Gautam Gambhir will miss the Nagpur test

Gautam Gambhir, who was banned for a test after he elbowed Shane Watson at Mohali, will sit out of the Nagpur test. This is because his appeal for a review of the ban has been rejected.

It is the right decision for several reasons.

• Gambhir was guilty of a physical offence, which carries a greater punishment than verbal abuse
  
• This was Gambhir's second physical offense in less than a year
  
• Gambhir had pleaded guilty to the charge

In the light of these facts, I have no idea what prompted the BCCI to go in for a review of the original decision in the first place! In fact now, the BCCI is threatening to up the ante by refusing to accept the decision. I have no idea why this is happening. In any case, Justice Albie Sachs, who was appointed by the ICC to hear the appeal, has presented a fact-based ruling about why the 1 test match ban should stand.

Malcolm Conn can keep writing about how the ruling would confirm India's standing as the worst-behaved team in the last decade. But the facts of this hearing and the Justice Hansen hearing of the Harbhajan v Symonds episode confirms Australia's standing as consistently displaying equally pathetic (if not worse) behaviour, considering the number of times opponents have complained about provocative and abusive language having been used by Australian players. The only difference is that, for whatever reasons, Australia's players are rarely pulled up before the match referee, and when they are, they get off lightly.

In a sense, it is good that Australia being the provocateurs most of the time is being exposed so that the players' double standards are brought out in the open. When Australia's players abuse and sledge, since it is the way they have always played their cricket, it is par for the course and opponents must cop it. But when opponents sledge or abuse, they go complaining to the umpires.

Mind you, this doesn't justify Gambhir's actions. But the fact is that the incessant abuse obviously got to him and that is what Justice Sachs hints at in his decision.

[16] In considering the proportionality of the penalty, I am prepared to accept that he had been the victim of prolonged and persistent verbal abuse by members of the Australian team, culminating in a moment of anger that led to his unfortunate lapse. I would add in his favour that the manner in which Shane Watson had raised an arm as he ran past for the first run, could have been taken by him as a mocking gesture, and thereby could have served as the last provocative straw.

[22] At the same time, it is not only physical argy-bargy that must be minimised. Constant verbal assaults are also unbecoming, and also bring the game into disrepute, the more so if their intention is to break the player’s concentration and provoke a loss of temper. To my mind, these 'verbals' as they are euphemistically called, whether they involve swearing or not, provide a kind of tension and aggression inconsistent with the spirit of cricket. Yet even if a case can be made out that the time has come to consider whether sledging has any place in cricket at all, one form of unbecoming conduct cannot justify another. However severe the verbal assaults on them may be, players are obliged not to give vent to their anger through physical retaliation. They must respond with their prowess as cricketers, and not with the furious muscle of out-of-control anger. Even a hint of physical retaliation must be strongly dealt with. And captains and umpires should be astute not to allow any badgering which raises the temperature and encourages undue ire.

This is a great opportunity for the ICC to step in and do something about abuse and sledging.

Update: Michael Jeh, on the Cricinfo 'Different Strokes' blog, has a good post on why the ICC needs to step in now. He also questions why the umpires did nothing about the constant abuse that Gambhir was copping. He asks an interesting question - Are these chaps at a workplace or playing a sport? If it is a workplace, clearly this abuse is unacceptable. If its a sport, then why not pay them commensurately, and besides, why abuse if it isn't something to be taken too seriously?

Labels: aus v ind 2008, ban, gambhir, icc, match referee, sledging, spirit of cricket

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:54 pm | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Stop getting provoked, India

If it hasn't been obvious for a while now, it must be now. Australia will continue to get away with abusing and provoking opponents. It is really upto the opposition, and India in particular since these two sides are always having a go at each other, to stop reacting and getting provoked.

Perhaps it needs reiterating that despite Andrew Symonds admitting, during the hearings, that he had abused and provoked Harbhajan at Sydney, Judge Hansen's judgement didn't result in any sort of action against him.

Yesterday, when India were on 155/2, Gambhir was attempting to take a couple of runs. When he was about to complete the first run, he found Watson with a raised arm right in front of his face, on his way to the non-striker's crease. He evaded Watson, but then on the return, disgracefully & wrongly chose to stick an elbow out 'accidentally'. Was Watson trying to block Gambhir's path with the raised arm? We won't know. Was Gambhir getting one back for all the abusive words that he'd been copping all day? We won't know.

Gambhir also had a run-in with Katich yesterday, when he found his path blocked by Katich, in the unfamiliar role of a bowler. Verbals ensued, and Billy Bowden stepped in.

I didn't notice the umpires step in on the earlier occasion. When you read Michael Clarke's divergent takes on both incidents, it seems to me that Australia wanted Gambhir in the dock for the elbowing, but when it came to Katich blocking Gambhir's way (perhaps deliberately), it was all fair go.

