The game without honesty
… is the game of cricket. Or at least, that could be the future of it here in Australia.
Only those away from mass media would have missed what is one of the biggest rows in the history of the sport. Allusions have been made to the racial scandals of years gone by, or even to the controversial bodyline series. I’m not going to draw comparisons to events gone by; let’s not sully their relative purity by linking. Nor does the fate of the tour, or Singh’s ban really measure largely in the scale of the bigger picture.
Cricket, one of the true “gentleman’s game”, is now on the brink of disaster. When a man’s word on the field is questioned, when their integrity must be examined and analysed; that is when the innocence of the game has truly been lost. The 2nd test in Sydney, may well have witnessed that passing.
Symonds’ decision to simply stand his ground, with full knowledge that he was out, is a blatant slur against the code of honour in the game. If you know you’re out, you should walk. Sure, if there’s doubt or uncertainty, it is a good idea to wait for the finger to go up, but in this case, there was no thought of that. The nick was audible in the grandstands and in the commentary box - but just not to the umpire. The bad umpiring here was the difference between India winning, and a tie. Spilt milk it may be, the gall of the Australian team leadership to stand behind Symonds’ decision to stay at the crease was disappointing. Where is our oft-hailed sportsmanship, if not here? Is this not the moment where it is meant to shine? What kind of example do these cricketers set for the youth of today by their actions?
“That ain’t cricket”? - that ain’t the half of it! Young Sharma, the 19 year old Indian who went on to witness Symonds save the innings for a collapsed Australian lineup, went and shook Andrew Symonds’ hand. At the end of an innings which should never have been, he still had the right spirit about him and congratulated his opponent. How Roy could look him in the eye with any semblance of honesty was beyond me.
As for the final day… Dravid being dismissed as out; an example of the Australian team’s over-eagerness to appeal absolutely everything. Even when the bat is on the other side of the pad, quite clearly nowhere near the ball… the Aussies felt the right thing to do was pressure the umpire into making another bad decision. Full credit to the team once more, really great showmanship there. I’m left almost flabbergasted, considering Cricket Australia, the players, and the team are quite happy to sit there and say “we played in the right spirit”, when quite clearly, they were not.
The sheer irony of the Australian team to be the one complaining of copping abuse on the field is almost too much. The long tradition of sledging, very often using words and ideas deemed to be offfensive to the given competitor, is part of the mantra when one joins the slip cordon. If there’s something that bothers me more than sheer outright dishonesty, it is hypocrisy. Being a hypocrite, especially on the public stage, is just asking for trouble. Look to see Australia get bitten back hard for this.
The question is now, what to do to fix things? 31000 SMH readers (60% of all respondents) felt Ricky Pointing should be given the boot. Brendan Nelson thinks we should get off his back. I’m not sure where change need to start from, but I feel a united front from the top going down, recognising that whilst umpiring can be poor, it was not helped by the approach the team took to the game.
Perhaps starting with that, both teams will be in a position where they can sit and discuss what honour means to them.
cricket, honour, news, smh Find similar posts: newsUse a trackback
January 9th, 2008 at 6:31 am
I love how people take one test match and immediately sully someones or a teams reputation. Not mentioning that when Australia play in the sub continent they are abused from the moment they step off the plane.
Australian’s appealing for everything; please India, Pakistan in the past have appealed for anything that hits the pad. I’m not saying that has happened in this test, but this is not the first time a team has appealed for something that is clearly not out. When Ricky Ponting was out LBW in the first innings when it was a clear inside edge i can not see how the Indians did not see that edge or how the umpire missed it. If that Edge did not hit the pad i think that would gone for 4 it was so timed.
For not walking when you know you have hit it is a very fine line. I agree that the umpire has a job to do and if the umpire did his Job correctly Symonds would have been out. It is not Symonds job to give himself out thats the umpires decision that is what he gets paid for that is why he is even in the game. If players start walking when they know they are out why do we have umpires to begin with. Someone that gets hit LBW and knows for sure he is out but stands his ground; i don’t see a difference.
