Shame @ Sydney

Much happened in and about the Sydney Test (Aus / India 2007-2008) that one wouldn't quite hope for in such a series. This series in Australia, occurring once every four years is perhaps one of the most entertaining and awaited series in the world. India's partial success in 2003-2004 contributed to a heightened level of excitement about this series. What a shame then, that so far this series has been forgettable, first for India's uninspiring performance and Melbourne and because of pretty much everything at Sydney.So many actors playing different roles in this mess, have contributed to this in their own way. In most cases, the behavior has been shameful. About the only person in this whole affair who has behaved with any level of dignity has been the Indian captain, Anil Kumble. Continuing his record of being among the most well-behaved cricketers worldwide, Kumble said very little, yet communicated a lot. His only comment for a long time "only one side was playing in the spirit of the game" described his sentiment, yet did not resort to any indecency in its articulation. It's interesting how most of the Australian team got so stung by that one polite but firm comment. Such decency was unfortunately, the exception in these few days at Sydney. Many others - described below - acted shamefully in various ways:1> Shame on Bucknor, Benson: Yes, yes umpires are human etc. But if that is the excuse for tolerating their performance in Sydney, competence may not be a requirement at all. Why, anyone can stand in a Test match if they're allowed ten mistakes. For the record, the two umpires wrongly called on Ponting (caught behind), Ponting (LBW), Symonds (caught behind), Symonds (stumped), Jaffer (no-ball), Hussey (caught behind), Dravid (caught behind), Ganguly (caught). This isn't even counting the more subtle LBW errors that they made: Symonds, Tendulkar, Hussey. Out of the eleven mistakes mentioned above, only two went in favor of India. The mistake that hurt India the most was perhaps Symonds being given not out when he was caught behind. I must say that that was the loudest knick I have heard in cricket, that went unnoticed by the umpire. Bucknor has been a great servant of the game, and he had a chance of retiring gracefully some time ago. Now, unfortunately, I don't know if he even deserves the chance to retire without grace. He should just "be fired", if there is any such thing. Unfortunately, his abilities don't seem to keep up with the demands of the job, and when that happens, he's got to go. Not before he has caused a lot of damage though.2> Shame on Harbhajan: Who knows what he said, but why would anyone in his right mind ever think of engaging in potentially dangerous banter when you've just seized the momentum of the Test match? When Harbhajan came to the crease, India were 118 runs behind, and when he decided to have a chat with Symonds, India had almost cleared the lead. It was one of the most senseless things that an Indian cricketer has done for a while.3> Shame on BCCI: Not once did the BCCI submit that if Harbhajan was guilty of racial badgering, even they would not tolerate this behavior. Harbhajan is employed by the BCCI. Should an employer tolerate a racist employee? And if not, then why can't the employer come clean by articulating its anti-racism stand in public? It would have made their subsequent actions more meaningful and appear less opportunistic.4> Shame on Ponting: Is his integrity a function of circumstances? Yes, he declared that he did not catch Dravid cleanly in the first innings, but was it because the game wasn't on the line? When he caught Dhoni, he clearly grassed the ball. Why was he appealing? Prem Panicker makes a very interesting and valid point that Ponting should be punished for claiming to take a catch which he knew wasn't clean. There has been a precedent! Read this - http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2008/jan/07prem.htm. The other matter of shame was the escalation of the Harbhajan affair. Why do we forget that we're playing a peaceful, competitive sport? Was there really any need to make such a big issue out of it? Perhaps from a dogmatic perspective yes, but from a practical perspective there is no doubt that this could be handled better. Was this plain gamesmanship which somehow snowballed into a cricket-wide controversy? Was Ponting trying to get back at Harbhajan personally, with all the talk of him being Harbhajan's bunny? I would never suspect the world's best batsman of such behavior, but Australians in general and Ponting in particular are so keen on winning that one doesn't know how far they will go. Other than these two cases, I did not see anything particularly wrong with the way he behaved ON the field (there is more shame in his off-the-field behavior). Ponting is a naturally gifted sportsperson, with a very aggressive and competitive bent. He will go down in history as among the top ten batsmen of all time, and a similarly exclusive recognition as a captain. He doesn't give an inch which is quite fair. His celebrations after the victory also seemed quite reasonable. Why, Harbhajan himself had