Opinion - Leader Page Articles   

The Sydney Test: will it revive fairness?

The Sydney Test is a milestone in cricket history. It has spawned many issues and raised innumerable questions of reforms in the International Cricket Council rules. Peter Roebuck’s felicitous phrase “a pack of wild dogs” will forever remain in collective cricket memory. In India, it has already achieved ‘Vedic status.’

The Sydney imbroglio revives memories of the bodyline controversy of 1932-33 during the Ashes Series in Australia. Its condemnation was best expressed by Walter Hammond, a member of Douglas Jardine’s English team and later captain of England, “I condemn it absolutely. Bodyline is dangerous. I have had to face it, and I would have got out of the game if it had been allowed to persist.”

Bodyline cricket targeted a batsman physically. Currently, the Australian philosophy as now supported by James Sutherland (Cricket Australia) is to attack the opponents’ minds and achieve ‘mental disintegration’. If bodyline is banned because it is a dangerous physical threat, why tactics of ‘mental disintegration’ are not?

But let me first congratulate a large segment of the Australian media and sportspersons which has vigorously criticised its own team. Australia is a cricket-loving nation and so is India. The two countries are vibrant democracies with a shared vision and cherished values of freedom of speech and media, the rule of law and a passion for fairness and equality.

I have, as Lawasia president, interacted with the Australian legal fraternity — judges and lawyers. They have nurtured and preserved an independent and fearless legal system based on fairness. Recently, Indian doctor Mohammed Haneef’s visa was cancelled as a consequence of his suspected links with abortive terror attacks in London and Glasgow. The efforts of barristers Peter Russo and Stephen Keim were highly appreciated in India.

For many cricket-lovers in India, Don Bradman is still considered numero uno, surpassing W.G. Grace, Ranji, and our own Sachin Tendulkar. Bradman in his Farewell to Cricket narrates how the bodyline controversy was given a quietus by the MCC ruling that any form of bowling which is obviously a direct attack by the bowler on the batsmen would be an offence against the spirit of the game and was therefore unfair. Bradman mentions the comment of Sir Pelham Warner in 1932 even before the bodyline controversy arose in an English cricket match — “Bowes must alter his tactics. Bowes bowled with five men on the on-side and sent down several very short-pitched balls which repeatedly bounced head-high and more. Now that is not bowling, indeed it is not cricket.”

The ICC must seriously consider the whole philosophy and tactics of ‘mental disintegration’ and ‘sledging’ raised to the level of a science by Cricket Australia. A deliberate, well-planned, intensely rehearsed and fine-tuned campaign with the assistance of expert psychologists including media blitz and abusive on-field verbal ‘sledging’. ‘Sledging’ literally means hitting with a heavy blacksmith hammer. Cricket is all about ‘fairness,’ and ‘fair’ means honest, just and straight-forward.

Steve Waugh refers to an article by John Thicknesse in 1994 in Wisden which said “Border (Allan) will be remembered in England with respect than affection stemmed from his condoning not infrequently his participation in the sledging of opponents and umpires during play in open violation of ICC’s Code of Conduct.” Waugh continues “Direct abuse to me is sledging — and should never be allowed … Occasionally abuse did arise, and it was an area we needed to clean up as we were aware kids were copying our every move and such an example was not the one we wanted to set.” Waugh’s plea has fallen on deaf years. James Sutherland is in a belligerent, combative and unrepentant mood. He has ridiculed India and said that test cricket is not “tiddly winks” and that Australia played hard and fair and will continue to do so.

Guha Ray quotes Tony Greig on ‘sledging’ by Australians in a speech in Johannesburg (Tehelka, January 19, 2008) — “I have never heard anything like it. The whole thing is getting out of hand and the time has seriously come for the authorities in the game to rethink the question of what players are allowed to say on the field.”

What is the way forward? In the short term, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s advice “to settle the matter at the first available opportunity” and Foreign Minister Stephen Smith’s wise words — it is time for “cool heads” — should be accepted.

But the BCCI should not lower its guard. The text, content and full reasons of Mike Procter’s order banning Harbhajan Singh were on the website of neither the ICC nor the BCCI when this article was written. Nor is the verbatim order available with the media. Why this lack of transparency? Surely, the Indian public is entitled to know.