I did see that on replay and I'm pretty sure the match referee, or whoever, will have a look at that. Like the incident with Kato, it's important we all get on with the game. As vice-captain, I grabbed Watto and just said 'continue to bowl well'. I said 'Say what you have to say and let's get on with it. Let it go, Kato, just get on and bowl, it's fine, let it go'.

The other thing that gets my attention is the list of 'targets' for Australia. Two conditions need to be satisfied for Australia to pick on them.

• They need to be fairly hot-headed folks, who give as good as they get, and especially do so in an explicit in-your-face manner that match referees can't ignore.
  
• They need to have performed against Australia, either in the past or in that game/series.

Harbhajan, Zaheer and Gambhir (so far) do satisfy both conditions.

Why the match referee chose to only take that incident to fine Watson 10% of his match fee is strange, considering that Watson was consistently hurling abuses at Gambhir, including after dismissing him. After Watson got Gambhir out, his reaction was certainly not "Fcuk, got him at last!". Did Broad ignore the provocation and focus on Gambhir's reaction?

I think Gambhir is actually in a lot of trouble. Last November, he had been fined 65% of his match fee after an India v Pakistan ODI at Kanpur for running into Shahid Afridi, and was very fortunate that the charge had been downgraded to a level 1 offence. Any repeat of a level 1 offence within 12 months automatically gets upgraded to a level 2 offence, which is what he has been charged with. The penalty is a 50-100% match fee fine and/or 1 test or 2 ODI ban, but decisions can be appealed.

What Gambhir, the rest of the Indian team, and especially the hot-headed folks, need to realize is that India have Australia by the cojones now. That is why Australia are provoking India's players. The best way to react is to stop being provoked & politely inquire about whether their WAGs will also be sitting on Allen Stanford's lap, smile, ignore the verbals and get on with the game by batting, bowling & fielding well. When you've got a double hundred or taken loads of wickets and Australia are losing, the verbals don't really matter any more!

Now for the stats. Only 25 players have scored double centuries against Australia. VVS Laxman has now scored the most runs against Australia in the 'Aussie dominance' decade.

Update: Gautam Gambhir has been banned for a test. The BCCI can lodge an appeal by tomorrow morning. Within 48 hours after the appeal is filed, the ICC has to appoint someone to handle the appeal. That person needs to complete hearing the appeal and arrive at a decision within 7 days. The Nagpur test starts on Nov 6. If the BCCI does appeal, Gambhir will certainly play that test. But I don't think the BCCI will, because Gambhir had pleaded guilty.

Labels: aus v ind 2008, australia, gambhir, india, match referee, sledging, statistic

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:07 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Verbal warfare begins!

Zaheer Khan - "They know they can't take 20 wickets and they are on the back foot. They couldn't get me or Bhajji out. I have never seen an Australian team play such defensive cricket, which is a good thing for us. On a fifth-day pitch the spinners could not do us any harm. That shows what their spin attack is all about."

Ricky Ponting - "We were the only ones in the game trying to take the game forward. We played aggressive cricket. I am not surprised by the way they played, the Indian team do play a lot of drawn games."

Did anyone say this was going to be a quiet series?

For the record Ricky, in 2008 so far, 3 out of Australia's 7 tests have ended in draws while 3 out of India's 10 tests have ended in draws. I know my arithmetic, and its easy to see who has the higher ratio of draws!

Playing for a draw isn't necessarily a negative mindset, especially if you're trying to squeeze out the best possible result from the match situation. I guess India could point fingers at the way Australia played at Adelaide and say that Australia were focussed on getting a draw and a 2-1 result. Maybe we should focus on your team scoring at 2.8 runs an over in the first innings at Bangalore and not taking 10 wickets while having 83 overs to bowl on a deteriorating pitch in less than ideal light conditions for batting. Australia had an opportunity to bat when the pitch was at its best for batting and bowl last when it was at its worst for batting. The first innings run rate was despite having 6 wickets in hand at the end of the first day and the failure to get India all out will be exaggerated by the fact that India were 24/2, having lost the two batsmen who really mattered in that situation, and nearly 5 more hours to play out!

This isn't about who the better side is. The obvious answer, at this point in time, is Australia. Australia have been the gold standard for over a decade now. India aren't quite there yet. The side needs another quick bowler, a good backup spin option, and capable replacements for the middle order. It is work in progress. Part of the learning curve is to fight it out for a draw. They failed to do it at Sydney earlier this year, and on several other occasions in the past. A draw is a far more acceptable start to the series. Once Australia got 430 on the board, it was always unlikely that Australia would be in the backseat.

