The Googly

India to lodge appeal and complaint

A Test match that offered one of the most thrilling, edge-of-the-seat, nail-biting finishes since Edgbaston 2005 is going to be remembered for controversy about umpiring, alleged racial abuse, and whether not walking when you know you nicked it is cheating. After the events of 2006 (England v Pakistan at the Oval) and 2007 (Fredalo, Bob Woolmer's death and the farcical umpiring at the end of the World Cup), one would have thought that International Cricket collectively would have thought that 2008 would be a good place to start afresh and hit headlines and news bulletins for the right reasons.

Well no - not to be. Today we have the unedifying news that the Indian team has refused to leave Sydney for Canberra (where they are due to play a between-Tests match) and that they are threatening to pull out of the rest of the tour. While it is a fine sight to see a team standing together (and too often in the past that has not been the case with India), and there are certainly plenty of reasons for them to be unhappy, to jeopardize the tour in this way is not professional or playing fair to the thousands of fans of both sides who are mostly interested in seeing high-class international cricket.

It is probably fair to say that tension has been building between Australia and India since the Aussies last set foot on the Subcontinent, but the way the issues of the Sydney Test have played out almost defy belief. Harbhajan Singh (described offensively by Peter Roebuck in the Aussie press as "an intemperate Sikh") allegedy racially taunted Andrew Symonds (described by some as "cheating" for not walking when plainly out), is given a three-match ban by match referee Mike Procter ("I'm a South African, and I understand the word racism"). This after a report by Ponting and a hearing that - we are told - included no stump-mike or third-party evidence. One man's word against another, both backed up by team-mates. He said something nasty, says one side; no he didn't, says the other side. Given what effect the slur of being branded a racist would have on anyone, it seems reasonable for Harbhajan and his team to appeal this verdict.

As far as the complaint against "incompetent umpires" that India are lodging with the ICC goes - this also seems fair and reasonable. Anyone following the course of this Second Test, via any media, will be aware that there were an unacceptable level of absolute shockers and they did go the way of the Australians. The win-at-all-costs approach of the Aussie team has much to be admired. Guts, determination and never-say-die are qualities that, of late, are very much missing in the England side, but it can go too far. Ponting's claiming of a catch over which he had very much less than full control is one case as is the over-the-top theatrical appealing by Gilchrist (normally a very controlled character) to have Rahul Dravid caught behind.

I doubt, however, whether so much would have been made about either the umpiring or the unsavoury behaviour of the conquering Australians had not the issue of racially focussed sledging been brought into play. Naturally racism of any ilk, in any walk of life including sport should be outlawed and punished, severely. To allow an incident to be brushed under the carpet would be outrageous, but here we seem to be dealing with something that is only proven on the belief of one man's word against another. It doesn't seem to quite add up properly to me and for probably the first time in my life I find myself agreeing with Simon Barnes of the Times who wrote today:

"I am not defending the Indians, or any other bit of sledging, it's just that cricket would be a better game if the Australians had never invented it [sledging]."

[Image: Getty] [mimitig]

The Thunder Downunder: Australia's Most Wanted

In Australia we love a villian. A few summers back most of the continent became infatuated with the antics of South African hard-man Andre Nel. He loved the contest and generously dished up his aggressive and abrasive brand of cricket to both the Australian team and crowds. He naturally received plenty in return but always saw the humour of the situation and knew that the theatrics were just that, a bit of fun. Many a hot confrontation was defused with a devlish grin.

At a packed partying MCG under a hot holiday sun Brett Lee repeatedly bounced big Andre. It was great entertainment as Lee exaggerated his follow-through after each delivery that Andre had to duck, fend and swerve. Every time their eyes locked, the combatants, although in a tense battle, would exchange a few well chosen words followed by a smile. 

It was wonderful and extraordinarily competitive cricket and the crowd and the players enjoyed it immensely. It never detracted from the contest because there was respect on both sides. Respect for themselves, their opponents and most importantly, for wearing their nation’s cap on one of cricket’s grandest stages.

Keith Miller, Australia’s finest allrounder, when asked by English chat-show host and unabashed fan Michael Parkinson to describe the secret to his success not only on the cricket field but during fierce mortal air battles during World War II, leaned forward and replied in a soft self-assured tone, “Respect yourself and your efforts for self-respect leads to self-discipline. When you have both of these qualities then you have real power at your fingertips”. This is a lesson that Indian opening bowler Shanthakumaran Sreesanth seems destined to learn the hard way.

