Another streak ended by Laxman magic?

Immortality will now have to be earned. Almost seven years ago in Kolkata, one Australian winning streak stopped at 16 as VVS Laxman, Rahul Dravid and Harbhajan Singh shredded the script over the final two days. Here, an inexperienced pace attack and an unheralded lower order pushed them further and further adrift of sweet 17. There was a common thread though, batting as elegantly as ever. VVS Laxman loves playing Australia, and if India do go on and win this game, his 79 will rank far higher than most hundreds made by Indian batsmen in 76 years of Test cricket.

Laxman drove and flicked with typical panache, but it was the strokes down the ground and a ferocious pull off Brett Lee that exemplified his effort. Michael Clarke did let slip a tough chance when he had 59, but by then, in combination with Irfan Pathan, MS Dhoni and the remarkable RP Singh, India were disappearing out of sight.

Pathan, who had walked out the previous evening as nightwatchman, once again showed off the special talent that made him such a favourite of Greg Chappell. On a morning when far more illustrious names fell by the wayside, he was as compact and disciplined as any top-order player. His ability to put away the loose ball is an indicator of his class, and only the tame ending after lunch was disappointing.

Dhoni's was an innings in two parts. For 41 balls, he poked and prodded for just five, beaten several times outside off stump by the metronomic and hugely impressive Stuart Clark. But once Clarke and Andrew Symonds came on in a bid to boost the pathetic over-rate, Dhoni was a man transformed. The huge biffs down the ground were dusted off, and the 75-run partnership meant the difference between Australia chasing a middling total and an imposing one.

RP's cavalier 30, featuring one impeccable off-drive off a demoralised Shaun Tait, was just salt in the wound. Not only did he do the bulk of the scoring, but he and Laxman held Australia at bay for all of 17 overs when they might have fancied a quick wrap after tea.

Australia have such a line-up that 348 on a fourth-day pitch certainly isn't beyond them, but there were more than a few warning signs in the 15 overs before stumps. Pathan and RP again swung the ball with great control, and the disconcerting bounce that Anil Kumble got in his one over won't have eased the nerves in the dressing room.

It's been another magnificent Test match, and it's somehow fitting that Australia will need to stretch themselves as they haven't had to in years to achieve the result that will put Steve Waugh's great team in the shade. If India do hold their nerve, it will undoubtedly be their greatest victory, and a fitting tribute to a man whose bat becomes a magician's wand when confronted by the best team in the game.

Comments

[Harry]

You see what you've done Ann? This evil in our midst must be eradicated. Not one reference to anything even remotely resembling a fact.
Smale, you may not like the rules of cricket but I'm afraid they will still apply.
You bumble along with your "Please note that so far, I haven't even gone into quoting any clauses from the ICC rules" because you don't have the foggiest idea of what the rule book actually says.
Please, please, please stop this madness. Follow another sport or take an umpiring course. There must be many idiot deprived villages that would be very grateful for the services of someone with your obvious talents.

[smale25]

All right, Ann. To preserve my good standing with you and with other fair-minded readers, I am going to respond to this so-called 'confronted on the facts'. Let us first make the context clear: note that the first sentence in StatesideAussie's rebuttal is 'I know I am wasting my time, but I can't resist...'. One or two days before StatesideAussie sent in his rebuttal, I had announced that I would not be willing to enter into a discussion with StatesideAussie. So, StatesideAussie resorted to writing a long message with quotations from various clauses of the ICC rules, hoping that he/she would be taken seriously this way. Anyways, let me now demonstrate to you why I did not think, at that time, that his/her rebuttal was worth responding to.

Let us start with StatesideAussie's paragraph beginning with 'First of all, ...'. For StatesideAussie, the ICC rules (Standard Test Match Playing Conditions) are not enough. StatesideAussie would like to take the help of the Marleybone Cricket Club's Laws of Cricket to justify the fact that the captains and the umpires got into an agreement on their own in the second test between India and Australia. MCC's laws of cricket apply to the whole game of cricket. Any time a few cricket enthusiasts come together, whether in street-corners or in city parks, whether they are school children or professionals, the MCC laws help to provide a framework for playing a game of cricket. It is quite understandable that, under these conditions, the paramount importance must be given to the playing of the game. For example, if there are only five players available on both sides, instead of the eleven, could the game be cancelled? Obviously not. Thus MCC laws allow for much more flexibility. The ICC rules address the far more specific condition of a test match between two countries. Thus one could only infer that StatesideAussie's reasons for referring to MCC's laws are quite diabolical and are meant to confuse the reader.

Next, StatesideAussie launches into a discussion extending across four paragraphs just to make the point that the umpire is not required to consult the third umpire, but only the square leg umpire. (ref: the paragraph starting from 'Matters concerning ...' to the paragraph ending with '... not a requirement'). I would like to interject here that I had already pointed out in my article that if the umpire could not reach a clear verdict (for example, if the ball was not in his direct line of vision during the catch), then he needs to consult the square leg umpire, and then the third umpire. However, StatesideAussie goes one step further and states that the umpire and the square leg umpire do not need to consult with technology at all! But, the punchline must surely be StatesideAussie's last paragraph where StatesideAussie quotes Clause 3.1.7 of Special Conditions to say "Neither team will have a right of objection to an umpire's appointment." Open and shut case, isn't it? How could anyone even entertain the thought that StatesideAussie could be wrong? Blasphemy!! The umpire is not required to consult the third umpire, and neither team can object to the umpire's appointment.

At that time, I had thought that it was only StatesideAussie. I didn't know that there are plenty of people on the cyber-world who have fallen for StatesideAussie's 'rebuttal'. Let me just point out that in StatesideAussie's scheme of things, the umpire is completely at liberty to ignore technological advances. The umpire is not obligated to strive for a fair outcome, instead he/she can behave as he/she wishes and neither team can object. I must also ask you here to keep in mind that a cricket stadium is a cauldron of emotions during a test match, with anywhere from 15000 to 80000 fans watching closely. In addition, there are millions of people watching on TV. StatesideAussie must be thinking that we are all in the thirteenth century, and the spectators are all barbarians roaring for an entertainment, with no knowledge of the rules of the game. Or perhaps the cricket stadium is in fact a Roman collesium with teams of gladiators fighting against wild animals, according to StatesideAussie's prescription for cricket. In fact, I suspect that students of Roman law would take me to task for suggesting that the gladiatorial sport did not follow strict rules (it is a different matter whether the sport itself was just or unjust).

Another point I want to make is that the laws of cricket have been subjected to scrutiny by many brilliant minds over the years. In the early part of twentieth century, the game of cricket could count on many scientists and thinkers in Britain as its keen followers. So, I would not want the readers to think that the laws can be used to substantiate a bigoted position. Without any willingness to examine the facts, if one had 'apriori' reached a conclusion, and is trying to substantiate the conclusion through selective reading of the laws, then it amounts to bigotry. This is exactly what StatesideAussie has done, by quoting various clauses from ICC rules, AFTER he had decided that the agreement between the captains and umpires was fully valid. The readers must know that, in view of their scrutiny by great minds, the laws of cricket are quite clear and robust, and can easily expose such bigoted attempts. Please note that so far, I haven't even gone into quoting any clauses from the ICC rules. At this point, it is unnecessary to resort to such precision. There is plenty of loopholes in StatesideAussie's 'rebuttal' that I don't need to quote the rule numbers.

Coming back to my point about taking the help of technology, if the umpire decides he need not consult technology at all when making decisions about catches, then the umpire would be making mistakes from time-to-time, and they would be replayed on TV so often that the umpire's professional competence would be held in question. But, the worst part of StatesideAussie's rebuttal is the two paragraphs starting with 'I am sure that umpire Benson did not ...' and ending with '... sure that he caught it'. StatesideAussie's statements imply that Michael Clarke actually did take the catch that dismissed Ganguly legitimately. This is a complete lie, and I could bring in video evidence to prove it. All the Australian commentators on TV had interpreted the cricket rules (just like the way StatesideAussie has interpreted above) in a lop-sided manner to conclude that the catch was clean. I would be quite willing to quote the exact numbers of the clauses in the ICC cricket laws this time, to expose their folly!!

[Harry]

Ann,
With apologies to Dileep for cluttering his blog, here is the response from a blogger called StatesideAussie on the Guardian site when Smale last published this load of tosh on the 15th of Jan 08. Smale's analysis is neither clear nor accurate, it is simply wrong.
When confronted on the facts Smale simply "refuses to sully his reputation"

Here goes..........

"I know I am wasting my time, but I can't resist...

smale: your post about declaring the Sydney match null and void is a masterpiece of ignorance, if not outright deception.

First of all, let's be clear that what you refer to as the "rules of the ICC" are in fact the ICC's Standard Test Match Playing Conditions. It is worth noting that the Laws of Cricket are maintained by the Marylebone Cricket Club, not the ICC. The Laws of Cricket explicitly allow the captains to agree on special playing conditions (including the right to agree to have more or fewer than 11 players on a team). The ICC's Standard Conditions state that they are themselves variations of these Laws.

