JN Turner: The Sri Lanka - Australia Connection (6 Oct 1996)

6 October 1996

The Sri Lanka - Australia cricket connection: Have the wounds healed now?

By J. Neville Turner

The Singer Cup played recently in Sri Lanka emphasized what was apparent after the World Cup - that Sri Lanka is the best one-day team in the world and that Australia is the second best.

But one-day cricket is not the true test of merit. The ultimate criterion is Test cricket. How do Sri Lanka and Australia rate in this sphere?

A strong case could be made for Sri Lanka and Australia to qualify as the best two Test teams as well! The only possible contenders are Pakistan and South Africa.

South Africa has greatly benefitted by the replacement as captain of Kepler Wessels by Hansie Cronje. Wessels` approach to cricket was very cautious for the pride of the new multi-racial South Africa. He was yesterday`s man, both in performance and attitude.

Cronje epitomises the optimism of the new era. South Africa`s comprehensive victory in the 1995-96 series against England may be the start of a restoration of that country`s eminence of the 1960s. But, South Africa has not yet been fully tested.

Pakistan is an enigma. It has won its series against England. But in 1995, it was beaten by both Sri Lanka and Australia - in each care by two Tests to one. The series win by Sri Lanka was miracu- lous, as it took place on Pakistan soil. Australia avenged itself for a 1-0 defeat in Pakistan in 1994 (which I saw). The one match that Pakistan won was at Karachi by one wicket - a last-wicket stand of 58 by Inzamam-ul-Haq and Mushtaq Ahamed - the giant and the dwarf, giving them victory inn one of the finest Test matches of all time. In the two drawn games, Australia was well on top.

It seems that Australia and Sri Lanka still have the edge on Pakistan.

The talented Indian team has suffered by lack of opportunity for displaying that talent. Test cricket has then been neglected in the feverish pursuit of the one-day game. India`s recent defeat in England demonstrated its failure of its players to discipline themselves to long periods in the field.

The West Indies are undergoing a rare period of dissension and demise. Australia`s victory in the caribbean in 1995 was the catalyst of this. The forthcoming five-match series in Australia will determine whether this fall from grace is temporary, or represents a distinct weakening of West Indies cricket. At present, the West Indies are not in the top ranking.

In 1992, when I was in Sri Lanka, I forecast that Sri Lanka would be a world power in four or five years time. It has been very unlucky to lose a series by one match - the famous one at the SSC which it should have won after leading by 270 runs in the first innings.

But the latest Test series in Australia resulted in a 3-0 loss for Sri Lanka. Can this be explained as an aberration or does it truly represent a big gap in the two sides?

It is my belief that Sri Lanka`s performance in Australia did not reflect the true position. In my opinion, if the Australians had consented to play a Test series in Sri Lanka, this would have been the World Championship of cricket. And I think that Sri Lanka would have triumphed.

I watched two of the three Tests in Australia in 1995-96 and can testify to the fact that, although Sri Lanka lost all three, the manner in which they played was very refreshing. They consistently scored faster than Australia. They brought an extra vigour to Test cricket that would see the crowds flocking back to this most perfect form of the game for other countries to emulate.

Sri Lanka were shabbily treated in Australia. The slanderous accusations of ball-tampering at Perth were rightly rejected by the ICC. But how demoralising they must have been to the players!

In the second test at Melbourne, I saw one of the saddest and most unjust events in the whole of cricket - the no-balling of Muralitharan. It occurred in front of the largest crowd of the season. On Boxing Day, the day after Christmas Day, a Test match is always held at the huge Melbourne Cricket ground. Traditionally it attracts a mighty audience. On this day, there were 55,000 spectators, who all witnessed the sorrow of the young, popular off-spinner.

Now, there are in Australia two types of supporters of cricket. The first are `one-eyed barrackers`. I have some friends of this ilk. They will not even clap a century by the opposition. Nothing matters except a win for their team. As Shakespeare put it, `Everything is fair to win who wins! `This type of partisanship is evident in the support of Australian rules football teams. Everyone in Melbourne is expected to `barrack` for a team. And that means hating all the other teams.

There is a story of a brave Melbourne woman who has spent twelve years as a missionary in South Africa, where she lived tough incredibly dangerous experience. When she arrived home, at the Melbourne Airport, she took a taxi. She told the driver all about her adventures. After she had done so, he said, casually: `Gee that must have been an interesting trip! And which team do you barrack for?``

The other type of cricket lover, however, exists. He likes Australia to win, but is happy to applaud good cricket from either side. For this type of spectator, cricket as much an art form as a sport. This is the type of man who reads avidly about cricket, who joins a Cricket Society, who takes a keen interest in what is happening in the rest of the cricket world. He can tell you the result of the 1902 Ashes Series, the names of those who have scored hundreds, and those who have taken hat-tricks in Test cricket (Did you know that all the Australians who have done that have played for Victoria?)

