H Kuruppu: Some Press Reactions From Australia (18 Mar 1996)

Some Press Reactions From Australia

By Henry Kuruppu

The observation that Sri Lanka`s 1995/96 tour of Australia was a maelstrom of unwanted pressures may be verging on the hyperbolical but not by much.

The tour seemed plagued from the start, as if a malefic influence hung like a cloud waiting to disembogue another controversy. Predictably, a plethora of print and electronic media reports of varying degrees of inclination and sympathy on these four issues, heightened the debate resulting in a climatic end of tour, with the Australian Cricket Board insisting that Australia`s participation in the World Cup was conditional upon Ranatunga guaranteeing an atmosphere of goodwill in which the third and final test was to be played; Peter Roebuck, on ABC radio on 26/1/96, described this demand as uprecedented and beyond comprehension. In the event, Ranatunga rejected the request denying the Sri Lankan`s were responsible for the less than friendly relations that existed between the two teams. Ranatunga said that he was ``not going to dance the way they want``. (Greg Baum, Melbourne Age 25/1/96).

Admittedly, it wasn`t exactly ententic cordiale, but nor was it a bridgeless chasm of implacable hostility by any stretch of the imagination.

The Sri Lankans, in the face of all this, remained relatively composed and carried themselves with dignity, but, an illusion of calm may have disguised the team`s inner torment, their reaction going from stoic acceptance to bewilderment as each new controversy unfolded.

Greg Baum in the Melbourne Age of 31/1/96 described the completed tour thus, `An unprecedented series of controversies was passed back and forth and around and around, fumbled and trodden on like a pre- season handball drill. It isn`t perfect analogy, but it wasn`t cricket, was it?

BALL TAMPERING

The ball tampering accusation, initially had the effect of a scud missile but ended soon, a damp squib. The Sri Lankans were exonerated but the hurt lingered, and understandably so. Perhaps the quality of ball was the problem. In the weeks preceding the incident, Australian bowlers playing against the Pakistan side, on more than one occasion, drew the umpires` attention to the condition of the ball and had it replaced. On one such occasion, the new ball had to be replaced within an hour of play.

The Melbourne Age editorial of 27/12/95, had this to say on the matter. ``... there remains evidence that something is coming apart at the seams. It isn`t the bright red Kookaburra. (the ball) It`s the International Cricket Council. The ICC statement released in London, expressed `sincere regrets` to the Sri Lankans but did not include a formal apology. It should have. The best that can be said is that the ICC came to the right conclusion, if belatedly, and the Sri Lankan players conducted themselves with dignity throughout the unfortunate episode``.

THE CHUCKING CONTROVERSY

And now, the saga of the Muralidharan chucking controversy, Never in the annals of the game has a bowler been so ignominiously forced to withdraw.

This is how some in the media saw it. ``But what was shaped as a golden future was cast into jeopardy when Australian umpire Darrel Hair no balled him seven times for throwing in the space of three overs in the second test against Australia on Boxing Day. Muralidharan was shatterd by the experience in front of 55,239 fans, Melbourne`s biggest test crowd for nine years, and spent much of the tea break with his head in his hands close to tears``. (Trent Bouts, Weekend Australian, 30-31/12/95).

Peter Roebuck in the Melbourne Age on 27/12/95 in an article titled `No subtlety in MCG`s Day of Shame` said, `cricket has permitted the public humiliation of a player ... it is not a performance I`d care to witness again ... People lost interest in the cricket. This was a day of empty triumph and personal sorrow`.

At the Gabba, `Umpire Emerson did himself and Murali an injustice by calling him four more times after he switched to leg spin`. `... How Emerson distinguished the four problem balls ... from the rest of the two overs is anyone`s guess ...`` (Greg Baum, Melbourne Age 8/1/96). `It comes as small satisfaction to see an umpire make a nonsense of his job in the heat of the moment`. (Peter Roebuck, Melbourne Age 8/1/96) It may also have been the first time in the history of the game that a leg spinner has been called for throwing.

After a medical examination confirmed that straightening the bowling arm was for him, a physical impossibility, Murali said, ``I was very surprised ... because I was playing in my 23rd Test and had bowled about 6000 deliveries and nobody had called me regarding the action``. (Trent Bouts, Weekend Australian, 30- 31/12/95).

A Melbourne surgeon, Dr. Barclay Reid, who examined Muralidharan, states ``... No straightening of the elbow took place during delivery or just prior to it``. Dr. Reid went on to say ``... The false impression of straightening of the elbow was created when viewed from behind ... `` (Weekend Australian 30-31/12/95).

`Prominent coach Darryl Foster and a bio chemist from the University of West Australia spent an hour filming Muralidharan believe he throws `(Trend Bouts, Weekend Australia 13-14/1/96).

