Instant Sharma’s gonna get you

Before I make any comment on the recently concluded Test match, please allow me to express belated endorsements to India’s decision to drop the charges against Brad Hogg. It was a marvellous gesture, unexpected and a class above the actions and words of both teams in the previous week. One act of grace – giving up one’s right to get even – seemed to have a very healing effect. The Perth Test has as much pressure and as many bad decisions (more, in fact) than Sydney but all was well. Especially for India!

Every cricket scribe will have already noted the irony of India twice stopping Australia’s record winning streak of 16. Both matches were quite extraordinary. In India, it was extraordinary because Australia had the match done and dusted. In Perth, it was extraordinary because no sub-continental team has ever won there. In fact, Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka have lost all nine Tests contested at the WACA.

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ausvind/engine/records/team/match_results.html?class=1;id=213;type=ground

Every Australian expected the Perth Test to be a foregone conclusion. Australia would win the Perth Test, break the record and seal the series. I think that included the 11 Australians charged with executing the accomplishment.

I’m not going to recap the entire Test. India outplayed Australia and deserved to win – no question. Pathan (where have you been?) was magnificent. All of the Indian bowlers bowled well and that was the difference. Australia have two world class bowlers and this could be brought to bare over the next few months. The spell of Ishant Sharma to Ricky Ponting on the final day was a highlight. I was stunned by the movement off the pitch. So was Ponting. I thought Ponting was very, very lucky not to be lbw twice before his eventual demise. One of the pad ups, where hawk eye showed the ball hitting top of middle, should have been given out. You just can’t allow batsmen to do that. Even if your name is Billy “leg before what?” Bowden. Ponting was paramount to Australia’s effort and his relatively cheap dismissal was key. Hussey, being left handed was far more comfortable against Sharma and I think he should have stayed up that end. Arthur Morris did that in 1948, in the famous run chase (3/404) at Leeds. Morris and Bradman decided that Morris should take part-time leg spinner, Denis Compton’s viciously turning deliveries and Morris hit him out of the attack.

Australia missed Hayden greatly. I can’t help think that he might have scored more runs than those other two. Who knows. And Clark’s dropping of Dravid early on the first day was not helpful.

Where Australia really lost the match was on day two. The Indian bowling was very good and it was not treated with the respect that it deserved. Batsmen were getting out to good deliveries playing bad shots. If the same application was applied in the first inning as was seen in the second, there might have been a different story.

Even after that, Australia had a chance on day three. India were 5/158 and in trouble. If Australia had have kept the lead to around 320, they would have had a chance. Clark and Lee had been by far the pick of the bowlers in the first session. Lee was not seen for 90 minutes after Lunch and Clark’s involvement during that time was minimal, in which time he dismissed Pathan. Instead Clarke (M) and Symonds trundled away. I have unravelled the mystery today. It’s not a simple matter of Ponting being a dimwit. Ponting was fined 25% of his match fee for Australia’s slow over rate and came to within a whisker of a one match ban. At the lunch break on day three, Australia was 8 overs behind. That is why Clarke and Symonds bowled while Dhoni and Laxman took the game away from Australia. Ponting for his part, was Ponting. He refused to take responsibility saying he didn’t do the actual bowling and he had four quicks, all with long runs. Oh please. D-Day was planned in a shorter space of time than it takes some field settings to be finalised. And that goes for both teams.

I’m not saying that Australia would have successfully chased 320. The fact that they ultimately made 340 is no proof at all. Two tail-enders, with nothing to lose, smashing 80 runs may have played totally differently if they had to make just 80 runs, rather than 160. Australia was never a real chance to make 413 but 320 may have been achievable.

Anyway, it’s all hearsay. Is Instant Sharma going to get Ricky yet again? India won in Adelaide four years ago. Can they repeat the dose, square the series, and re-visit the lamentations of Sydney? It is titillating indeed.

Roebuck demands Trueman be removed from the record books

Now that India have their own way – Steve Bucknor has been sent packing and Harbhajan can play in Perth – and the tour can proceed, the hysterical (and I don’t mean funny) Peter Roebuck has cast his gaze further afield. While surfing the internet for information on sledging, he came across these beauties (see Appendix 1). Roebuck was horrified to realise that the great Englishman, Fred Trueman was a sledger and in fact, a racist (see below comment to Subba Row).

The batsman edged a Trueman thunderbolt to first slip. It went right through Raman Subba Row’s hands and legs and down to the boundary. Fred didn’t say a word. At the end of the over, Subba Row ambled past Trueman and apologised sheepishly, “I should’ve kept my legs together, Fred”. “So should thy mother,” replied Trueman.

Paragraph 3.3 of the ICC Code of Conduct refers to players or team officials “using language or gestures that offends, insults, humiliates, intimidates, threatens, disparages or vilifies another person on the basis of that person’s race, religion, gender, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin”.

http://www.icc.cricket.org/icc/rules/code-of-conduct-for-players-and-officials.pdf

Clearly, by referring to Subba Row’s mother, Trueman was referring to his descent. In additional, while Subba Row was an Englishman, and played Test cricket for England, he is of Indian stock and Trueman must therefore be a racist. Seeing that Trueman is no longer playing, and sadly, is in fact, dead, he cannot be sacked from the team, so Roebuck sees no alternative than to have Trueman removed from the record books.

But it does not stop there – sources have indicated to Roebuck that the great Bradman once appealed for a caught behind that was given not out. This was clearly excessive appealing and I’m afraid that as Bradman also happens to be an Australian cricketer (the very worst type there is), Roebuck says that he has to go as well.

I used to like and admire Peter Roebuck. He was easily the best journalist and commentator I had heard (except for Richie, of course). Not any more. Not since his ridiculous article on Tuesday. It’s not because he clearly dislikes Australian cricketers. I think I’ve made it quite clear that there are plenty of things that I dislike about Australian cricketers, especially the current captain. Roebuck stated that the Australian cricket team is self-obsessed. I agree. The manner of the Australian cricket team at times is lamentable. Remember the platform scene at the presentation of the ICC Champions Trophy? It is ugly, insensitive and undiplomatic. I believe that with some well-chosen, humble, and circumspect words, Ponting could have helped smooth over this current crisis. Instead, Ponting has been dogmatic, single-minded and self righteous. I see these as character flaws that particularly present when there is pressure. That is human nature. However, it is absurd and irrational for Roebuck to call for Ponting to be sacked because of these character flaws. Perhaps Ponting needs some charm lessons from the master himself, James Sutherland. A good bollocking even, but sacking? It is even more absurd in the same breath to also call for the sacking of Gilchrist and Hayden. Roebuck didn’t bother to state what Gillie did wrong (he did drop 4 catches and get out for less than 10 on two occasion but I don’t think that was what Roebuck is getting at), and the only justification for Hayden’s sacking was that he crosses himself in Tests when the century is reached but not at state level, and that crossing oneself is at odds with swearing like a trooper.

At one point in Roebuck’s Tuesday article he claims that the celebrations at the end were the worst aspect of behaviour. Here it is:

“Probably the worst aspect of the Australians’ performance was their conduct at the end. When the last catch was taken they formed into a huddle and started jumping up and down like teenagers at a rave. It was not euphoria. It was ecstasy. They had swallowed a pill called Vengeance, among the most dangerous on the shelves. Not one player so much as thought about shaking hands with the defeated and departing. So much for Andrew Flintoff consoling a stricken opponent in his hour of defeat.”

http://www.theage.com.au/news/cricket/ponting-must-be-sacked/2008/01/07/1199554570948.html?page=2

For crying out loud, if that really is the worst of it, there is not too much to worry about! Who cares if it was euphoria or ecstasy or what the difference is anyway. A pill called Vengeance? Oh please. As Roebuck rightly points out, Ponting and his men are desperate to win. They were just 12 balls from the end of the match and nowhere near closing it – who would not be excited about the part time spinner miraculously claiming three wickets in five balls. And as for not shaking hands, that is a shameless lie. The players did in fact walk from the field shaking hands. The image of Flintoff and Brett Lee was indeed an enduring moment of the 2005 Ashes. It was special because Freddie Flintoff is a special guy. It is somewhat romantic and unrealistic of Roebuck to expect all winning moments to end like that.