With difficulty, a full copy was made available to me by a generous source. The charge was Harbhajan calling Andrew Symonds a ‘monkey.’

A few important portions of the reasons given by Procter are extracted:

“The first issue for me is, did Harbhajan Singh say the word ‘monkey’ or ‘big monkey’? I have heard evidence from Andrew Symonds, Michael Clarke and Matthew Hayden that he did say these words. Harbhajan denies saying these words. Both umpires did not hear, nor did Ricky Ponting or Sachin Tendulkar. I am satisfied and sure beyond reasonable doubt that Harbhajan Singh did say these words.”

“I am satisfied that the words were said and that the complaint to the umpires which forms this charge would not have been put forward falsely. I dismiss any suggestion of motive or malice”.

“Whatever may have been said between them prior to Harbhajan Singh calling Andrew Symonds a monkey is irrelevant. There is history between these two players.”

He finds that Tendulkar and the umpires were not in a position to hear the words. He took into account a joint statement issued after the Mumbai incident by the Indian and Australian Boards regarding the rest as irrelevant.

The order has many glaring infirmities.

First, the finding is not clear as to whether what Harbhajan said was ‘monkey’ or ‘big monkey.’ Obviously there is a discrepancy in the evidence. The charge mentioned only ‘monkey.’ Secondly, Australian witnesses were all present at the same time. Evidence should have been taken singly and other witnesses kept out. Thirdly, no reasons are given; only conclusions mentioned. Particularly, the observation “this charge would not have been put forward falsely” — and the unreasoned dismissal of the suggestion of “motive and malice.” The dishonest behaviour of Ponting and Clarke was seen in live television coverage. They repeatedly appealed though the catches were grounded. Harbhajan’s batting on that day had frustrated the Australians. Ponting has repeatedly been dismissed by Harbhajan and is now Harbhajan’s ‘bunny.’

Fourthly, the prior events and conversation between Symonds and Harbhajan — the most relevant fact — is rejected as irrelevant. Harbhajan had patted Brett Lee who never protested nor complained nor came as a witness. Symonds officiously intervened even though “there is history between these two players” and as admitted by him in the Press “he had a go at him” and “took a crack at Harbhajan.” Symonds was then ‘gagged’ by Cricket Australia. Obviously, there was provocative ‘sledging’ — why was it irrelevant? Apparently, a well-planned provocation, leading to a false complaint to remove a thorn from the Australian side. A classic attempt to achieve ‘mental disintegration’. Facts sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt were ignored. Mike Procter’s error, if not bias, is apparent. Fifthly, the BCCI needs to look carefully at the article written by Avirook Sen (Hindustan Times, Jan. 9, 2008) about the biases, views and opinions of Mike Procter during the ‘Apartheid’ days. He reportedly characterised India’s stand against the ban on South African cricket as hypocritical.

In the long term, there is the wider question of fairness and preserving the spirit of the game. Rules have to be modified. Some forms of abuse may be terms of endearment in Australia but in the playing fields of India, they would provoke fisticuffs and even a minor riot. Planned, systematic, expert-supported attack by verbal jousts and other tactics to ‘mentally disintegrate’ the opposition is subversive of the spirit of the game. It must be banned. Further technology must be utilised widely with the players’ right to appeal. Seven out of the eight horrible decisions in the Sydney Test could have been avoided.

If Cricket Australia wants a fight and no change in the rules, the Australian ‘dingo’ will have to be reined in by the ‘British lion’ and the ‘three Asian tigers.’

Finally, I salute the Australian media and its great sportspersons for their forthright criticism while ‘pointing’ an accusing finger at James Sutherland, the face of the “Ugly Australians.”

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Why not a Rs.5000 computer?
Little chance of success
The Sydney Test: will it revive fairness?
Benazir’s heir and the future of Pakistan
Greenpeace chases away Japan’s whalers
Corrections and clarifications
Devastating fire
On jallikattu
Front page
“Hungary supports India’s claim for Security Council seat”

Copyright © 2008, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu