Australians not only ones with issues

[Kiwi]

Australians not only ones with issues

Peter Roebuck
January 9, 2008

BY NO means can the Indians escape censure for the unpleasantness that took place in cricket's dark hour at the SCG.

Throughout, Anil Kumble's strongest point has been his withering condemnation of the excessive conduct of an Australian team sorely missing the calming influence of its previous coach. His words were carefully chosen and given an historical context.

For only the second time in 130 years of Test cricket, a team was accused publicly of unsportsman-like conduct by a respected captain of undisputed integrity and widespread popularity.

Beyond question, Kumble's words will have a lasting effect on the way the game is played. Everything must be seen in that light.

India also had grounds to complain about umpires whose gross incompetence was partly responsible for the match's bad blood. Once confidence has been lost in the arbiters it is never long before the dogs of war are let loose. The Australians worked the umpires ruthlessly on that final afternoon and it paid dividends.

Otherwise the Indians have been on shaky territory. Kumble and his officials have allowed two issues to become confused. That the Australians displayed poor sportsmanship has been widely acknowledged. But that does not mean that India is not accountable for its conduct. Certainly hosts must act with due decorum but visitors also have obligations.

India has been entitled to appeal against the verdict reached and the sentence imposed by the match referee. As it must in these litigious days, cricket has provided proper recourses whereby matters can be reconsidered and grievances aired before an independent judiciary. India was within its rights to use these provisions. Mike Procter is not a trained lawyer and on issues of this gravity it is to be expected that decisions will be scrutinised.

It is not possible for outsiders to offer any opinion about the merits of the verdict and punishment since the case was conducted behind closed doors. Murder trials can be put before the public. But cricketing disputes can only be examined amid secrecy.

From a distance it might appear that only two or three people could have heard anything untowards and that it was one man's word against another but that is conjecture. Procter is a gentleman and would not have allowed the Australians to behave like a lynch mob. Nor would he have cared to let Harbhajan conduct himself like a hothead.

India has a right to demand a second hearing, but it is hardly fit and proper for the entire tour to shudder to a halt in the meantime.

By skulking in hotel rooms the tourists stand in danger of losing public sympathy. Of course vociferous fanatics will remain loyal but only fools play to that gallery. The players should have continued with an admittedly idiotic itinerary. After all, Kumble's comments were made in the longer term interests of the game. Imperilling matches hardly serves that purpose.

By staying pending the appeal, the Indians also appear to be putting pressure on those that must decide the matter. India has lots of power and money and ought to use it judiciously.

As a rule, such squeezes do not work with the legal fraternity. Lawyers are trained to ignore everything except the facts of a case and the relevant statutes. Mostly they do not buckle under pressure. If anything, it has the opposite effect. Instead the Indians should have gone to Canberra long ago, leaving their wounds behind and meeting a different and more hospitable Australia.

Nor is that all. The fury that has surrounded the match and spoilt an eagerly awaited tour cannot distract attention from the foolishness of the program accepted by the BCCI or the folly of selectors whose faith in wayward batsmen may have been the difference between victory and defeat.

Yuvraj Singh contributed nothing with bat or ball. It was not unforeseeable. To encourage others, he ought to be sent to the Ranji Trophy to rebuild his technique.

India's top-order deficiencies were also anticipated. It also bowled its overs so slowly that the match finished past exhaustion time.

None of these matters ought to be forgotten. India must not merely complain about the Australians.

By the way, there was one line in yesterday's contribution that caused regret. The Australians were not wild dogs. It's just that I have collected six stray canines in Africa, and all are likeable, until, that is, they form a pack and go hunting.