Sreesanth’s behaviour against the Australians during the last three encounters has been, to put it mildly, bizarre. He cannot fathom that there is a difference between hard aggressive cricket and immature petulance. It’s understandable that he wants to take the game to the Australians but the young man seems confused at what this exactly entails.

His exaggerated send-off of Hayden and Gilchrist in South Africa earned him a monetary fine and left Hayden seething and Gilchrist bemused. His crazed send off at Kochi, his home ground, and childish unsporting attempt to run out Symonds left the Queenslander indignant and feral.

Sreesanth is a hero to millions of kids and their parents in his home province and the example he set during the second ODI was perhaps the most appalling behaviour I have ever seen on a cricket field. Despite assurances from a clearly frustrated Indian captain MS Dhoni that all was well Sreesanth was deservedly dropped for the next encounter, a match India won by eight runs, their first ODI win against Australia in three years. 

Making Sreesanth twelfth man however, did not stop his over the top attempts to sledge the World Champions. After Andrew Symonds dismissal, Sreesanth waited for Symonds in the players race and abused him while clapping his hands just centimetres from the Queenslander’s face. This baffling unsporting behaviour is something I’ve never seen in even club or grade cricket and there is no place for abuse and sledging outside the boundary. No exceptions. All it displays is a complete lack of class and incredible immaturity. If Sreesanth is allowed without penalty to continue this sordid behaviour then it is only a matter of time before a batsman, in the heat of the moment, violently assaults him with the willow.

The Indians complained about sledging on their recent tour of England and again against Australia but the evidence on this tour is that the Indians are the instigators and most blatant offenders. They cry foul that their opponents have spoken ‘harsh words’ on the field but when they trangress themselves they are full of excuses and empty platitudes.

Australians do play hard on the field but without exception they shake hands, congratulate or commiserate with their opponents at match end and extend an invitation for a shared and well-earned cold beer. This pattern of behaviour is evident at all levels of Australian sport and it is a proven, healthy and respectful way to treat your opponents. Never would behaviour like Sressanth’s be accepted or excused. 

Sreesanth through his petulance is now Australia’s most wanted and I predict that his time Downunder later this year will not be a pleasant one. He has earnt the ire of Ponting and the nation and there is little doubt that if he plays in Test matches then he will be targeted by Tait, Lee, Clark and Johnson. Perhaps they’ll knock some sense into him. Time will tell.

[Nesta Quin] [Image: Getty]   

The Thunder Downunder: Walking with Dinosaurs

Debate has raged down in the Dungeon about the walking non-issue. These types of arguments rarely rage at the Shed. Davo reckons it’s a complete waste of oxygen. The Marylebone Cricket Club’s Official Laws of Cricket are clear. Law 27 is explicit. In layman’s terms what it essentially says is that a batsman can give himself out if he wishes, but isn’t inclined to (27.1). Additionally, an umpire has the power to order a batsman back to the crease, if in his opinion he disagrees with the player’s misplaced morality (27.7). It ends with the incontrovertible phrase, “an umpire's decision, once made, is final” (27.9).

In light of this debate and with a parched palette, your correspondent hitched a ride in Davo’s ute and headed down to the Wattle and Swan to have a beer with local umpire Dickie Cowans, a man that played and officiated in Lancastrian League cricket for over two decades before being seduced to emigrate to Australia with the love of his life, local sculptor and Quarry Road Cricket Club scorer Rhonda Barrett.

An excellent Celtic flautist who once played at Buckingham Palace for the Queen Mother, Dickie began umpiring locally as soon as the Tasmanian Cricket Association allowed. With a veteran’s knowledge of the English game and six years experience in Australia, the Shed sought his views on walkers. Below lies the unedited transcription.

Nesta: G’Day Dickie.

Dickie: How are you old mate?

Nesta: Paddling upstream but she’ll be right. I was wondering if I could gauge your views on cricket for the website I write for occasionally.

Dickie: Googly isn’t it?

Nesta: That’s right.

Dickie: OK but it’s your shout. I had a read there the other day and saw that toff Martin-Jenkins taking the high moral ground.

Nesta: We’re in harmony today Dickie because that is precisely what I’ve come to talk about. Before we begin could you start off and tell the readers how you were given the name Dickie when you first arrived in these parts?

Dickie: Well you know this story because you’re the bastard who gave it to me. And it has stuck to me like a bad smell. Where’s that beer?

