In a rare moment of candour a couple of seasons ago, Indias most travelled cricket photographer, who shall go unnamed, said abruptly: "Television will kill Indian cricket." Whether he meant those rugby cameramen covering the game for US companies, or whether he had in mind those crazy tours the cricket board was organising for the benefit of TV companies in the name of globalising the game, one never knows. Whatever, when he said that, all conversation ceased at the Press Club of India table.
As ESPN gives a new spin to what must easily rank as one of the most horrific tours undertaken by a much-hyped team, the photographers words take on some degree of prescience. Listening to Sunil Gavaskar and Harsha Bhogle, to name two worthies, go on and on with an exaggerated sense of injury at the umpiring decisions that allegedly stopped the Indians in their tracks and the controversies that have marred the tour, you would think the Indians would have easily turned the 0-3 verdict into a 3-0 one, but for. TV hasnt killed Indian cricket yet, but its on its way.
That India got the rough end of the stick is indubitable. But only from an Indian viewpoint. There was more than an element of doubt when Sachin Tendulkar was adjudged caught at shortleg off Shane Warne or given out LBW when he ducked to a Glenn McGrath bouncer which was not. And it sure seemed unfair that Venkatesh Prasad should be fined 35 per cent of his match fees when McGrath was just "warned" for eyeballing Tendulkar after getting him out. But, hey, didnt the Aussies cop a couple of bad decisions, too? As when Saurav Ganguly was ruled not out when caught by Greg Blewett off Damien Fleming? Or like Justin Langer being given out caught at shortleg in the first Test, which gave India the only chance of disproving J.Y. Lele?
The point is: by making the decisions of umpires and match referees seem like the result of some deep-seated racist plot to persecute us, we lose all perspective. And television isnt helping us one bit. We lost in Australia not merely because we only got dubious decisions but mainly because our much-vaunted batsmen couldnt hit up totals for the bowlers to bowl out a side twice, and because our captain wasnt exactly Gods answer to Mike Brearley. And we lost because we didnt have the stomach for battle or courage under fire. But in the manufactured jingoism that television is a theatre of, all those deficiencies can be turned on the head through loaded attacks on umpires and referees.
Result: there is no one to point out that some of those dubious decisions came not from Australian umpires but from the third-country umpire standing at the other end (like David Shepherd versus Prasad). It certainly didnt help the Indians one bit that they went on the tour after having read Darell Hairs autobiography. The Indians went with an opinion of Hair in their heads and come back with those opinions reinforced. Whether it was Javagal Srinath refusing to take back his cap from Hair in a practice match, or Tendulkar cribbing about Hair refusing his request for sawdust to be sprinkled in the bowling run-up to help the wicket-keepeer in Sydney, or V.V.S. Laxman arguing fiercely for play not to be extended to let the injured Vijay Bharadwaj bat the next day, we see some deliberate ploy to unnerve us.
Ploy there might well have been but it must have been one of such epic dimensions that the ACB got not only one of its own to do the dirty work but also roped in the independent umpire. Thats an insult, heaped ad nauseam by ESPN, to fairplay and human folly.
Likewise, in disputing the umpires and referees decisions, Gavaskar and Bhogle did the game no good by turning the ICC into some huge, white organisation plotting to subjugate brown India. If there was such a strategy in place, which is the view ESPN put forth and on the basis of which all India now has its opinion, then what has our man in the ICC been doing? Did we send Jagmohan Dalmiya just to warm the ICC chair for a couple of years? Wasnt he supposed to work wonders for the subcontinental cause? Or is Gavaskar implying hes failed in that?
Similarly, in suggesting Brett Lees action ought to come under scrutiny, the Indian commentators were only parroting feelings of the players whod reportedly queried the bowler during a tour match but didnt have the cojones to take it further. At least Hair had the guts to call Muthaiah Muralitharan on-field; the Indians seemed incapable of taking their own worst fears to the ICC referee.
In rubbishing Australian umpires like we have, weve failed to ask a key question: how on earth can a country which produces such outstanding cricketers produce such outstandingly poor umpires, if our commentators are to be believed? And, by making too much of the decisions against Tendulkar, arent we only reinforcing the view that were a one-man team? Without the guts to admit so, we are falling back on the umpires and referees. And you can blame TV for that.
If the Aussies had marked out Sachin Tendulkar and succeeded in getting their man, surely then there must be an even greater plot in naming him Man of the Series?