I seem to remember a day in 1993 when McDermott was out c Dujon, b Walsh and the West Indies won by a single. The West Indies ran around like deranged maniacs. I don’t know whether they were euphoric or ecstatic but even though I was crying I did appreciate seeing how much the win meant to the Windies. How was that behaviour any different to the Australians on Sunday? What did Roebuck expect? Should the Australians have immediately looked terribly solemn and disappointed and apologised for winning because the umpire had made some bad calls earlier in the match?

Peter, I suggest that you get off your high horse. Very few people on this planet are in a position to indulge in such moralising.

“Roebuck in 2001 was given a suspended jail sentence after admitting caning three young cricketers he had offered to coach. He pleaded guilty to three charges of common assault involving three South African teenagers between 1 April and 31 May, 1999. Roebuck was originally accused of indecent assault but pleaded guilty to lesser charges of common assault. However, the judge said he did not accept the purity of Roebuck’s motives. He said: “It was not appropriate to administer corporal punishment to boys of this age in circumstances such as these. It seems so unusual that it must have been done to satisfy some need in you.” Ian Fenny prosecuting said: “Roebuck then pulled the boy towards him, in what appeared to be an act of affection. He then asked if he could look at the marks on the boy’s buttocks, something which he in fact did.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Roebuck

I acknowledge that nobody is perfect but Roebuck’s pontificating and moralising is even more rich than the sledging Aussies complaining about copping a few back. And it has to be said that the Aussies rarely complain about what is said back – the Harbhajan comment was reported because that specific comment had caused trouble in India and had been outlawed before the series.

This latest international cricket incident was a storm in a teacup. A bush fire in a thimble and the flames were mostly being fanned by hysterical journalists and commentators all competing for a slice of the cricket media pie. Just who could say the most outrageous and inflammatory thing? (Answer: Roebuck) Who could get on the front page of a national paper? (Answer: Roebuck). Roebuck did more harm to the game with his illogical and hysterical claims than any cricket player or umpire.

I’m done with Roebuck. Now for the ICC.

The ICC have added to this mess by undermining the integrity out of the neutral umpiring system. What will happen next? Will teams be demanding that umpires be changed mid-match when they cop a bad decision or two? There is no denying that Steve Bucknor had a shocker of a match. I don’t believe there is any assertion that he was cheating or deliberately favouring Australia. What if this was New Zealand instead of India? Would they have demanded that the umpire be changed? Even if they did, nobody could seriously suggest that they would have been successful. I think we all know why but I’ll say it anyway: India has over one billion citizens of which only 11 are not passionate about cricket. (Hint: People = Money $$$). On the other hand New Zealand has under five million people of which only 11 care about cricket. Isn’t accepting the umpires decision, however bad, in the spirit of cricket? Would it not be in the spirit of international cricket not to undermine an already stretched elite neutral umpiring panel? And for that matter, why is that India have not managed to provide an umpire or two for the international panel? They have the most people, and the most cricketers and yet they are not contributing to what is claimed to be an under-staffed and over-stretched panel (see Appendix 2).

I read one journalist who applauded the move to sack Bucknor. The rationale was that umpires should be dropped if they do not perform. They should not be untouchable. That in itself is a fair remark. However, it seems to me that while Bucknor may have deserved to be sacked, he was sacked because India demanded it. If India had suffered the bad decisions in the spirit of the game, would the ICC have taken the initiative to immediately sack Bucknor? I don’t think so. Don’t get me wrong – India was entitled to complain about Bucknor’s performance, as was Australia. But publicly banging on about it and demanding his axing simply because you have enough clout to, is just not cricket.

The other thing that the ICC needs to do is tighten up is the process of hearing and sentencing misconduct charges. It has reached the point where legal people need to be involved. One of the main problems here is that it seems the charge has not been proven satisfactorily. Mike Proctor stated “This was not a case of just taking the word of an Australian over an Indian” but he didn’t elaborate….

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/ausvind/content/current/story/329599.html

The same situation existed with the “Hair Affair” in England in 2006. Things would have been so different with Hair and the ball tampering charge if it could have been proven. However neither the ball in question nor video evidence could be produced. Either the ICC officials need to be trained with a better process, or they need some adult supervision. And all players will have to agree to be wired and monitored at all times. Silly isn’t it. All this effort and expense. We need to remember that these charges are not resulting in players being sent to gaol or even in being executed. They are potentially going to miss a few games of cricket.

