match will be shrouded in controversy. There were some particularly bad umpiring decisions – Andrew Symonds being cleaning caught off the bowling of Sharma while he was on 30 runs on the first day, yet refused to walk. As a consequence, the umpire did not dismiss him, and Symonds went on to make 168. Replays show that Symonds was clearly out.
In regards to walking, I disagree with the view that the batsmen are duty-bound to walk. The umpire is there to make the decision, and any decision that is wrong is the fault of the umpire, not the teams participating. Many people have criticised Symonds’s decision to stay at the crease after being caught off the bowling of Sharma in first innings, but as Symonds’s rightly said, he’d be doing his team a disservice by walking.
Dravid’s second innings dismissal was another example of terrible umpiring. It was clear, partially from the benefit of television replays, that Dravid had not made contact with the ball, and was given out, caught by Gilchrist off the bowling of Symonds. This was a poor decision by the umpires, but whether it would have any affect on the outcome, one cannot be sure.
In any event, the present furor of this test result will eventually be only footnoted by the history books. Of bigger significance is the equally of the record, which Australia will be confident of breaking come the third test at the WACA in Perth on January the 16th.
The important thing is that the rules should be the same for both the sides and they should be made explicit before the game starts.
So if Virender Sehwag is suspended in South Africa for appealing for a taking a catch which wasn’t then should Ricky Ponting, Adam Gilchrist, Andrew Symonds and Michael Clarke be. Or are the rules different for different sides.
If most sledging is OK but some terms are deemed racist therefore some forms of sledging are not acceptable while others are - then let the ICC publish the rule book of sledging - what sledging is OK and what is not with illustrated examples, a dictionary etc. (for instance it is apparently OK for Glenn McGrath to ask a West Indies batsman what a certain part of Brian Lara’s anatomy feels like because it was non racial macho thing to say – basically gutter level personal abuse if OK in the gentleman’s game but not anything to do with race). Why should not strict action be taken against both forms of abuse.
For the record let me state calling someone a monkey does not have racist connotations in India – in fact a monkey is a revered animal in India and one of the major Indian Gods is the monkey God Hanuman. However that is no defence since calling a person of African descent a monkey does have racist connotations and should not be done – but maybe many in India do not understand the sensitivity of the matter.
The joke doing the rounds in India is that when an Australian child learns to say the word “Mother” for the first time the parents say “Two cheers. Junior has learnt half a word”. For the Australian team to complain about sledging and occupy the moral high ground on this issue is a bit much.
I guess they were getting a taste of their own medicine in the World Cup 20-20 and India and were suffering from some not inconsiderable digestion as a consequence.
Harbhajan made a mistake if (and only if) he referred to Andrew Symonds as a monkey. Wrong choice of animal mate - you should have tried some other noteworthy animal to respond to Symonds’ abuse - swine or dog come to mind as possible candidates - they do not carry racist connotations. It gave the Aussies a handle to turn the tables on the Indians by raising the racism issue. The Indians need to refine their sledging strategy. It needs to be more nuanced - someone in the Indian camp needs to think this through. India needs a specialist sledging coach (anyone for Gregg Chappell for this position - he is Australian and they are the best at this).
But be happy India, the world is indeed flattening - in colonial times it took the word of ten Indians to overrule the word of one white man in India. Today you need to have two white witnesses to overrule the word of one Indian.
But we havent heard the last of this. This is only the beginning.
We have a situation where a white match referee (from a country that till very recently practised the worst form of racism as state policy) takes the word of two white witnesses (who are not neutral) over that of one Indian witness (who is not neutral) and without any independent witness or corroborating evidence (no video, no audio, nothing heard by the umpires) bans an Indian player (who the white Australian captain finds himself incapable of playing and so will benefit from this ban, and it was this Australian captain who insisted that the racism charge be laid at Harbhajan’s doorstep).
Sanjeev Bikhchandani
January 7th, 2008
Thanks for your comments Sanjeev. I hadn’t commented on the racial slur incident, mostly because, like you, I’m a bit wary of the evidence supporting it. I support what cricket writer Peter Roebuck has said on his blog in regards to the incident - if there was such talk, in the light of such seemingly meagre evidence, it should have been dealt with by Ponting and Kumble off the field. Thats pretty much all I’ll say on this issue, other than to say that I hope the fall out of the incidents of the second test do not give rise to the very racial degeneration that the ICC are attempting to stamp out.
I agree in the most part of what you said - India got the worse of some pretty shoddy umpiring as I have highlighted above. Ponting’s dismissal in the first innings was also a poor decision, as the replay showed. However, I don’t think it is necessary to blame either side - the umpires are soley responsible for this aspect. In football, if a player illegally slide tackles another player, he doesn’t send himself off - the referee’s do that.
I guess the point of my whole blog was to acknowledge that, controversies aside, that the test match was very enjoyable to watch. It is great to have a team like India over in Australia who can really push the Aussies to the wire.
daz
January 7th, 2008
I agree Daz - very enjoyable match to watch, it is just upsetting that what was a good game of cricket has been overshadowed by subsequent events. With any luck, Ponting and Kumble will have a long hard think about the situation, and whether it would be better resolved by a few closed door discussions, rather than an out-and-out stand off. I certainly hope that it can be resolved - it is horrible to think that India will follow through and suspend their tour. Sport should be about the competition on the field: not this off-field bullshit (from both sides!).
Elsa
January 8th, 2008
Elsa, I totally agree. In retrospect, the matter should have been handled better by Ponting, and directly with Kumble. However, Ponting should not be held guilty by the decisions and actions of others - namely the match umpires, and the ICC’s Board of Control. I’ve written some more thoughts in today’s peice.
daz
January 8th, 2008