However saying all that if I was in the same position I would hope that i did walk because I think it shows a persons integrity and honesty. But in terms of right or wrong as far as “cricket” is concerned there is no clear answer. I think technically what Symonds was ok, but morally i believe he did not act in the right manner.
January 12th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
For pity’s sake.. stop adding to the complete and utter overreaction that is the word ‘monkey’, and talking like you know anything about what the whole ‘teams’ stance on the mess-of-a-situation was. As spectators only, we don’t really know much about the ‘teams'’ true opinions towards the last weeks happenings, and we can only witness their actions and then fill in the blanks as to what we assume their beliefs, personal opinions, levels of honesty, committment to sportsmanship and so on and soforth truely are.
“The sheer irony of the Australian team to be the one complaining of copping abuse on the field is almost too much.” - hello, do you not think that any team who had stepped forward as the first one to officially report ‘abuse’ would not duely receive and perhaps deserve this criticism? I think you are being uncharacteristically narrow minded dear Frads, and I fear you have been caught up in the media frenzy that has polluted my radio the entire 500km trip home to sydney - thus my need to respond.
“When a man’s word on the field is questioned; when their integrity must be examined and analysed; that is when the innocence of the game has truly been lost.” - ummmmmm despite my unrestrainable urge to highlight the sexism within this statement.. irrelevant sorry, but WHAT? Maybe you can explain this bit to me further later, but you seem to be contradicting yourself. People (players, officials, fans, media, nobodies such as me), including you it seems, thrive on examing with a fine-toothed comb the integrity of sports people, in fact, it is often part of the ritual of watching. So what exactly is meant by the ‘innocence of the game’ - and was the evtn when it -truely- was lost? (if it ever ‘was’). Are you saying there are unspoken rules about what is and isn’t allowed to be questioned - and if so - at what precise time is such questioning allowed or not? Please explain.
Refusing to walk after an umpires call is nothing new. Just coz the Aussies did it in the height of their success however, apparently means the lot of them are arrogant bastards automatically.. sheesh, who’d be a sportsman any day? At least a sportswoman can get away with it, why, COZ THE MEDIA DOESNT CARE! *cough* - On that note, calling people names without forethought is certainly nothing new in any sport, so apart from the change in what officials expect to be reported, this is all a storm in a teacup yes? no? Either way —> *YAWN*
Ban sledging or use well defined penalties if you must, but how about bringing back the old school days of each team applauding and welcoming the opposition onto the field to remind all of us that it IS just a game, not a battle of the egos… and force the media to cover ALL communications that occur amongst teams and not just when its as bitchy as schoolgirls and thus sells fast. Warm the cockles of our hearts with the pre and post chats they all assure us REALLY DO go on in those change rooms between players.
As usual, its a whole lot of codswallop and the media and debate storm amongst the cricket ‘fans’ is enough to turn me off the sport for life. Must we really waste our time agonising about who is technically and morally and racially and sportsmanly and politically correct? Perhaps, Fradam, you can become the “spirit umpire” and coach the team on when and when not they are playing in the correct ’spirit’ to suit your precise satisfaction. And should I go so far as to suggest different teams have different expectations laid upon them? If so.. why.. dare I say it is racial? No, no, I do not. Perhaps culture, the words Tall poppy syndrome strangely comes to mind.
Try tennis. At least arguments over what name Lleyton called the umpire this time, or how many times the linesman called the wrong decision won’t be the biggest news story of the month over REAL news like attempted murders, failing court systems and scientific discoveries.
Then again, who knows.
January 13th, 2008 at 7:49 am
Wow, well, let me say first of all, the initial post was written as I was somewhat upset at the umpiring decisions and the response in turn by the players.