Nesta: It’s coming. And it wasn’t me it was Bluey. Go on tell the story. You know what? I’ve just realized that I don’t even know the name your Mother gave you.

Dickie: It was my Father and it is Brian.

Nesta: Easy mate. Come on Dickie,  just tell us the story. This is your chance to air your side of the tale.

Dickie: Yeah. OK. Well it was my first match umpiring down here and after being put through the wringer by the TCA, I was finally allowed to get back on the field.

Nesta: What happened with the TCA?

Dickie: They treated me poorly when I first arrived. They made me sit a beginners exam even though I’d already been umpiring back home for a dozen years. All’s forgiven now.

Nesta: Sounds fair. What did they say when you told them you were experienced and licensed in England?

Dickie: That I wouldn’t have any trouble passing the test!

Nesta: You probably thought he was joking! Hey Dickie, now what about that nickname?

Dickie: Yeah. Well I strolled out to the toss where you and Bluey from Sorell were waiting and you both started sledging me.

Nesta: That wasn’t sledging Dickie. And anyway, it was your own fault for wearing that silly white coat.

Dickie: Yeah well, if you let me finish.

Nesta: Sorry mate. Continue.

Dickie: As I was saying, you and the other captain were calling me Dickie and giggling like schoolgirls.

Nesta: Steady on Dickie. It’s a form of affection. You know that, don’t you?

Dickie: Well I do now but I didn’t then.

Nesta:  Is that why you gave me out leg before to a ball missing leg by three feet?

Dickie: It was swinging back and hitting middle! And you batted all bloody day didn’t you?

Nesta: 112 before that dodgy decision if I remember. Rhonda would have the book. It’s hard to forget centuries on the first day of the season. I know you didn’t mean it. It was late in the day and you were sweating buckets in that coat of yours.

Dickie: Are you printing this?

Nesta: I’m joking mate, we all know that umpires are bastions of integrity and honesty. Anyway, what do you think of walkers?

Dickie: Well, since living down here it's been pointed out to me that historically walking was a way for upper class Poms to assert their moral authority over everybody else.

Nesta: That’s exactly what Martin-Jenkins was doing then?

Dickie: What do you think, Nesta? Putting shit on the rest of us is a British ruling class tradition.

Nesta: Seen much walking down here?

Dickie: Never. I was told by old Tom Hawkins, he’s umpired for 40 years, that the real cheats are the walkers.

Nesta: What do you mean?

Dickie: Fellows that walk don’t do it all the time. So they plant a seed in the umpire’s mind that they are above suspicion. That way they are often given the benefit of the doubt when they do nick one.

Nesta: Not by old Tom, I bet. You're right, you don’t see too many blokes walking on 99. Did you see much walking when you umped and played in England?

Dickie: Remarkably Nest old man, I did.

Nesta: What was your job then? Walking coathanger?

Dickie: Not exactly.

Nesta: So walkers are not moral crusaders but con men. Is that right?

Dickie: I never thought so until I came to live here but I think that is a correct assessment.

Nesta: Should we suspend them for bringing the game into disrepute?

Dickie: Enough bloody questions Nesta. Where’s my ale? Being a celebrity is hard slog on a Sunday afternoon. Where’s your guitar? Let’s go out on the verandah, sit in the sun and play some tunes.

Nesta: Sounds like a plan, Dickie. I’ll get the beers.

[Nesta Quin] [Image: Getty]

The Thunder Downunder: Walking with Dinosaurs

Debate has raged down in the Dungeon about the walking non-issue. These types of arguments rarely rage at the Shed. Davo reckons it’s a complete waste of oxygen. The Marylebone Cricket Club’s Official Laws of Cricket are clear. Law 27 is explicit. In layman’s terms what it essentially says is that a batsman can give himself out if he wishes, but isn’t inclined to (27.1). Additionally, an umpire has the power to order a batsman back to the crease, if in his opinion he disagrees with the player’s misplaced morality (27.7). It ends with the incontrovertible phrase, “an umpire's decision, once made, is final” (27.9).

In light of this debate and with a parched palette, your correspondent hitched a ride in Davo’s ute and headed down to the Wattle and Swan to have a beer with local umpire Dickie Cowans, a man that played and officiated in Lancastrian League cricket for over two decades before being seduced to emigrate to Australia with the love of his life, local sculptor and Quarry Road Cricket Club scorer Rhonda Barrett.

