Cricket’s Winningest Losers

Reported in Indo-American News Print Edition of 01/11/08

By Mohit Joshipura in Houston, TX
A few years from now, ask someone what they will remember this Sydney test match for. I would be rather surprised if they said “for the cricket.” The match was complete with a gutsy Australian comeback, poetic batting by Laxman and Tendulkar, workmanlike hundreds by Hayden and Hussey, and some venomous bowling and suffocating fielding by the Aussies on the last day. It epitomized the spice, tension, unpredictability, and flavor of Test match cricket, so myuch so that it wooed some of my Twenty20-loving jock friends into following the constant twists and turns. But the problem was that all this was liberally garnished with atrocious umpiring and questionable Australian integrity.

As one who rarely spares an opportunity to criticize lackluster Indian performances, I think that there was much more over the course of this unforgettable Test match that made me sympathize with Kumble and Co. India would surely be feeling that had half of those unpardonable umpiring calls gone their way, they would be smelling victory or at the least stamping their authority on a draw on the final day. It is easy to say that one has to move on in a professional environment, and so India will, but when you are fighting a lion in its own den, you don’t want to do it in the dark. Sure, I know umpiring is a thankless job when you’re following deliveries in excess of 150 km/h with naked eyes, and so you’re allowed the occasional error. But competence is expected of an international umpire at all times, and when Bucknor and Benson are as responsible for a match’s outcome as Lee, Clark, and Symonds were, there is a problem. A slew of wrong decisions is one thing, but a refusal to involve the third umpire (Symonds’ stumping and Clarke’s catch) reflects garish ineptness. Many keyboards have already been tapped into senescence by fingers fraught with anguish regarding the umpiring, so I’ll proceed to what should be done. For one, hold umpiring to a higher standard and regulate both pay and status based on performance. The travesty that was the Sydney test match is reason enough to bar Bucknor and Benson from the Elite Panel of ICC Umpires. Secondly, establish a “challenge” system reminiscent of tennis and American football. A fielding team should get 2 challenges per innings and a batsman should get 1. If the challenge is not successful after all the available technology has been used, the fielding team or batsman should be penalized in the form of losing that challenge. In essence, technology must be utilized with immediate effect, but done so smartly. This will both prevent unnecessary delays and ensure that the match does not turn on its head (like it did in Sydney) because Bucknor and Benson were daydreaming.

Ricky Ponting has, in recent years, been quite profuse with his opinions regarding on-field integrity and gamesmanship. In the October 2007 one-dayer at Wankhede, he said that Murali Kartik should have walked when he knew he had nicked the ball. Based on Ponting’s own refusal to walk after hitting the cover off the ball in the first innings, he surely must have conveniently forgotten that in issues of morality, “preaching” and “practicing” must work in parallel.
Moreover, he and Michael Clarke claimed catches where the ball undoubtedly touched the ground upon the players’ impact. To be fair to the embattled leader, there was an occasion where he let Dravid bat on in the first innings because he was unsure that he had caught the ball cleanly. As one who has played his fair share of the sport, I can tell you that on almost every occasion, a fielder knows if the ball has made any contact with the ground and a batsman knows whether the ball has touched his bat. The Australian skipper seems to be perfectly fine with the laughable idea that with edges, it is the umpire’s call and with questionable catches, it is the fielder’s. Ironically, Ponting has already implicated himself on both of these contentions.

Anil Kumble, one usually known for being undemonstrative, said that “only one team was playing with the spirit of the game.” When he says something that is this revealing and opinionated, I tend to believe it. Not because I’m an Indian, but because he is amongst the noblest to have stepped onto a cricket field. He reminds me and countless others that in cricket, a workman’s persistence and efficacy can provide just as much pleasure as an artist’s paintbrush. Yesterday, he stood alone as Australia and Umpiria systematically dismantled the mighty Indian batting lineup.
In Antigua in 2002, he came on with a cracked jaw because his team needed him. By most accounts, he should have been at a maxillofacial surgeon’s office. So go forth Anil, we are still backing you and our team, because in the words of the inimitable Harsha Bhogle, “diamonds draw the gasps, [but] steel is more critical.” As far as you go Ricky, regardless of whether you beat the streak of 16 consecutive Test wins, the honorable cricket world will know you and your gang only as cricket’s winningest losers.