Matters concerning the third umpire are covered by the ICC's Special Conditions. In your post, you imply that the Special Conditions require the umpires to consult the third umpire for a TV replay, if they themselves are uncertain. I understand that this forms the basis for your assertion that the "rules of the game" have thus been "subverted": the umpires failed to refer the appeal to the third umpire, even though they were required to do so.

In fact, the Special Conditions do not *require* the umpires to use the third umpire. General usage of the third umpire is covered by Clause 3.2.1 (e), which says: "...the on-field umpire has the discretion whether to refer the appeal to the third umpire for a decision or not." It is quite clear: the on-field umpire has the discretion to use the third umpire, but is certainly not required to do so.

Specifically in relation to catches, these are dealt with by Clause 3.2.3, which begins: "The on-field umpire shall be entitled to refer an appeal for a caught decision to the third umpire in the following circumstances:". Note the word "entitled": again there is no requirement.

The clause then goes on to say that "Only if the line of vision of both umpires is obscured shall the bowler's
end umpire be entitled to refer the decision to the third umpire." Again, there is only an entitlement to use the third umpire, not a requirement.

I am sure that umpire Benson did not consult Ponting before consulting Bucknor. Benson was merely asking whether the fielder was certain of the catch. Ponting, who was standing between Benson and Clarke, was merely relaying Clarke's assertion that he had in fact caught it. Do you think that if Benson had asked Clarke directly, he would have gotten a different answer?

With the full knowledge of the officials, the captains had previously agreed to accept the fielder's word on disputed catches. Under the Laws of Cricket, as maintained by the MCC, this agreement was perfectly legitimate. Under the ICC Special Conditions, Benson and Bucknor were not required to use the third umpire. Aware of the captain's agreement, they were entitled to ask the fielder. That the fielder's word was relayed to them by his captain is a trifling matter since Clarke had already "claimed" the catch and was (and remains) sure that he had caught it.

You seem very pleased with the word "subvert". It means to overthrow, overturn, ruin, pervert or corrupt a system. Even if the agreement on catches was illegal (which it's not), and even if the ICC Special Conditions did require the umpires to consult the third umpire (which they don't), "subversion" would still be an overly strong word to employ.

And finally, I refer you to Clause 3.1.7 of those very same Special Conditions: "Neither team will have a right of objection to an umpire's appointment." Excuse me?"

[smale25]

Thank you Ann, for defending my work. Other people have made personal attacks on me on other blogs, and my response is usually the same: I refuse to sully my reputation by entering into a discussion with them. I would like to clarify one point: the articles that I have posted on the blogs of The Times and The Guardian (websites of UK's leading newspapers) are my own. They are not taken from anywhere else. I have registered as smale25 on these two websites. There is a possibility that somebody else might be impersonating as me on other websites, and behaving in an inappropriate manner. The discerning reader could always tell my writings from an impersonator's, because it is a lot of work to write such detailed and closely reasoned arguments. Also, I would like to request the Times website to introduce passwords for people commenting on their blogs. This would prevent impersonation. Thanks to Ann once again. I am very grateful for your defense of my writing. Thanks to other readers as well, who are keeping up the high standards of this blog by refraining from personal attacks. Thank you.

[Ann]

I would rather read Smale's clear and perfectly accurate analysis of the situation as it pertains to the match and the umpires' deviation from the laws of cricket, than small-minded, personal and abusive attacks on him by Harry, which should never have made it past the curring-room floor or the editor's blue pencil. If anyone doesn't like Smale's well-informed analysis - perhaps because it clashes with their prejudices? - they are entitled to skip it. Or perhaps post a detailed rebuttal. Maybe that's too much like hard work, or maybe there is nothing wrong wirh Smale's analysis that one could rebut.

[Harry]

To Smale25,
Your incoherent ramblings were annoying enough on Dileep's other blogs without being cut and pasted onto this one too.
Other contributors have taken your arguments to pieces elsewhere on the web and exposed you as a plagiarist. They can be sent to this blog just as easily.
Nobody would argue with your right to join the debate but this does not give you free rein to fill blog after blog with the same claptrap.
Please keep it brief.

[Jagadeesh]

Laxman is Very Very Special batsman of world Cricket. Why selectors are always Very Very Very Cruel on Laxman. Do you know any reason abou that?

[smale25]

A fair resolution: 1) declare the second test between Australia and India played at Sydney during January 2 – 6, 2008 to be NULL and VOID on legal grounds, 2) cancel the ban on Harbhajan Singh, but punish him along with Andrew Symonds, Michael Clark and Brad Hogg for conduct unbecoming of players of test cricket, and of representatives of their countries.