Since then, I have mellowed on that, and realise of bigger concern is the ICC’s decision to cave in to most of the BCCI’s demands. Already the precedent has been set and Pakistan has called for their forfeited game at the Oval a few years ago to have its result changed.
I think Andi’s point there of what is technically correct vs what some would consider morally correct probably highlights what got me irked about Symonds. One of Fauxen’s final points about just who’s definition of the right spirit highlights the fundamental failing of my frustration - that it is based upon my own personal views of the game.
I explored this issue the other evening, and the conclusion that was reached was that I had particularly strong views about the type of spirit I expected in the game due to playing it at a club level for so long. I simply expected those out there on the international scene, especially since most had risen from the club ranks, to echo the same views I had. Granted, my views even at the club level would probably be different to the ones other team’s, and even my team mates had… so maybe that is the underlying problem here.
@Andi: My memory is hazy on the particulars of Ponting’s wicket there, but hadn’t he escaped another decision earlier in the innings which looked like it was out? Maybe I got that bit wrong. As mentioned above, I’m somewhat mellowed on the bad umpiring decisions… I don’t think Symonds is to blame for a bad call that put him in that position. You’re right that umpires have a job to do here, and that ought to be addressed separately.
@Fauxen: I think I’m overall in agreement with what you’re getting at (and sorry about the sexism), but there are a few things here which do deserve some further comment:
- a team’s stance can be identified by solidarity. The Indian team’s stance was that Singh is innocent, and they demonstrate this by all backing him up - i.e. publicly stating he is innocent etc. If they privately, in the silence of their mind, disagree, you are right - nobody can know except themselves. The Australian team likewise all backed up the decisions made by Symonds and Ponting across the various altercations, demonstrating their solidarity, and unity in their viewpoints. The interviewed members of the team have all said they play hard but fair and that Symonds did the right thing etc etc. I’m not sure how else that can be interpreted other than a team sticking together and defending the decisions their team mates made.
- you’re right, I did get caught up somewhat in the media frenzy
I think the narrow-mindedness of the initial post has been explained by now, and I’m a little more relaxed about the idea that umpiring decisions in particular go both ways, and that sledging is an ever present challenge for all teams. I will point out on that issue though, the Australian team is not the first to report it (in fact, it was an Australian who was successfully charged on the racial code of conduct rules a few years back) - this just seems like the first time the Australian team has been the one reporting the issue.
- ‘innocence of the game’ - good point, it may well have been gone a long time ago. I think this one is borne out of my somewhat personal views of the game that I mentioned before. Perhaps naively, I always felt there was a goodness about the game, whereby people would be honest on the field. Andi raised a good point there - other teams appeal things that aren’t out just as much as Australians, so perhaps the innocence has been lost for some time.
- ‘unspoken rules’ - there was a spoken gentleman’s agreement between the two captains prior to the start of the series, that a batsman would accept a fielder’s word on low catches if the fielder was certain they caught it. I would say that on that clause, that would be an opportunity to not question things (the questioning point was meant to be about one player questioning another on the field). Naturally, this agreement is based upon trust, which is almost devoid at this point after several instances where things were claimed but clearly were not certain (indeed, this is one of the issues that got Ponting fired up)
- fair points on name-calling and deciding not to walk; it is not new, has always occurred, and is simply more publicised now, and somewhat blown out of proportion. I don’t think the ‘arrogant’ comments came out from those things though - I think it was a result of when someone decided not to talk, and then publicly announced at a media conference afterwards that they were well aware that they were out… that doesn’t happen too often.
- I’d be pretty happy to see the applauding of the teams come back into the game.. take a ticket out of other codes way of starting and acknowledge them in that manner. Maybe that was what impressed me the most about Sharma - being eager to congratulate the Australian batsmen who were left standing at stumps. We need more of that
In conclusion… storm in a teacup was probably the most relevant phrase from the above. I might leave things there.
January 13th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Indeed :p