ICC bears similarity to United Nations
Shoaib Akhtar's bowling action has become a permanent feature of international cricket, not dissimilar to a television serial
Omar Kureishi
14-Nov-2001
Shoaib Akhtar's bowling action has become a permanent
feature of international cricket, not dissimilar to a
television serial. He gets reported for 'chucking' and is
then cleared. Then he gets reported again and cleared again.
What the hell is going on? Is there any special reason why
he is being targeted. A high-tech study at the Western
Australian University had concluded that his bowling arm was
naturally kinked at birth and did not fully straighten
during delivery. X-rays of this were duly shown on
television.
Perhaps, the time has come for Shoaib to take matters in
hand himself and not rely on the ICC whose writ is
apparently not binding on a gang of umpires and match
referees. He should take legal action. Lt-Gen Tauqir Zia has
indicated that the PCB would back him if he decides to go to
court. Imran Khan has also backed Shoaib. I think the matter
should be resolved once and for all.
Cricket is Shoaib's livelihood and he shouldn't be kicked in
the stomach by umpires who routinely make mistakes but the
consequences of these mistakes are now career-threatening.
I have written this before and still maintain that the ICC
bears a similarity to the United Nations. The United Nations
is invoked when it suits the Big Powers and ignored when it
does not suit them.
The ICC remained silent when India cancelled its tour of
Pakistan. It remained silent too when New Zealand refused to
tour Pakistan citing security concerns, influenced no doubt
by highly selective pictures of protests that Western
television channels showed them as a part of hyping up the
war in Afghanistan. The ICC should have sent its own
representative to see what was the reality on the ground.
The ICC is an independent body and should not become the
cat's paw of someone else's foreign policy.
Justice Karamat Bhandari who is holding a judicial inquiry
into allegations made by Ali Bacher that Pakistan's match
against Bangladesh in the 1999 World Cup was "fixed" has
written to Bacher to appear before it but has not received a
reply from him. Why has Bacher not chosen to reply? He was
pretty cock-a-hoop when he made the allegation. Has he had
second thoughts? Or was it an attempt to deflect attention
away from South Africa's own problems with match-fixing? I
still maintain that people who are not able to substantiate
their allegations should not be allowed to get away scotfree.
A team that makes 378 in its first innings should not lose a
Test match by nine wickets and with a day and one session to
spare. Yet that is precisely what India managed to do in the
first Test match against South Africa.
Was it a case of South Africa playing exceptionally well or
India playing exceptionally badly? I think it was a
combination of both. India was unlucky with injuries and the
absence of Harbhajan Singh was crucial.
Normally, it is fast bowlers who hunt in pairs but spinners
also do. The South Africans are vulnerable against spin but
Anil Kumble couldn't do it all on his own.
But it was India's batting in the second innings that folded
up on a seaming track that Shaun Pollock exploited
fiendishly. I must confess to being surprised that Rahul
Dravid opened the innings for India. After Sachin Tendulkar,
Dravid is India's best batsman. Why was he made a
sacrificial lamb? In the final of the triangular, he kept
wickets! Suddenly, he has been converted into a utility
player.
India relied on a pace attack but the two left-arm fast
bowlers had had a long lay-off and I rather suspect were not
hundred per cent fit. It says something that it was the old
war-horse Javagal Srinath who looked the best of the bunch.
Tendulkar's hundred was one of the best that he has made. He
was pugnacious and quite brilliant.
Saurav Ganguly must learn how to handle the ball aimed at
his rib-cage otherwise his utility as a batsman in Test
cricket against teams that have quality pace attacks is
limited. It is a defect that is curable and he should work
with his coach to sort it out. As with Pakistan and Sri
Lanka, some serious thought should be given to preparation
of wickets at home. I don't see any advantage in preparing
flat-tracks.
The best thing that has happened to one-day cricket is the
one-bouncer per over that is now allowed. The one-day game
used to favour the batsman so heavily that bowlers became
trundles and functioned as glorified ball-boys. The
introduction of the bouncer has transformed the game. The
next change that is over-due is the wide.
Presently anything pitched outside the leg-stump is a wide.
The umpires virtually have no discretion. If a batsman is
able to reach the ball, it should not be a wide. And while
the going is good, the front-foot no-ball rule should also
be changed and we should go back to the old, back-foot rule.
I think every bowler in the world would welcome it. So too
would umpires, I would imagine, those, at least, who are not
too busy finding fault with Shoaib's bowling action.
The war in Afghanistan is taking toll of many sporting
events. They are being cancelled on the theory of better
safe than sorry. I can't help feeling that we are being
over-cautious. After expressing some initial fears, England
has after all agreed to tour India and the West Indies are
in Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe is in Bangladesh. But to crown it
all, the Sri Lanka Under-19 is in Pakistan. The best way to
fight terrorism is to go about our normal lives and sports
provides the greatest reassurance of the lot.