Mental disintegration, by another name?

Prem Panicker

Criticism is a concomitant of public life. And in India, no one -- not even the Prime Minister -- comes in for as much criticism as the cricket captain.

Fair enough -- we know the government won't work, we have no expectations from it; whereas we hope the cricket team will work, we hope it will produce results. And the more you hope -- especially if the game is the only thing you pin your hopes on -- the more you are disappointed when those hopes don't fructify. Ergo, the harsher the criticism.

But even so, there are limits, surely? Mistakes made by a captain or a player on the field of play are -- and should be -- criticized. But is it equally mandatory that every act of his should be twisted out of context, simply in order to facilitate criticism?

These thoughts occured this morning, after reading a couple of match reports relating to the second ODI of the ongoing series, played in Pune on Wednesday.

Here is an exact quote:

"The main drama of the day surrounded (Mark) Waugh and Darren Lehmann (one), who was run out after cutting a ball to point and being stranded mid pitch with Waugh as substitute Yuvraj Singh threw the ball to keeper Vijay Dahiya who removed the bails.

"Indian captain Sourav Ganguly, believing Lehmann and Waugh had crossed, vented his extreme displeasure at the umpires and brashly ordered them to seek a ruling from the third umpire as his team-mates joined in the chorus.

"The umpires followed Ganguly's request as most people in India do."

There is more of that -- pardon the expression -- bilge. But the above is the bit that is really relevant.

Would it be in order, I wonder, in my next match report to describe an incident in this fashion? Say, for instance, McGrath gets an edge and Gilchrist holds and both appeal vociferously -- would it be in order for the match report to read: "Believing that they had got the edge of the Indian batsman, bowler McGrath and keeper Gilchrist brashly demanded a verdict from the umpire"?

Alright, sorry, that was flip but not really to the point.

The point is this: Firstly, if you review the video, it will be very clear that Sourav Ganguly was not the first to appeal. Even if he had been, it still is not a crime punishable by instant execution -- if you think a batsman is out, you have to appeal, otherwise the umpire simply will not give a decision.

But where did the rest of it come from? "Brashly ordered them..." -- says who exactly? If the report had talked of vehement appealing, that was one issue -- but the words used seem a touch, well, over the top. As, in fact, does that kicker -- that the umpires did as Ganguly asked, "as most people in India do". Yes? No?

Would it be in order for us to ask the writer of this report two questions?

The first is this: Did you see the replays that were shown while the third umpire was debating the decision? And did the replays show that Mark Waugh had in fact crossed Darren Lehmann, and was closer to the wicket-keeper's end than his partner, and therefore, by the rules, was the one who was legally out? Why was this little factoid not mentioned in the report?

Two: Are there two norms of on-field behaviour in force, one for Australian cricketers and another for everyone else? Is it, thus, not in order for Indian fielders to "brashly" appeal (as it turned out, a correct appeal), but perfectly in order for say a Michael Slater to appeal for a catch (again, as it turned out, was not taken clean) and when the decision was given in the favour of the batsman, for him, and the entire Australian team, to surround the umpire and repeatedly appeal, till the umpire asked for the third umpire's verdict?

By the way, that little incident should tell you that it is not only Sourav Ganguly who gets umpires to refer to the third umpire. But that is an aside, let's get back to the main theme...

Was it equally okay for the same Slater, joined by the likes of Glenn McGrath, to then dispute the third umpire's verdict (the correct verdict, as it turns out), to argue with the on-field umpire, to walk up to and abuse the batsman concerned? Was it equally okay for Adam Gilchrist, the vice-captain of the Australian side, to abuse the umpire on the field of play when Steve Waugh was given out LBW on the field of play? Was it okay for Glenn McGrath, when given out LBW (both incidents occurring in Bangalore) to let fly a mouthful of good wishes at the umpire as he walked past?

Yes, both Gilchrist and McGrath have been fined. And Slater was "warned" for what he did on the field of play, then given a suspended sentence for talking about it to the media (a rather strange decision, which seems to imply that behaving badly on the field doesn't merit the same severity as talking to newspaper reporters).

The question though is, did those incidents receive the same kind of play? Were the adjectives equally in use to describe those incidents? Or is this merely a continuation of the much-hyped mental disintegration theory propounded by the Australian skipper? Or again, is this merely a question of, give a dog a name and hang him?

In passing, a reader wrote a mail, saying he has been watching the entire Test series, and one thought occured to him -- that the Australians were getting out LBW more times than seemed natural. Is it, he asks, Indian umpires and if yes, does that taint the result of the series?

That question, in various forms, has in fact cropped up in our mailbox right through this series. Two points could be made by way of response -- firstly, that the Test series just ended has been remarkable for the umpiring, which barring a couple of blemishes has been spot on. In fact, the umpiring, if compared to some recent Test series played elsewhere in the world, been remarkable for efficiency.

As for the expressions of disbelief we have seen flitting across the faces of Australian batsmen, Mohandas Menon dug up an interesting statistic: To wit, in course of the 16-Test winning streak, Australian batsmen have been dismissed LBW on 33 occasions. Of those, 24 have been in Tests played in Australia, 9 away. Which might indicate, if you want to argue the point, that the Australians tend to be a touch too free in using their pads in defence -- but it certainly does not explain those expressions.

Before signing off, a couple of asides on this whole 'mental disintegration' business -- which has produced the most interesting, and unexpected, result.

The first relates to sledging. The Aussies had, pursuing their usual policy, been going hard at the Indians from the day the two teams first squared off, for the first Test in Bombay. Somewhere along the way -- from all accounts, during the second Test in Calcutta, something snapped, the Indians figured enough was enough, and have been giving it back, as good as it gets, ever since. Sourav Ganguly, one of the prime targets, is one example. As is Rahul Dravid, who for some reason has been specially targeted for abuse. Rahul, in fact, has of late been using the kind of language that would compel his mother -- if she were in earshot -- to wash his mouth out with soap.

And then there is Sachin Tendulkar. Whose one day batting in Bangalore and Pune has its genesis in an incident that occured during his century in Madras. At one point, when McGrath was running in to bowl, Tendulkar held up a hand to stop him, and waited till some movement behind the sightscreen had been stilled. McGrath ran in again, and bowled -- and on the follow through, marched up to Tendulkar and asked him to go around the whole stadium asking everyone to sit down. The next ball was a bouncer down leg side, and again, on the follow through, McGrath marched up to Sachin -- who, at that point, was playing a very patient knock -- and mockingly showed him how to play the hook, and invited him to try the shot.

In the Test, Tendulkar bit back on his natural instinct -- which is to respond to challenge -- and played safe. Now that the ODIs are here, he thinks it is time to show McGrath just how well he learnt that lesson in hooking McGrath gave him, through word and gesture, that day.

One school of thought would argue -- and rightly, at that -- that Tendulkar needs to put the team's interest first, and play the big innings.

But there is another section of the fans, going the heck with that -- bring on the remaining three ODIs, let's see these two go head to head a few more times.

Mail your comments