And back to sledging – what is allowed and what is not? I suspect that we are about to see Brad Hogg suffer the same punishment as Harbhajan. But there will be one difference: Harbhajan will get off but Hogg will not. I believe Hogg called someone a bastard. I think we all know that when an Aussie calls someone a bastard, he’s usually not literally bringing into question the marital status of the sledgee’s parents. However, we all know that is the literal meaning of “bastard”. That constitutes offending the players descent and there you have it. Players will need to think before opening their mouths at all. But that’s probably a good approach to life in general! Perhaps players will start issuing sledges through their media managers after their lawyers have given it the once over.

I know, the ICC could release a book of acceptable sledges:

Welcome to the crease, smelly.
Suffer in your jocks.
You’re ugly.
I don’t like you much.
Lolly legs.
You old fart.
Your mother wears army boots.

Oh bother, the last one just won’t do as it is insulting the player’s descent.

Of course, the complete demise of sledging will mean that the likes of those slap stick geniuses called Hughes, McGrath, Marsh, Warne, Waugh, Healy, Trueman, Botham and the rest will be lost to the game. Some, even many, may not care – it’s just another step towards homogenising everything in a world of political correctness and over reaction.

Appendix 1 – 10 Best Sledges

Warning: Some (most) of these contain explicit language and/or sexual innuendo. Readers under 18 years of age and Peter Roebuck should not read on.

http://ellisnz.com/2006/01/10-best-cricket-sledges-and-comebacks.html

Fred Trueman – While bowling the batsman edges and the ball goes to first slip,and right between Raman Subba Row’s legs. Fred doesn’t say a word. At the end of the over, Row ambles past Trueman and apologises sheepishly. “I should’ve kept my legs together, Fred”. “So should thy mother,” he replied.

Rod Marsh & Ian Botham – When Botham took guard in an Ashes match, Marsh welcomed him to the wicket with the immortal words: “So how’s your wife & my kids?”. Botham: “The wife’s fine. The kids are retarded.”

Daryll Cullinan & Shane Warne – As Cullinan was on his way to the wicket, Warne told him he had been waiting 2 years for another chance to humiliate him. “Looks like you spent it eating,” Cullinan retorted.

Mark Waugh and John Ormond. Mark Waugh: “What are you doing here, you’re not good enough to play for England.”
John Ormond: “At least I’m the best cricketer in my family.”

Glenn McGrath to Eddo Brandes (also known as “Fat Eddie”): Why are you so fat? Brandes: Because every time I sleep with your wife she gives me a biscuit.

Robin Smith & Merv Hughes – During 1989 Lords Test Hughes said to Smith after he played & missed: “You can’t f**king bat”. Smith to Hughes after he smacked him to the boundary – “Hey Merv, we make a fine pair. I can’t f**king bat & you can’t f**king bowl.”

Merv Hughes & Javed Miandad – During 1991 Adelaide Test, Javed called Merv a fat bus conductor. A few balls later Merv dismissed Javed: “Tickets please,” Merv called out as he ran past the departing batsman.

Merv Hughes & Viv Richards – During a test match in the West Indies, Hughes didn’t say a word to Viv, but continued to stare at him after deliveries. “This is my island, my culture. Don’t you be staring at me. In my culture we just bowl.” Merv didn’t reply, but after he dismissed him he announced to the batsman: “In my culture we just say f**k off.”

Malcolm Marshall was bowling to David Boon who had played and missed a couple of times. Marshall: “Now David, Are you going to get out now or am I going to have to bowl around the wicket and kill you?”

Ricky Ponting & Shaun Pollock – After going past the outside edge with a couple of deliveries, Pollock told Ponting: “It’s red, round & weighs about 5 ounces.” Unfortunately for Pollock, the next ball was hammered out of the ground. Ponting to Pollock: “You know what it looks like, now go find it.”

Appendix 2 – ICC Elite Umpiring Panel

Aleem Dar, Pakistan
Asad Rauf, Pakistan
Mark Benson, England
Billy Bowden, New Zealand
Steve Bucknor, West Indies
Billy Doctrove, West Indies
Darrell Hair, Australia (currently suspended for therapy)
Daryl Harper, Australia
Rudi Koertzen, South Africa
Simon Taufel, Australia

http://www.icc.cricket.org/icc/rules/code-of-conduct-for-players-and-officials.pdf