The Spirit of Cricket?

Over the past month we’ve heard a whole lot about the ‘spirit of cricket’, which, pending on what your view is, have been flouted and ignored during this India/Australia Test series.

The Sydney Test fallout was all farce as accusations and counter-accusations rocked back and forth. Umpiring was called into question after several howlers, and an ill-feeling settled over the competitive series.

It all started with the major umpiring blunders which arguably influenced the outcome of the test: The Andrew Symonds reprieve in the 1st innings and the Rahul Dravid dismissal in the 4th innings. Both the decisions were wrong, but the backlash that followed was of almost Hollywood drama level.

The Indian press went on the offensive, initially calling into question Ponting’s sportsmanship when he claimed a catch off Rahul Dravid in the 4th innings that was eventually given not out. They of course ignored the fact that Ponting had previously admitted to the umpire in India’s first innings that he was unsure of a catch he had taken.

Kumble was upset about the loss, but was out of line in accusing Australia of breaching the ‘spirit of cricket’.

Now Australia is an intriguing nation on the cricket field. The brand of cricket they usually play is hard but fair. Mark Taylor, one of Australia’s finest leaders, really got Australia into playing genuine attacking cricket and was an aggressive leader but a fair and diplomatic man.

Steve Waugh went a step in another direction, probably the wrong direction. His brand of aggression, titled ‘mental disintegration’ was eagerly snapped up by a side desiring to cement its place at the top of world cricket.

The heavy abuse encouraged during Waugh’s reign led to many clashes on the field, the more well known being Glenn McGrath’s tirade against Ramnaresh Sarwan and Michael Slater’s argument with Rahul Dravid. This was around the time the ‘ugly’ Australia tag began to stick.

Ponting’s reign has been an odd one. Although the abuse of opposition is less prevalent under Ponting than under Waugh, the Australian team still plays it hard and aggressive without as much diplomacy as Taylor promoted.

Australia has been accused in the past of over-appealing in an attempt to intimidate umpires. This wasn’t prevalent in the previous three tests, but it has been done, especially by one certain blonde leg spinner.

The irony of this is India is often guilty of over-appealing themselves, especially their spinners. This isn’t an entirely Australian problem.

Another issue of contention was walking. Australia is singled out as being a nation of non-walkers, and the press was incensed after the Symonds non-dismissal when it seemed the all-rounder knew he had hit the ball. Michael Clarke not leaving the ground immediately after being dismissed was another.

This again is a ‘cry wolf’ scenario. No team in the world walks. The only players in recent memory that walk have been the now retired Brian Lara and Australian wicketkeeper Adam Gilchrist. None of the Indian batsmen walk, and when Sourav Ganguly refused to leave the arena after Michael Clarke claimed a catch was poor form.

Truth is no one walks because of the chance an umpire makes a mistake, which is what happened in the Sydney Test.

After the Sydney fallout, Australia took to the field in Perth a team wary of being criticised for their behaviour and were exceptionally diplomatic, to the point that they forgot to play aggressively. Thus India had a much easier time defeating them (This does not detract from the fact India played better).

The term ‘spirit of cricket’ is an ambiguous and misleading term. Most teams around the world criticise another for breaking it when they are in fact hypocritically doing it themselves.

Unfortunately, because Australia is the top team in the world, their actions are always going to be under more scrutiny than the rest and every excessive appeal or minor personality clash they have will always lead back to the image of the ‘ugly’ Aussie cricketer.