Win this one for cricket, Windies

By Anil - 13 May 2003
June 4 2003

Today, if the Windies can knock off 47 runs, they will have registered the highest fourth innings score to win a Test. And cricket fans the world over will be cheering them over the Aussies, who have gained the unfortunate reputation as the most disliked team in cricket history.

Australia's aging team has been able to maintain their dominance in Test cricket, but with no little help from a combination of factors that have nothing to do with playing skills.

When the governing body, ICC, is run by a CEO and president who are both Aussie, the Malcoms Speed and Gray, the rules are going to be Aussie-centric. No surprise there.

When the umpiring panel is dominated by Aussies, 3 of them on the panel including Darryl Harper (widely regarded as incompetent), Simon Taufel (gaining a reputation as a good umpire), and Darryl Hair (one of the most controversial and disliked umpires around), and the rest of the panel composed of good ol' boys friendly to Australia, the umpire decisions are going to be Aussie-friendly. Regardless of where the match is being played, home or away.

When the TV camera crew is drawn heavily from Australia's Channel 9, their focus will be on capturing and repeatedly playing footage that is beneficial to the Aussies and avoiding coverage that is not in their team's interests. Which comes into play not only in influencing the viewing public, but also officials who review video to justify any actions they may take.

When the umpires and referees allow the on-field obnoxiousness of the Aussies to continue unabated, but pull up other teams with harsh bans and fines for even one-tenth of their antics, they have an advantage that no other team has. What else can explain the decision of David Shepherd and Mike Proctor to let McGrath and others off scot-free with terrible, demonstrative sledging of the West Indies captain and vice-captain, Brian Lara and Ramnaresh Sarwan? A batsman should be allowed to ply his trade without constant harassment on every ball, and abrasive and abusive fielders constantly at his throat. Instead, Shepherd was seen publicly reprimanding the Windies batsmen on the few occasions that they responded to the Aussies! Where's the justice in that?

When self-proclaimed cricket almanacks Wisden and Cricinfo are run by Aussie editors or their friends, they will impart a "spin" to every incident which attempts to make them look good even in their worst actions.

When Shepherd declares the last recognized batsman out with a blatantly wrong decision at a critical time when the Windies is about to make history, how do you deal with that? By admitting that umpires are human? Shepherd, who had publicly apologized when he made the understandable mistake of missing a couple of the opposition's no-balls in England, and even offered to resign over such a small matter, has offered no public comment or regret on a glaring bad decision at the worst possible time against key batsman Jacobs, off a ball that everyone except he, knew had missed his bat and glove by miles. Hello Mr. Shepherd, your "mistakes" against teams that you don't favor are just as bad, or don't you understand that?

When Shepherd reports Jermaine Lawson for throwing, while ignoring the equally illegal action of Brett Lee in the very same match, what do you do? The destroyer of the Aussies in the first innings with a best-ever 7 wicket haul in Antigua was taken off in the second with the seemingly dubious claim of a back strain, something that was not even slightly in evidence when he bowled his first spell in the second innings. The news finally came through: Shepherd, who was seen taking copious notes when Lawson bowled, had asked for video footage of Lawson (but not of Lee) and on the basis of that, had reported Lawson for the serious crime (in cricket) of "chucking".

But Shepherd is a neutral umpire, you say? Only in theory. Shepherd has demonstrated his Aussie-friendliness beyond doubt, and in more ways than one. The overall effect has been that the Aussies have had a home advantage even when playing away. Replace Shepherd with Koertzen, Tiffin, Orchard, De Silva, or most of the other neutrals and you get the same effect.

Lest the Shepherds and Koertzens get a Deness-like reputation, the ICC will hasten to add that Asoka De Silva and Srini Venkat made the same sort of wrong calls against the Windies. When the Aussie bowlers and fielders can get away with umpire intimidation, and their ICC supremos are willing to take selective note of poor decisions against Aussies but not those against their opposition, what can an umpire do except play safe? There's presumably a good reason why the two are still on the elite panel, as are the Tiffins, Shepherds, Orchards, Hairs, Harpers, and Koertzens. The Aussies don't want technology to play a part in decision-making, and can you blame them when the end result is the sort of thing you see in the ongoing series? The entire series has been marred by umpiring "errors" - the kind that benefits just one of the sides. Who could have dreamed that neutral umpiring could be more unjust than home umpires?

Normally, the ICC would be expected to play a role in bringing some sanity to the proceedings when they dip to such lows. But when the current chiefs of that august body have primarily the interests of a particular team in mind at all times, that cannot be expected to happen. The current leadership of the ICC is widely regarded as the worst to have ever been in charge of cricket, and even Wisden which is not respected by cricket fans for its own neutrality, has said as much.

When Lawson revived memories of the legendary Windies fast men, as much as of Aussie intimidation in those times, the Aussies managed to raise the issue behind the scenes resulting in David Shepherd's complaint to the ICC -- the same Shepherd who has officiated in three other Test series in which Lawson bowled, the same Shepherd who officiated when other outright chuckers have bowled. The only difference here was Lawson's 7-wicket haul against the Aussies.

But in a similar incident, when India made private complaints about Brett Lee's action in his debut in their away series in 99, no such actions were taken by the Aussie and the "neutral" umpire, nor by the referee. And when Indian umpires took official action to report Lee in a subsequent Aus series in New Zealand, the same Malcom Speed who is now helping enforce review of Lawson, was then in charge of the ACB and played a pivotal part in constant attacks on the ICC to get Lee freed of review. Subsequently, Lee declined to visit India on the Aussies return away tour, in which both the Indian umpires who had reported him earlier would get another opportunity to look at his action. Admittedly Lawson needs work, but what's right about laws which protect one country's "chucker" while punishing another? Even Aussie great Lillee said a few months back that Lee's questionable effort ball should be periodically reviewed to make sure it stays clean (at a similar level to Holding's comments on Lawson), but he has been predictably ignored.

It is high time the unworthy Aussie "champions" who bend every rule in the book to win a game are pulled in, along with their supporting cast of ICC chiefs, presidents, umpires, cameramen, media and the rest of that sorry bunch for whom "winning is everything, the hell with everything else". Otherwise, cricket cannot be expected to survive when the public expects to see a minimum amount of civility from their sportsmen.

In the meantime, here's hoping Australia loses today.