Pulling ones Hair out

I have decided to speak on the subject of Darrell Hair. If for no other reason that there are still some puns left to be made on “Hair”. The other is that the depilatory nature of the ICC’s action against Hair causes me great concern. Indeed, it brings to a head what I believe is a simmering, festering undercurrent of mistrust and racial tension in the cricket community. This is a complex issue and one I thought I might allow to go through to the ‘keeper. However, I cannot. I must subject you to my voice.

I have attached an e-Newsletter from the NSW Cricket Umpires & Scorers Association Inc. It is titled “The Death of Cricket” and to describe the tone as apoplectic does not seem to do justice to the passion with which the sacking of Darrell Hair is decried. That is one group’s (unsurprising) perspective. I am well aware that some of my readers are glad to see the back of Darrell Hair and that at least another billion cricket fans welcome the ICC’s action. I, for one, have mixed feelings, which I will detail.

What concerns me most is the high degree of racial sensitivity and the degree to which it is affecting the game. Of course, the world is gripped by racial tension. It is unsurprising that this overflows into all aspects of life. However, in my opinion, this has reached a level of paranoia in the cricket world that sees almost every incident as being grounded in racism. Let me site a couple of incidents that spring to mind.

Let’s start with that nasty, and MUCH publicised pushing incident at the ICC Champion’s Trophy presentation. For those of you on another planet, the Australians, particularly Martyn and Ponting were seen to manhandle the BCCI President, Sharad Pawar. I agree that it was very ordinary behaviour. Indeed, the Australians came across as belligerent, arrogant thugs, most likely, regrettably, because it is a fairly good indication of their character. BUT IT WASN’T BECAUSE THEY ARE RACISTS. In this sensitive climate, the Australians’ are naive to overlook the importance of behaving appropriately. I don’t make any excuses for them but it wasn’t about racism. I’m quite confident they would have impartially treated any official as badly. I’d be surprised if say, Malcolm Speed would have been treated any differently in the same circumstance.

There seems to have been a heightened expectation that Monty Panesar will be inundated with racist taunts by hostile Australian crowds. Why? I’m not aware of Australian crowds having a strong history in this area – I’m not saying that it can’t, won’t and hasn’t happened. I am perplexed by the focus on it. And already, I see that it has started. The Daily Telegraph reports that Panesar was called a “stupid Indian” at the SCG on day one against the Blues. That must have been hard to take. What if Flintoff had been called a “Pommie bastard” (a not uncommon term of endearment used to address English cricketers). That not only identifies his nationality, but uses a disparaging term for it. I’m not saying any of it is good. I teach my children not to call anybody stupid. But some perspective would be nice.

On 28 August, Michael Holding wrote in his column in an Indian newspaper http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/258009.html

“There is a double standard at work in cricket and this episode has only highlighted it. When England used reverse-swing to beat the Australians in the 2005 Ashes, everyone said it was great skill. When Pakistan does it, the opposite happens, no one thinks it is great skill. Everyone associates it with skulduggery.

When bombs go off in Karachi and Colombo everyone wants to go home. When bombs go off in London, no one says anything. That is first-world hypocrisy and we have to live with it.”

At face value, you might say “Well said, Michael, mon. That is deep.”. However, Micahel is over simplifying the issues. He comments are both thought provoking and inflammatory. I would respond to Michael thus: In terms of power and bias, it is the Asian bloc that enjoys the favour of ICC decisions. I site the recent treatment Hair as supporting evidence. On the English swing bowling, I think some observers may have raised eyebrows over the new found English skill. Besides most of the world was enjoying the Australians suffering, so who was going to complain? On the bombs, I would point out that while nowhere is safe, to attack England, the hostile parties do have to infiltrate heavy security. While, they did manage to do it, the likelihood of repeat action is less than say in countries, where the hostile parties are living in large numbers, and terrorist activities are commonplace. While it doesn’t seem fair that Pakistan and Sri Lanka have lost on cricket too often in recent times, it’s simply not a valid comparison.

Which finally brings me back to Darrell Hair. Is Michael Holding claiming that Darrell Hair is a racist? That would be a serious claim to make without evidence. Worse even than charging a team with ball tampering. Is the ICC accusing Darrell Hair of being racist? That’s what it looks like to me. The ICC could have handled this far better in my opinion.

