Cricket: State of the Game

The state of the game of cricket - emotions run high and perspective is lost

Cricket is a not a topic that we cover very much here at The Science of Sport. Most of our readers probably don't follow it, but being a South African, where cricket is one of the big three sports, I had to do a post on it today, and tie it into something I was writing the other day about team sports, character and moral fibre of champion teams. So even those who wonder what cricket is (Robin Williams called it "baselball on tranquilizers"!) do read on, there's more to this than simply a cricket discussion.

Australia beats India, and all hell breaks loose

Those who follow the game will have seen that Australia won their 16th consecutive test match yesterday, beating India in what was one of the most incredible and dramatic finishes to a Test Match that we have ever seen. The Indians, batting last, needed to survive the final day and fell about 7 balls short of doing so. It was magnificent entertainment and a great advert for the game.

However, no sooner had the Australian champagne corks fallen to the floor and the accusations began to fly. The allegations are numerous and varied, you can read them here if you wish, but basically, they revolve around two or three contentious incidents during the match.

The incidents - interpreted in the eye of the beholder

In the first incident, Ricky Ponting took a catch but the TV replays showed that the ball had touched the ground while in Ponting's hand. According to the rules, this is not a fair catch. Now, thankfully, the batsmen was not given out in this situation, and so the incident is argued distinct from the result of the match.

Not as distinct is the second incident, where the Australian fielder Michael Clarke claimed a low catch off Sourav Ganguly, and amidst doubt over whether the ball had been caught, it was Ponting who informed the umpire that the catch had been taken. This after Clarke had clearly indicated that he believed he had caught the ball. Nothing remarkable here, until you know that before the matches began, the Indian and Australian captains had agreed that they would follow an "honesty" principle when it came to these catches. Therefore, both captains agreed that they would be honest when it came to low catches, so quite why the Australians are now being accused of cheating is beyond me. For what it's worth, TV replays were inconclusive, as they usually are, but certainly do not suggest that the catch was unfair, as is now being claimed.

But more importantly, can you think of another sport where there is a verbal agreement between opposing teams that an "honesty policy" is implemented? Our readers in the USA, can you imagine if a batter would volunteer to give himself out if he felt the pitch was over the plate? Or that a wide receiver would admit to being out of bounds when he made a catch? Of course, it's a ridiculous notion, precisely because it gives the loser a platform to complain from. The winner will always enjoy the honesty system, the loser will resent it. And hence we have these accusations.

A justified disappointment, but irrational reactions

It simply does not add up. Now, one is tempted to dismiss the Indian rants as those of bad losers. But one does have to acknowledge that they do have a right to feel unhappy and upset about the result against Australia - the umpiring was poor and India deserved to get out of the match with at least a draw. Australia were, to be blunt, lucky. But how about this reaction from an Indian "expert" in a TV debate following the game:

"If Steve Bucknor walks the streets of Mumbai he would not be alive after an hour."

Come again? Did I read that right? Are we saying that a game of sport is so serious, so important, and human error so bad, that people will be killed for their mistakes? In my country, when people get mugged and killed for 100 dollars it would be considered an outrage, never mind over a cricket match.

And if you thought it was just some fans who were unhappy, the Indian team then threatened to pull out of the Tour to Australia based on the perceived injustices, including the 'incompetent umpiring'! This all against the backdrop of one of the Indian players being suspended for alleged racist remarks against Australia's Andrew Symonds, which is also threatening the status of the Tour.

When people react in this way, it's difficult to listen to anything else they say. For the Indians, their reaction displays a hypocrisy of enormous proportions, because rather than playing in the spirit of the game, they are holding their team to ransom, issuing death threats against umpires who "cost them the match", and generally behaving like 11-year olds after a school match gone wrong.

And so while the Australians are wrong to fight back, and don't endear themselves to anyone with their sometimes righteous attitude (it is of course easy to be perceived as righteous when you're winning all the time). This is where I do think that the Australians could take a lesson out of the professional book of behaviour from the NFL teams, who, as mentioned last week, have recognized that it's the TEAM character and virtue that is key to success on and off the field. It's all good and well to talk about individuals and their integrity, but it's the collective team integrity that is not optimally managed. I personally believe that Australia have this more correct than any other team (the sight of Andre Nel, Dale Steyn, Smith and Mark Boucher of South Africa verbally screaming at and abusing batsmen this past weekend was frankly embarassing and typical of the boorish attitude they have shown for years). But take a leaf out of the book of the Patriots, Packers and Cowboys, and we'll all be better off.

So let's hope that common sense prevails and people learn to be a little more analytical and thoughtful about sport, which is, after all, just a game.

Ross