While Zaheer was tempting fate when he spoke about Australia being unable to take 20 wickets and the defensive cricket, he is obviously right about your spin options. It has been Australia's fault that no young spinner has broken through for such a long time. There have been many opportunities for Australia's selectors to provide more chances for Cullen, Hauritz and White to bowl alongside Warne. Yet they kept recalling MacGill, picking Hogg, and then McGain, leaving Casson to wonder what he did wrong.

Labels: aus v ind 2008, australia, bangalore, india, ponting, sledging, spin, zaheer khan

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:32 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Hayden's hubris

Matthew Hayden told the Courier Mail that he felt he was going to be the obvious target of India's bowlers, especially Harbhajan Singh.

Having played over there and played well over there, I think I'm going to be the obvious target

I imagine he was referring to the verbals, because he averaged 30.5 from 8 innings and scored a single fifty during Australia's test series win in India in 2004.

I'm not implying that he's a crap batsman. But I do think his numbers (8200+ runs at an average of 53.5, with 30 centuries) are totally out of proportion with his ability & talent. I definitely hate the sight of him (obnoxious huge weed, perhaps?), maybe because of the way he looks so arrogant while batting. Viv Richards also showed his arrogance, but he had the ability for sure. In my opinion, Hayden's numbers are greatly inflated by poor bowling attacks. It's not his fault, for you can't expect him to throw away his wicket when he's facing pathetic bowlers.

That said, it's entirely likely that he will do very well in the forthcoming series in India. But it may well be a case of hubris.

Maybe Harbhajan should just say "We don't particularly care about Hayden. We're targetting Mitchell Johnson's batting since he averages 56 against us."

It was always on the cards though that Hayden's penchant for verbal diarrhea would reveal itself before the series started. He has always said stupid things.

• Sub-continental batsmen focus too much on personal landmarks.
  
• Wondering if Katich was dropped because he didn't convert his starts into big scores when he'd made 26, 30, 58, 39, 23, 9, 35 & 24 in the 2004 series in India.
  
• India's bowlers didn't know how to get him out, and were focussed on keeping him quiet, a charge that Harbhajan dismissed straightaway.
  
• Winning in India in 2004 drained Australia, so they screwed up the 2005 Ashes.
  
• Warns Monty Panesar that Australia's batsmen normally have left-arm spinners for breakfast, lunch and dinner. This, when Murali Kartik and (especially) Daniel Vettori had already taken enough wickets against Australia to roobish the claim.
  
• Challenging Ishant Sharma for a boxing bout.
  
• Calling Harbhajan an 'obnoxious little weed'.

Labels: aus v ind 2008, australia, hayden, sledging, verbal diarrhea

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:14 am | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

The lone voices of dissent

Around a week ago, the ICC sent a note to match referees, umpires, board heads and team captains as part of an effort to clamp down on sledging.

To the best of my knowledge, the only ones to have raised concerns are all Australians: Cricket Australia, Mark Taylor, Stuart Clark, Rodney Hogg, Patrick Smith in 'The Australian' and Greg Baum in 'The Melbourne Age'.

This unanimity of opinion, even as no one else has commented adversely on the ICC's note, leads me to believe that the problem is Australia-centric. Merely having a 'Spirit of Cricket' document which gets enforced in an inconsistent manner does no good to the Australian cricket establishment's image. As the world-beaters and world-leaders, they need to provide the necessary leadership.

Labels: australia, clark, sledging

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:47 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Harbhajan v/s Hayden & Ponting

Apparently during an India v Australia game at Adelaide ten days ago or so, there was a fair amount of banter between Ponting and Harbhajan, going by this PTI report.

Apparently, Ponting kept having a go at Harbhajan in Adelaide, asking him "to show what he had got" in the middle.

Harbhajan, on his part, had then cheekily remarked: "Mate, whatever I have shown in the middle has been better than yours' in the series so far."

It appeared to have stung the Australian captain who asked Harbhajan to "f... off" after the latter was dismissed.

If the dialogue reported did indeed happen, it is a superb response from Harbhajan! Remember that at that point in time, Ricky Ponting had scored 25 runs from 5 innings, which he duly rectified the moment he got a nice batting track at Sydney to score a century. Harbhajan, in contrast, had 3/74 from 22 overs.

I totally loved that retort. Does anyone else also think that Hayden's comments to the Brisbane radio station on Harbhajan being an 'obnoxious little weed' and about taking on Ishant in a boxing ring should land him in quite a lot of trouble?

As per the ICC's code of conduct, using language that is obscene, offensive or insulting is a level-1 offence (upto 50% of the match fee penalty). Using language that is obscene, offensive or of a seriously insulting nature (barring the verbals that happen during a game) is a level-2 offence (upto 100% of the match fee penalty and a 1 test/2 ODI ban). After the appeal hearing, Harbhajan was found guilty of a level-2 offence.

