The other side

The Test series in Australia has been very newsworthy and so much has been said about it in both the news media and the web that I didn’t want to add on to the colossal amount of junk. But a chance conversation with a friend has prompted me to break my silence now, especially since the controversies have sort of cooled down and we have won at Perth. Of course that the friend had promised me that at worst it'll get me a couple of hate comments, but no one will "blacklist" me or googlebomb my site has helped.

I personally, enjoy the brand of cricket played in Australia and was disappointed with the way the media blew the Sydney test out of proportions and the hamhanded way that the BCCI (and need I add, the Indian media) handled the case.

I feel that there were several separate issues and since they happened at the same time, people put them all together. Bad umpiring (awful if it will make you feel better), racist remarks (it is a different debate if said remark was racist or not), chatty Aussies and jubilant-after-the-victory Australian players are all unconnected issues.

Before you all scream traitor, let me add that I do believe that the test should have been drawn and it was unfortunate that the Australians went home winners. Unfortunate not unfair.

We hear about behaviour unbecoming of a sportsman. That is definitely bad for the sport and I will not make the mistake of defending it. But the question here is if the behaviour of the Aussies broke the codes of the sportsmanship.

Clarke’s catch (which replays showed as grassed) could be a genuine mistake and Benson checking with Ponting before declaring the batsman out was only in accordance with the captain’s pact (and not because Ponting is the new fourth umpire who trumps all decisions taken by the other umpires as mail forwards seem to suggest). Again, I cannot stress enough about the debate on walking. In International cricket it is now standard practice for batsmen to not walk unless he feels personally obliged to do so. It is not disallowed. The same is true of excessive appealing or chatting on the field, even making remarks to disturb your cool.

The way I see it is that there is a region of allowed sportsmanship and a border separates it from 'unsportsmanship'. Australia gets its aggressive edge by playing closer to the border but always on the sporty side. Take soccer for instance(football in the rest of the world), Australia lacks the class of Brazil or France and there is a lot of pushing and shoving on the field but the players know just how much pushing is allowed without getting the referee’s whistle. Like any Optimisation text book would tell you, the optimal solution lies right on the border. It is quite strategic, if you look at it. (It is a different issue that India tries to ape the aggressive play of the Aussies and end up straying into the bad territory – Sreesanth being case in point).

Harbhajan is an excellent cricketer and I like him but the stance that the board and the team have to take is not blackmail but justice. The BCCI, as I understand had not given one statement saying that it believed Bhajji to be innocent and that he had not made a racist remark. There was nothing about having a fair trial. Nothing like we will accept the verdict if he is proven guilty. They simply went into overdrive and announced that the tour was in jeopardy if Bhajji was not cleared and the ban lifted. Cleared, not given a fair trial. (Kudos to ICC for showing some backbone)

Harbhajan may or may not have said the things that he is alleged to have said and even if he did he may not have meant it as a racist remark. There may be inadequate evidence. Or he may have said it under provocation. But that is not what we are bothered about. He is beyond reproach and pure and is the victim here. The Board will protect him at all costs. What nonsense!

Parallels drawn with Muralitharan are downright stupid. He was the victim of a hostile umpire and maybe even racial abuse but Harbhajan was not the quarry but the hunter. We, of the subcontinent do not hold the monopoly on racism. And the abuse case on Hogg, is clearly a sign of “But he did it too” that I will not buy from kids in my block let alone professional cricketers.

In trying hard to not look at this controversy as an Indian cricket fan, I may have strayed to the other side. My post is perhaps not objective and readers need not remind me that the Australian media itself criticized its cricketers. All I am trying to remind my faithful readership is that neither the Indian media nor the cricket-lover has been even remotely objective and they could do so much better. For the love of the game.