There were others who expressed their views. `Former Australian captain Alan Border said umpire Darrel Hair might have been acting under orders when he no balled Muralidharan for throwing. Border ... said he had faced Muralidharan and considered him one of many bowlers who had suspect actions but did not think it was fair to suddenly pick on the young Sri Lankan`. (Robin Craddock, The Adelaide Advertiser, 29/12/95).

Greg Baum of the Melbourne Age, on the same day wrote, `cricket equivocates, dithers and procrastinates its toughest decisions until at the finish, it hurts everyone ... vaguely worded missives of concern have been exchanged around the world. Some, shame to say it, have been propagated from within the Australian dressing room, not necessarily by a player ... Sri Lanka is entitled to feel hard done by

England batsman Graham Gooch, in an interview on ABC radio on 23/1/96, when asked for his views on the chucking controversy, said he had not seen Muralidharan bowl but did now know spinners are associated with throwing; fast bowlers yes, he said, and remarked that a few suspect bowlers, in his view, have been ignored in the past.

With all this disabling uncertainty hanging over them, the Sri Lankan`s were understandably determined to establish what precisely was the flaw in the bowling action and sought an explanation from Umpire Hair. Given the confusion generated by only some deliveries being no balled, (7 balls out of 38 overs) and later, even leg break actions being no balled by umpire Emerson, any explanation could well have been ignotum per ignotius.

Former New Zealand captain Ken Rutherford was one of the minority voices (excluding the few umpires) when he said he believed Muralidharan was a chucker. `Rutherford was fined...for bringing the game into disrepute when he picked up the ball and bowled it back to Muralidharan with a bent arm after dead-batting a Muralidharan delivery in South Africa in 1994.` (Robert Craddock, Herald Sun, 9/1/96).

UMPIRING

Media reports that leads to the conclusion that umpiring mistakes have disproportionately tended to disadvantage the visiting team, is not a recent phenomenon. Some years ago, Bishen Bedi`s team threatened to call off that tour of Australia due to a preponderance of umpiring decisions going against the Indians. Sunil Gavaskar, years later, after a number of decisions went against the touring Indians, dragged his batting partner off the field when given out LBW to what was, in his view, and from memory, a ball that came off the bat first. A media report at the conclusion of the 95/96 Pakistan tour, mentioned the high ratio of decisions against the visitors.

The current Sri Lankan side too hasn`t fared too well in this regard. A number of decisions in the first of the one day final series at the MCG were questioned by Colin Croft, Tony Greig and Greg Ritchie. Steve Waugh LBW to Pushpakumara (not given); Paul Reiffel caught behind, not given, and Kaluvitharana LBW to McGrath (given out), were replayed on TV and shown to be less than convincing decisions.

Greg Baum in the Melbourne Age 19/1/96, had this to say, `Sri Lanka`s siege mentality will have deepened by three umpiring decisions, two denying wickets to Ravindra Pushpakumara and the third nipping Romesh Kaluvitharana`s derring-do in its promising bud...the ball appeared to be slipping towards leg, and the same umpire, Steve Randell, had refused to give out Steve Waugh when trapped in the crease by Pushpakumara, and Reiffel when plainly caught behind from the same bowler.` Describing Australia`s early batting collapse in the same match (4/39 runs in 14 overs) Peter Roebuck in the Melbourne Age (19/1/96) wrote, `It might have been worse had not umpire Steve Randell had one of his funny days.`

All this reinforces the notion that umpiring decisions are not always easy to understand and dispels any lingering doubts about the need for neutral umpires to officiate in international cricket.

ON FIELD CONDUCT

Now for that aspect of the game that can cast doubt on the very integrity of any game, namely the sportsmanship displayed, the spirit in which it is played. On field verbal exchanges are probably never going to be eliminated altogether in this day of professional competition and, in the push and pull of sport, could be innocuous enough more often than not. However, consistency in the matter of umpire reporting of players for blatant transgressions and the consequent imposition of penalties, has been a question.

Asanka Gurusinha was reported earning a reprimand after an exchange with Steve Waugh. Mark Taylor expressed surprise at this when he said, ``They had a chat about a few things, not anything serious...`` (Greg Baum and AAP, Melbourne Age 16/1/96).

McGrath had on more than one occasion, been in physical contact with a Sri Lankan player, for instance in the first Test, with `umpire Parker making a pacifying gesture in his direction` (Robert Craddock, Herald Sun 9/12/95). Again, on the second final in Sydney, McGrath was involved with Jayasuriya but was not reported. Sohail, the Pakistan batsman was admonished for what most thought was a minor offence when he threw his bat in disgust at losing his wicket.

Mike Coward in the weekend Australian of 20-21/1/96, cited former Indian Captain, Sunil Gavaskar who in his newspaper columns wrote, ``Funny how in most of the storms involving cricket the Australians are somewhere in the picture``.

Mike Coward added, ``It`s a pity he didn`t point out the angst has been caused not by boorish or unthinking Australian cricketers but by administrators and officials who have had a summer horribilis.``

Source:: Daily News (https://www.lanka.net)