An excellent Celtic flautist who once played at Buckingham Palace for the Queen Mother, Dickie began umpiring locally as soon as the Tasmanian Cricket Association allowed. With a veteran’s knowledge of the English game and six years experience in Australia, the Shed sought his views on walkers. Below lies the unedited transcription.

Nesta: G’Day Dickie.

Dickie: How are you old mate?

Nesta: Paddling upstream but she’ll be right. I was wondering if I could gauge your views on cricket for the website I write for occasionally.

Dickie: Googly isn’t it?

Nesta: That’s right.

Dickie: OK but it’s your shout. I had a read there the other day and saw that toff Martin-Jenkins taking the high moral ground.

Nesta: We’re in harmony today Dickie because that is precisely what I’ve come to talk about. Before we begin could you start off and tell the readers how you were given the name Dickie when you first arrived in these parts?

Dickie: Well you know this story because you’re the bastard who gave it to me. And it has stuck to me like a bad smell. Where’s that beer?

Nesta: It’s coming. And it wasn’t me it was Bluey. Go on tell the story. You know what? I’ve just realized that I don’t even know the name your Mother gave you.

Dickie: It was my Father and it is Brian.

Nesta: Easy mate. Come on Dickie,  just tell us the story. This is your chance to air your side of the tale.

Dickie: Yeah. OK. Well it was my first match umpiring down here and after being put through the wringer by the TCA, I was finally allowed to get back on the field.

Nesta: What happened with the TCA?

Dickie: They treated me poorly when I first arrived. They made me sit a beginners exam even though I’d already been umpiring back home for a dozen years. All’s forgiven now.

Nesta: Sounds fair. What did they say when you told them you were experienced and licensed in England?

Dickie: That I wouldn’t have any trouble passing the test!

Nesta: You probably thought he was joking! Hey Dickie, now what about that nickname?

Dickie: Yeah. Well I strolled out to the toss where you and Bluey from Sorell were waiting and you both started sledging me.

Nesta: That wasn’t sledging Dickie. And anyway, it was your own fault for wearing that silly white coat.

Dickie: Yeah well, if you let me finish.

Nesta: Sorry mate. Continue.

Dickie: As I was saying, you and the other captain were calling me Dickie and giggling like schoolgirls.

Nesta: Steady on Dickie. It’s a form of affection. You know that, don’t you?

Dickie: Well I do now but I didn’t then.

Nesta:  Is that why you gave me out leg before to a ball missing leg by three feet?

Dickie: It was swinging back and hitting middle! And you batted all bloody day didn’t you?

Nesta: 112 before that dodgy decision if I remember. Rhonda would have the book. It’s hard to forget centuries on the first day of the season. I know you didn’t mean it. It was late in the day and you were sweating buckets in that coat of yours.

Dickie: Are you printing this?

Nesta: I’m joking mate, we all know that umpires are bastions of integrity and honesty. Anyway, what do you think of walkers?

Dickie: Well, since living down here it's been pointed out to me that historically walking was a way for upper class Poms to assert their moral authority over everybody else.

Nesta: That’s exactly what Martin-Jenkins was doing then?

Dickie: What do you think, Nesta? Putting shit on the rest of us is a British ruling class tradition.

Nesta: Seen much walking down here?

Dickie: Never. I was told by old Tom Hawkins, he’s umpired for 40 years, that the real cheats are the walkers.

Nesta: What do you mean?

Dickie: Fellows that walk don’t do it all the time. So they plant a seed in the umpire’s mind that they are above suspicion. That way they are often given the benefit of the doubt when they do nick one.

Nesta: Not by old Tom, I bet. You're right, you don’t see too many blokes walking on 99. Did you see much walking when you umped and played in England?

Dickie: Remarkably Nest old man, I did.

Nesta: What was your job then? Walking coathanger?

Dickie: Not exactly.

Nesta: So walkers are not moral crusaders but con men. Is that right?

Dickie: I never thought so until I came to live here but I think that is a correct assessment.

Nesta: Should we suspend them for bringing the game into disrepute?

Dickie: Enough bloody questions Nesta. Where’s my ale? Being a celebrity is hard slog on a Sunday afternoon. Where’s your guitar? Let’s go out on the verandah, sit in the sun and play some tunes.

Nesta: Sounds like a plan, Dickie. I’ll get the beers.

[Nesta Quin] [Image: Getty]