Obnoxious implies Harbhajan is annoying, offensive or disgustingly objectionable. Little refers to Harbhajan being smaller-built in comparison to Hayden (and the rest of his teammates). This is obviously a case of racial stereotyping, and hence vilification (just like Tony Greig's "Those little Shri Lonkans" chant). Weed again refers to Harbhajan being obnoxious and detrimental.

Clearly this is a case of offensive and seriously insulting language. If someone tells me I'm a weed, I'd be pretty offended and feel insulted about it, since it implies that I shouldn't be existing. Add in the 'little' part and this very clearly qualifies as a racist remark. Actually this also makes for a libel/defamation suit since Hayden said "That is why he's been charged more than anyone that has ever played in the history of cricket." while referring to Harbhajan. That is totally incorrect. As pointed out in an earlier post, Inzamam has been charged the most number of times.

Yet, I have this nagging feeling Hayden will be let off by Cricket Australia and the ICC, despite being charged with breaching the Code of Behaviour, with a minor slap on the wrists and receive a letter that reads something like

Dear Matthew,
I saw your remark on Harbhajan being an 'obnoxious little weed' the other day.

I'd be really grateful if you could tone down your language. We've got tons of problems with those BCCI buggers. We need the money!

We'll be putting out a media release soon charging you under some clause of our code of conduct. Let me know if that is ok with you.

Cheers

James (CEO, just in case you forgot)

PS: I loved your imitation of Ishant's Indian accent *ROFLMAO*

Update at 6.30 pm: Was I clairvoyant or what? Hayden has been 'reprimanded'. Basically, he's got away with it. Perhaps insulting opposition players is acceptable for Cricket Australia.

Labels: australia, Commonwealth Bank Series, harbhajan, hayden, india, ponting, racism, sledging

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:35 pm | Sledge/Read 4 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Hayden is definitely lunatic

What else do I conclude for this comment from him on Ishant Sharma?

He is 19, why doesn't he just worry about his bowling for a while? I like the idea of actually getting into the ring. I like that, let's bring that one.

Labels: australia, Commonwealth Bank Series, harbhajan, hayden, india, ishant, racism, sledging

Thus spake Ganesh @ 3:04 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Some angry cricketers

Ricky Ponting is seething over Sunil Gavaskar's remarks last week that Australia's behaviour made them a less liked bunch of winners compared to the West Indies sides of the 1970s and 1980s. So Ponting went ahead and made the obligatory reference to Gavaskar dragging Chetan Chauhan to the boundary after copping a bad decision at Melbourne in 1980/81. This wasn't the first time Gavaskar had pointed out Australia's bad behaviour. He did so in 2003, while delivering the Colin Cowdrey lecture at Lord's.

Aside from referring to Gavaskar's antics at Melbourne (curiously, he didn't refer to Sunny's 36 at Lord's in 1975), Ponting talked about India's hopeless record in tests and said that he knew who he'd rather watch. I hope his national cricket board was listening. They seem rather over keen to have India play Australia, at various venues - now Ireland after Malaysia last year. Ponting also said that his team was placing a lot of emphasis on behaviour, something which he talked about a in 2005 and John Buchanan talked about in 2006. Maybe they're not doing enough - Australian players made seven visits to the ICC Match Referee's room in 2007, Ponting doing so twice.

It may not be a bad idea for Gavaskar to realize that there're genuine conflicts of interest between his duties as the chairman of the ICC's Cricket Committee and his rights as a columnist. I don't remember who, but I'm sure I've read a comment piece some time ago by a columnist/editor in (possibly) 'The Times' which talked about Gavaskar's "inability to realize a conflict of interest even when it stared at him in the face". If Gavaskar had concerns about Australia's behaviour, I'm sure there are right 'channels' to get his concerns addressed, especially since his committee 'deals with any matters or issues relating to the game or the playing of the game.' (sic)

The other player who should actually be very angry, but probably isn't, is Denesh Ramdin. Rahul Dravid, while defending Sehwag's inclusion in the light of yet another low score, seemed to get a little angry.

I get asked this question why are you supporting Sehwag. Anyway my supporting Sehwag, it is not like I'm supporting Joe Bloggs, some Ramdin or Ramakdin or something.

Joe Bloggs, I can understand. Ramakdin, less so. But Ramdin? I mean, why pick on a 21-year old who's just about made it to the West Indies squad for the tournament?

Update: I wonder if Dravid or Gavaskar should point out that India beats Australia hollow when you compare recent one-day record against England because Ponting only referred to India's poor test record.

Labels: 2007 world cup, australia, behaviour, conflict of interest, dravid, gavaskar, india, ponting, ramdin, sehwag, sledging, west indies, world cup

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:52 pm | Sledge/Read 6 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]