It troubles me that one of the world’s top umpires has been voted off the elite panel because he made some unpopular decisions against the Asian bloc (these include no-balling Murali for throwing, giving Inzi out, run out, while taking evasive action and of course, the ball tampering affair). James Sutherland, whom I don’t have much time for said it quite well: “We don’t agree with the ICC’s decision and are concerned about the implications which could see international umpires concerned about off field consequences of calling decisions as they see them.” http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/267021.html

On the other hand, why do we have the elite panel? It is to provide neutral umpires – umpires whom the players trust to adjudicate without bias. It makes sense that all of the ICC members should have a say in the men that make up that panel. And it’s a fact of democracy that the majority, and the most numerically powerful sector will win. However, I see it as a real problem when an umpire has to be worried about doing the right thing in case he upsets the power base. Cricket teams, for example, are not elected by governing bodies, nor the general public.

Cricket is about the game and the players, not umpires and officials. I once heard a Test umpire say that if he can go five days and not see his name in print, then he considers he has done a very good job. I totally agree with that. But there are times when an official needs to make a decision that he knows will cause controversy, but he believes it is the correct decision. For an umpire to shrink from making that decision just to avoid controversy is to not carry out their duty. On the other hand, umpires who seek attention whether it be by deliberately creating controversy, being publicly outspoken or by indulging in showmanship are a real problem.

Looking more specifically at Hair, I believe that he has been guilty of such behaviour in the past, including the handling of the ball tampering 5 run penalty against Pakistan. The ICC could have handled this far better by addressing that specifically and openly. Peter Roebuck, probably my favourite cricket writer has this to say (Fairfax papers, 23/8/2006):

“Actually Hair should have been sacked years ago because he is an erratic and headstrong umpire whose time has passed. His conduct at the Oval was merely the latest episode in a notably contentious career.

Once again he chose the path of confrontation, throwing his weight around, asserting his authority without much thought about the consequences. Certainly he did not hesitate to accuse a touring team of cheating. He is not so much a bull in a china shop as a dinosaur in a delicatessen.”

I think Roebuck was harsh and I don’t totally agree with him, but the general imagery is valid. The ICC needed to address Hair’s mishandling of the ball tampering charge at the time of the inquest. Hair needed to be dismissed specifically for his actions at the Oval, if that in fact is what this is about. The corollary of Pakistan not being charged with ball tampering is that Hair was at fault. Thus, he should have received reproach. I might add, that reproach need not have been dismissal.

Instead, this is what the ICC tells us (http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/266878.html), “The board has discussed this matter with great sincerity,” said Sonn, “and gave lots of attention to it and they’ve come to the conclusion that they’ve lost confidence in Mr Hair.” Just came to the conclusion. Lots of attention. Great Sincerity. It’s rather airy-fairy and vague don’t you think? Quoting again, “However, both Malcolm Speed, the CEO of the ICC, and Sonn made it clear that there was “no issue” about the result of The Oval Test.” Note the careful wording – I interpret that they don’t have issue with the match being awarded to England, given the action of Pakistan. However, they are very specific about the result, carefully avoiding the incident that lead to Pakistan’s protest.

From the time the ICC, in the interest of transparency, publicised Hair’s ill considered offer to resign (for a large, but not unreasonable amount of compensation), it was clear that Hair was going to be cut. The ICC does not have a grand tradition of transparency. Shouldn’t an employee be able to have a private negotiation with his employer? The publication of the correspondence was nothing more than a successful political manoeuvre to discredit Hair. Why can’t they be transparent – the ICC could avert a lot of the current racial tension with some strong, open and honest leadership.

The Daily Telegraph recently published an allegedly leaked ICC scorecard for Darrell Hair (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,20735471-5001023,00.html)- his annual report card. Here are some interesting extracts:

“…Hair was ranked equal-second on the ICC’s elite panel – with Sydney’s outstanding Simon Taufel believed to be No. 1.”

“In pure decision-making, Hair was the top-ranked umpire on the panel, making 253 of 263 correct decisions last year – a success rate of 95.5 per cent compared with 94.8 per cent for all umpires.”

Teachers comments included:

“You do not shirk your responsibilities in this area, putting your faith in the process to get the correct outcome.”

“Your pragmatic approach to problem-solving has enabled you to find commonsense solutions that arise.”