The reaction of Australians to Darrell Hair`s no-balling of Muralitharan varied according to which of two groups the spectator belongs to? There were Australians in the crowd who felt that it was a cruel act to humiliate a bowler in front of 55,000 people. There was an eerie atmosphere on the ground, as spectators realized that Mr. Hair was calling Muralitharan for throwing, rather than over-stepping the crease. For an umpire at the bowler`s end to no-ball for throwing, was almost unprecedented - although the laws do state that it is permitted to either umpire to call.

Mr. Hair would no doubt reply that it was his duty to interpret the law as it is written. But this is an rather unreal rejoinder. It is renascent of Shylock`s argument in the `Merchant of Venice`. Shylock leaded that the law should be enforced to the strict letter of the contract made with Antonio, even though Antonio was not to blame for its breach. But Portia resorted that mercy is a great quality than strict `justice`. The `quality of mercy is not strained, it droppeth like the gentle rain from heaven.``

A recent Australian book by a lawyer (David Fraser, `the man in white is always right) shows that the laws of cricket are not so straightforward as to permit of mechanical interpretation. There is `contest` behind decisions, which requires to be taken into account. The laws of cricket should be applied imaginatively to ensue that the spirit of the game is not breached. There is to cricket a higher ethic than legal compliance - it is sportsmanship. There are`conventions` that are part of the game hard to define, but easy to recognise, even though nowhere is it in black and white. Thus a fielder who knows that a catch has not been taken should obey the higher ethic, and inform the umpire. A fielder on the boundary should signal that a four has been scored. This is the ethic of the game of cricket - a king of equity transcending legal formulae.

And there are other considerations which govern decision-making. These might be political and social, rather than strictly legal. An umpire sensitive to the international order, might have appreciated that Australia and Sri Lanka enjoy a special relationship - which to large extent, has been featured through cricket.

Australia has done a great deal - certainly more than England or the West Indies - to encourage Sri Lankan cricket. Now, at last, Sri Lanka is becoming a force in the cricket world. It has a large immigrant base in Australia.

Sri Lanka is a country undergoing the sorrow of a catastrophic civil war. It looks to Australian for support in this Asia/Pacific region. Australia wants to be seen as `part of Asia`.

And whatever the truth of the matter, a decision of this nature by a home `non-neutral` umpire would inevitably be interpreted as racist by Asians. Perhaps the fact that Muralitharan was the only Tamil in the team was not irrelevant.

The no-balling of Muralitharan left the Sri Lanka team understandably hurt and demoralised. It is to the greater credit of all the Sri Lankans that they fully supported Muralitharan - and that they recovered their panache to play so magnificently in the one-day Benson and Hedges series in Australia, in the World Cup and now in the Singer Cup.

The behaviour of some of the Australian players can be explained by reference to the extreme competitiveness of the Australian sports culture. This is more readily apparent in the winter contact sports, such as rugby league and Australian rules football. But it spills over into cricket Nevertheless, it is not the attitude of the admirable Mark Taylor (in my opinion, the best and most sportsmanlike Australian captain since Richie Benaud). In all his actions, and is his gracious attitude, Mark Taylor proudly represented the spirit of cricket at its best.

A great deal of good has come out of Australia`s participation in the Singer Cup. (I myself wrote to the ACB urging that the tour take place. It would have been disastrous had it been cancelled). The Sri Lankan supporters understandably still felt some rancour towards Australia, and even in neutral games tended to support Australia`s opponents. But the Australians played well, and fairly. The Sri Lankan triumph was acknowledged with grace by Healy.

When Greg Chappell instructed his brother, Trevor, to bowl underarm to a New Zealand No. 11 batsman, thus preventing him from attempting to score a six, it damaged relations between Australia and New Zealand for many years. This must not happen to the Sri Lanka/Australia connection.

I believe that the excellent spirit in which the Singer Cup was played, the readiness of the Australian Cricket Board to participate, and the emphatic confirmation of the outstanding calibre of the Sri Lanka team, have restored the unique relationship between Sri Lanka and Australia. Justice has been done. -

Source :: Sunday Observer (https://www.lanka.net)