The Spirit Of The Game

Amidst the competing noise unleashed by the Sydney test match events, onetheme stands out--more than most sports, cricket displays a chasm between modernprofessional behaviour and the traditional practices upon which earliergenerations were raised. That mismatch is exacerbated by a governance systemthat recognizes the problem, but seems unable to react constructively.

Modern behaviour, according to Punter Ponting, involves trusting players inone area (declaring whether or not a catch has been completed in the field) butawaiting the umpire's decision even if the very same player, while batting, hashit a clear catch to second slip. Therein lies the current problem,because the first of those reactions falls in line with traditional practice,while the second inhabits the new world of hardnosed professionalism.

The irony in Harbajhan Singh's sentence is that it rests upon the word ofMichael Clarke and Andrew Symonds who both showed a clear preference for themodern approach while batting, and of Matthew Hayden who has been a strongsupporter of the "mental disintegration" tactics (known otherwise asextreme sledging) adopted by Australian teams for several years.

This has got right up the noses of the Indian side and its management. Senior players like Tendulkar and Ganguly are incensed by this because they seea huge inconsistency in the way things are being handled. Their logic issimple: how can a person's word be trusted in one area of the game if theirbehaviour in another is plainly opportunistic?

A few weeks ago in Australia, American golfer Brandt Snedeker demonstratedhow golf flourishes on integrity. While taking his stance, the ball moved,but was seen only by him. The golf laws mandate a penalty and Snedekerimmediately called it on himself. That is not rare in golf, it happensweekly in local clubs all over the world. In cricket, though, playersoverwhelmingly seem to think that an umpire should declare them out even if theyhave clearly hit the ball to first slip and been caught.

Whereas in golf, weekend players call the penalty on themselves, in cricketthe same confused duality that stalks the professional game has crept into thegrassroots, just as did sledging several years ago. Cricketers have beenknown to give up the local game in disgust at the behaviour of teammates andopponents alike in matches with no glory stakes let alone financial ones.

That in itself should be a message for administrators. If people arewalking away from playing because of deteriorating behaviour standards, whywould they continue to watch the international game when the same corrosion isevident?

This is not to say that Australia is solely responsible. Far from it, but itcan be said that Australia has set the benchmark. Harbhajan Singh is onrecord as saying he wanted to fight fire with fire to combat what he sees as anAustralian arrogance. Sreesanth had earlier gone too far, but theprinciple was the same. And Harbhajan is not the first to detect a glassjaw present in some of Australia's most belligerent on-field performers who likedishing it out but do not appreciate it coming back. Ponting has alwayssaid he likes to keep issues "on the field". Well, littleevidence of that desire has been present in Sydney. Even if playingconditions mandated reporting, an on-field solution would have preventedeverything that has followed.

What should have shocked Ponting and his acolytes is the widespread criticismof his own actions and those of his team. For a long time, Australianjournalists and commentators have been little other than a cheer squad for thenational team rather than disinterested observers and critics. Some ofthis has been part of a baseless and senseless crude Australian nationalism, butwhatever its root, many in the cheer squad have had enough. Some dinosaursstill see Australia as right in all respects and would prefer to cover matcheswhere there was only one team playing, but most now do not. ABCcommentator Jim Maxwell memorably put the view that Ponting would do well to"pull his head in" (Australian for getting a due sense of proportionand seeing another point of view).

As in so many other spheres, education rather than legislation provides byfar the best solution. In this Sydney test there have arisen questionsabout exactly what sort of language constitutes racial abuse and, spectacularly,what constitutes dissent. Does swinging a bat in frustration on the wayback to the pavilion (as Ganguly did) constitute dissent? Surely not. Does jumping up and down and gesturing with the hands at short cover when an LBWshout is rejected (as Ponting did and does frequently)? Surely yes. In this test match, though, Ganguly came close to being charged where Pontingdid not. The playing rules cannot cover everything.

What can be done is a thorough-going grassroots campaign that focuses onbehaviour, and on understanding why some behaviour is necessary and why thereare different variants of it in different countries. India is not alone incriticizing Australia's on-field antics. Cross-Tasman rivals New Zealand haveendured the same nonsense for years with batsmen mouthed off at by a variety ofAustralian bowlers and fielders, with little of the humour than once madesledging almost tolerable (think here of the possibly apocryphal storysurrounding Inzamam--an Australian asked him on the field why he was so fat, towhich Inzy replied, "Everytime I … your wife she gives me abiscuit").

The central problem now is that there is demonstrably no sensible way ofresolving these matters managerially. The match referee position andsystem is flawed, umpires seem to have little control over the game, teams thinkanything goes. That cannot continue if the spirit of the game is tosurvive. There must be deep-seated attitudinal change on the part ofplayers, and that is what the ICC and the national boards need to implementimmediately. The change will not come overnight, but it will come.

Professor Brian Stoddart is Emeritus Professor and former Vice-Chancellorat La Trobe University, and an acknowledged international authority on sportsculture.