I kid you not. So why has the ICC lost faith in Darrell Hair? The article I quoted earlier regarding the ICC release announcing Hair’s dismissal claimed, “Speed also made it clear that this wasn’t a decision taken at the spur of the moment, confirming that the board had considered the issue in detail. “The ICC board – which consists of 13 representatives from the member countries – was presented with a very detailed paper that rain into 15-20 pages.” So, Malcolm, in the interests of transparency, where is that paper? I’m sure if can all have a read, we will understand why the ICC has lost faith in Darrell Hair.

In closing, please allow me to say, that I think Hair has made some bad decisions (he should not have given Inzi out, run out) and worse, he has made some bad judgements. The ball tampering charge was one. I don’t believe any of Hair’s actions were motivated by racial prejudice. Please remember Adelaide, 26 January 1993. Craig McDermott was given out caught behind off Courtney Walsh. The West Indies won by one run. Umpire: Darrell Hair. And this was before neutral umpires – the umpires were allowed to be biased back then! Ironically, even this supporting evidence is tainted – that decision was controversy ridden and to this day, nobody, especially Craig McDermott, is sure that it was really out. However, there was not even a suggestion of racial victimisation.

Which Bank?

The bank that will be representing you in One Day Cricket this summer. I’d rather not use its name but I won’t be able to avoid referring to the “Commonwealth Bank”. Please see the link below for full details from Tim de Lisle, writing for Cricinfo. If you can’t be bothered, here is the important part. The release from Cricket Australia said “The one-day competition will be known as the ‘Commonwealth Bank Series’, and the Australian team known as the ‘Commonwealth Bank one-day international team’.”

http://blogs.cricinfo.com/ashesbuzz/archives/2006/11/the_aussies_sel.php

That’s correct. You will not be represented by a national team in One Day cricket this summer. It’s hard to imagine an organisation or company more out of touch with its “family” than Cricket Australia. They prove this time and again and this adds to the pile. In this day and age, we are used to sponsorship. We accept that it brings revenue into the game and keeps the ticket prices affordable, allows the players to be paid in a manner that will uphold their lifestyles and most importantly, provides for the development of future players and facilities.

We are used to all stationary objects being adorned with advertising and sponsor endorsements. We are even used to things that are moving, such as players being covered with insignia. We can even marvel at the ingenuity that sees objects that were formerly static, such as sightscreens and billboards, be redesigned with moving parts, in order to accomodate more advertising. We even accepted begrudgingly that the grand old Sheffield Shield has to be known as the Pura Milk Cup. That is, until Pura gets board with cricket and/or another company offers more. Perhaps we accept that the coming Test series is called “The 3 Ashes Series”, though I don’t think we should. But enough is enough. Cricket Australia, riding the crest of a wave of more than ten years of success, has more than enough revenue. They don’t need to sell the soul of the game – the name of the national team. They truly want the media to refer to Australia as the “Commonwealth Bank one-day international team”. Dreamin.

It’s not even as if the sponsor is going to win a popularity contest. The major banks are maligned alongside politicians and lawyers. If the nation team where going to be the “McDonalds one-day international team” that might be different. McDonalds is such an esteemed family institution. Besides the name is about as much as a mouthful as a Big Mac. Or how about the “XXXX one-day international team” or the ‘Milo one-day international team”. Hey, who knows who it might be in three years time.

However, nothing changes the fact that there are 10 days to go to the Ashes. In order not to get too worked about this, here is some (self) therapy. For this to work you need to know the old theme song of World Series Cricket – “Come On Aussie, C’mon, C’mon”. You know – “You’ve bee trainin’ all the winter, and there’s not a team that’s fitter….” That’s the tune.

Prelude

You’ve been schemin’ all winter…
And there’s not a bank that’s shiftier
And that’s the way it’s gotta be.

We’re up against the customers, you know,
This is super taxed you know
And we’re the fattest cats the world has seen.

Verse 1

Outrages fees each time you use our machines
Interest rates that will make you all turn green
We’ll amaze you with our assets
We’ll even buy the Ashes
And the managers eyes have got that killer gleam.

Chorus

So come On Which Bank? c’mon, c’mon.
Come On Which Bank? c’mon, c’mon.
Come On Which Bank? c’mon, c’mon.
Come On Which Bank? c’mon, c’mon.

Words by Dongles and Keith Claringbold III

Well, there should be another verse but that’s all I’ve got time for. Contributions welcome. One thing is for sure: In the next Westpac v CommBank annual cricket match, Westpac are going to be in real trouble if Commbank turns out its best eleven!! Did I say 10 days to go?