Explanation: The umpires officiating for the test match (Mark Benson and Steve Bucknor) and the captains (Ricky Ponting and Anil Kumble) of the two playing sides have some legal grounds to enter into an oral agreement about umpiring decisions that AUGMENTS the ICC rules which provide for the umpires’ current decision making capabilities. However, under no circumstances do they have the jurisdiction to enter into an agreement between themselves that SUBVERTS the current rules of the ICC. To make this point clear, consider the incident involving Saurav Ganguly’s dismissal in his second innings. Ganguly (a left-hander) had nicked a ball, and the ball was supposedly caught by Michael Clarke in the slip position. Under normal circumstances, if the fielder (Clarke) was not in the direct line of sight of the umpire (Benson), or if the umpire was not sure if the catch was clean, he would consult the square leg umpire (Bucknor). If the square leg umpire also could not deliver a clear verdict, then the third umpire, who has the benefit of the TV replays, is referred to. This is the procedure for determining the dismissal of the batsman, as provided by the rules of the ICC.

Now, there is definitely the possibility that, when the third umpire is called in, the TV replays also could not determine the verdict clearly. This might be the case, for example, if the TV cameras could not provide the complete information on the position and the movement of the ball and the fielder during the catch. Currently, in international cricket, the batsman is usually given the benefit of the doubt, if the third umpire also could not reach a clear verdict. In this second test match, if the captains and the umpires, in this particular situation (where the third umpire is inconclusive), had agreed that to resolve the ambiguity in a more transparent manner, they would take the word of the fielder who caught the ball (to be conveyed to the umpires through the captain of the fielding side), then they are on a relatively strong legal ground. However, in the case of Ganguly’s dismissal, the umpire, Benson, decided to directly ask the captain of the fielding side, rather than first ask the square leg umpire and the third umpire. Thus his action amounts to subverting the decision process provided by the ICC rules. At this point, perhaps it is worth interjecting that there is no need to ascribe any sinister motives to the umpire. He must have simply gone by the earlier ‘Gentlemen’s agreement’, and possibly, he might not have understood the legal implications of his actions. Also, it is worth explaining the seriousness of this issue with an example here. In a game of cricket, if the umpires and the captains, on their own, could make agreements that subvert the ICC rules, then there is no guarantee that what is played at the venue is cricket. Just imagine, years later, the record books would specify a certain result, but what happened on the field, might be a game of gilli-danda, or football, for that matter! Thus it is very important to understand that the umpires and captains can only augment the decision making procedure provided by the ICC rules for the purpose of transparency, but they can never subvert the ICC rules. If they do, it could not be considered a game of cricket. Thus, the second test match between Australia and India played at Sydney, Australia during January 2 – 6, 2008 is NULL and VOID on legal grounds.

Note that this legal implication is also a happy consequence for all fair-minded followers of the game. Australia would still have the chance to go for their 17 straight test wins if they won the remaining test matches at Perth and Adelaide. Moreover, this would nullify the accusations of cheating that the Australian team has been hearing from many of their own countrymen. On the other hand, for India, they could still win the Border-Gavaskar trophy if they won the remaining two tests. Moreover, for Cricket Australia, BCCI, ICC and the media, the fact that the series is still undecided and kicking, would mean more revenue, and hence a welcome resolution. Thus this is the best outcomes for all parties involved.

(The grounds for my conclusions on the Harbhajan Singh ban, and punishing Singh, Symonds, Clarke, and Hogg will be explained later, in a subsequent article).

[Venkat]

Well indeed Laxman does it again.Rather the credit should also go to the rookie pacers who were under tremendous pressure.

[Jai Khosla]

One great attribute about the Indain team is that in addition to being great cricketers Laxman, Tendulkar, Dravid and Ganguly led by Kumble are uniquely mature and gracious men, a quality not quite so pronounced in the Australian team whose immature antics have played a much greater role in their wins than has been pointed out by the media. I hope these great men parlay their talents and personalities into developing the next great Indian team by stepping aside for the younger generation of players and by remaining on the sidelines offering useful advice to the younger players.

[David Wijekoon-Perera]

Dileep Premachandran's style as a writer can be compared to that of a modern John Arlott. I read his reports regularly and it gives me pleasure to read his balanced views and shows that India have produced one of the great cricket writers of this age.
You can feel how, as he delivers his economy of words that his syntax is bathed with the sweat off Laxman's brow.
Give us more and an Indian victory as an encore