a disproportionate bit of celebration when he simply got Ponting out, so if Australia won a thrilling game in the final minutes, some excitement is understandable. Off the field, Ponting disappointed. Just like everyone is expected to understand Australian sensibilities (like monkey being an abusive word), he is expected to understand Indian sensibilities too. His continuous defense of his actions on the field, his complete disregard for some of India's valid complaints and his arrogant demeanor left no hope for the matter to be resolved amicably. Tiger Woods comes to mind here, a great sportsperson perhaps superior to Ponting, at least as aggressive on the course as Ponting is on the field, but genuinely well-behaved and a true ambassador of golf off the course. Ponting can still be one of the greatest sports champions if he brings a more sympathetic and less arrogant behavior off the field. He doesn't appear to have the humility to understand this right now. What a shame!5> Shame on the Indian media: Over the past few years, Indian media has moved from being dull and inadequate to being downright irresponsible and excessive. Bucknor was termed dishonest (Be-Imaan)! Why dishonest? He was plain incompetent. Dishonesty or lack of integrity have a completely different slant as compared to incompetence and it is plainly wrong to mix the two. Bucknor made some horrible mistakes, but no one in his right mind would even begin to believe that those mistakes were made on purpose. This was just one example of how the media was capitalizing on a hot news item by generating more emotions and the wrong kind of emotions among its viewers. Harbhajan's mother was called and asked some rather irrelevant questions. There was an SMS manufactured that Sachin Tendulkar sent to Sharad Pawar that later turned out to be untrue. The entire episode - umpiring and Harbhajan's case - were presented as if they were part of a conspiracy against India. This persecution complex seems prevalent in India, sadly enough. Why would anyone care to conspire against the Indian cricket team? Our team is generally regarded as among the most well-behaved and easy to get along with. Our teams bring in a lot of crowds, partly because of our star-studded team, and partly because of cricket-crazy expat Indians. Many people in the cricketing world have strong ties with India. Our Board is the richest and the most powerful in the world. Why would a group of people - Ponting, Bucknor, Procter - care to conspire against us? Even regarding the issue of Harbhajan's punishment, two others have been punished before for the same reasons, and both have been Caucasian: Lehmann and Gibbs. So, why would one believe that Procter and the ICC is targeting Harbhajan and the Indians? But the Indian media and the Indian public chose to turn this into a subject of national chauvinism. It was both embarrassing and deeply saddening to see how the media was contributing to the increasing tension in the minds of the Indian public about the issue.6> Shame on Mike Procter: Racism is a serious matter, as he himself has experienced, it seems. So was it reasonable to label someone a racist based on hearsay from one group, against hearsay from another? Why were Hayden and Clarke more believable than Tendulkar and Kumble? If there was indeed some doubt, then could he not have settled this with minimal damage to all concerned, and yet communicate that the ICC does not tolerate racist behavior? Was it really fair to give such a harsh judgment on possibly inadequate evidence? I don't believe for a moment that Procter was being purposefully biased, but I do feel that he could have used a better method to resolve the situation.Shame all over, then. It wasn't even a great match, as some commentators have been shouting about. No contest with ten wrong decisions can ever be termed great. Yes, there were great moments and great individual performances: Symonds and Hogg partnership which was completely eclipsed by the poor decisions, Laxman's and Tendulkar's centuries, India's tail-end performance, Hayden and Hussey dominating in the second innings, Ponting's masterful declaration and finally Kumble's hard-fought innings. But overall it was a flawed contest, and that can never make this Test match great.Several commentators have disapproved of ICC buckling to India's pressure and removing Bucknor. That seems less of a spineless decision and more of a sensible one. Bucknor goofed up, he has to go. It's as simple as that. Whether it is fair or unfair is an incorrect question. Was it fair that India lost this match, that they should have easily drawn and perhaps won? Is it fair that India is still on the back foot in the series when they could actually have had the momentum at this stage? Is it fair that history will, in an emotionless manner, deem them big losers in this game, while the fact is that they actually played better cricket for most of it? Fairness has been temporarily lost in Sydney, we should not demand it selectively.As said earlier, in this general mess of embarrassment and shame, for a few days now Anil Kumble stood tall as one of cricket's only ambassadors.