Ponting fails his responsibility

A few years ago, one of Australia's richest businessmen, Richard Pratt, was fined $36 million in the Federal Court for price fixing. Another Pratt, Gary, substitute fielder for England in 2005 ran out Ricky Ponting at Edgbaston. Yesterday at the MCG, Ponting was fined about $5000 for behaving (again) like a complete pratt.

Like Pratt, Captain of Industry, Ponting, Captain of Australia must view the regulators (in this case the ICC) with disdain and contempt. Thirty six million dollars to a billionaire must just seem like the cost of doing business, minor embarrassment aside. Five thousand dollars to a millionaire, who holds the highest sporting office in the country, and whose behaviour is watched by millions of young kids throughout the Christmas holiday period, is nothing short of a joke. All Ponting needs to do is to ask his sponsors to run a few extra advertisements for the wholesome and pure vitamins that he endorses and he can pay the fine with petty cash from the till. And the ICC really think that this will stop him from being a naughty boy again? There you go Ricky - 40% of your match payment for a serial offender and that'll learn you!

Watching Ponting bat is one of the great pleasures in life. Watching him disrespecting the privilege of being Australia's cricket captain is one of the great sadnesses. During the tea break yesterday, we were treated to archival footage from the Richie Benaud-Bill Lawry era when the honour of being the Australian captain was clearly much more than just winning cricket matches at any cost. It provided a stark reminder of just how much has changed in the modern game. One cannot even begin to imagine Benaud arguing and pointing his finger at an umpire. Even great statesmen are allowed the odd aberration but I'm afraid Ponting's general demeanour is totally unbecoming for someone who needs to understand that as a captain, as a role model, as an ambassador, as someone who kids idolise, it is "unacceptable" (according to Ranjan Madugalle, fearless dispenser of justice with a wet lettuce leaf).

It's all about perception. As captain, Ponting must surely know that. He is the leader and he is the man whom the cameras inevitably follow in moments of drama and triumph. That is the great privilege of being a leader - understanding that you will be the target of extra scrutiny and you will therefore be held to higher standards than anybody else. With that burden also comes great rewards. You are offered lucrative endorsements from various companies who want you, the leader, the brand ambassador, the 'hero' that kids look up to, to promote their product. You are given a platform to use your sponsors (who presumably pay you quite handsomely) to spruik your charitable foundations whilst other charities rarely get airplay for their equally good deeds. You are asked to be at the front and centre of Cricket Australia's marketing campaigns to promote their main sponsors, much of those aimed at young children, or the advertisements for the Ponting Foundation which saw him surrounded by adoring youngsters as he hit a cricket ball out of the stadium.

Being a role-model is not a part-time gig, not when your face intrudes into living rooms for six hours every day during the school holidays, selling messages about immune defences and the purity of vitamin supplements. This summer, my sons have seen more of Ponting in the ad breaks than with bat in hand. To many young kids like them, they are too naive to differentiate between a quality cricketer and human qualities. It is for that very reason sports stars are paid big dollars to endorse products - because the intention is to motivate 'buyer behaviour' based on our respect/admiration/idolisation of that individual. Celebrities rail at the use of the word 'role-model' but it's just another word to describe endorsement. You are effectively role-modelling a car, a phone company, a vitamin, a charity based on your immense popularity with the target audience. And it's no point pretending that young kids especially don't get sucked in by this role modelling because if they didn't, companies wouldn't use sports stars to endorse products. Australian cricket captains enjoy a special place in this 'space' and it is a privilege that one presumes comes with a big pay cheque. Mark Taylor and Steve Waugh are regulars on our TV screens, advertising air conditioners, investment banks and scotch whiskies. One gets the impression that these two gentlemen, and Allan Border before them, appreciate the honour that remains with them long after the runs have stopped flowing.

Case in point; I went to my local supermarket at lunchtime yesterday to buy various things I needed for an upcoming trip to South Africa with my seven-year-old son. When it came to buying personal items like insect repellents, sunscreen and vitamins, my son was adamant that we should purchase "Ponting's stuff" because it clearly must be the best product for top performance. Despite it being more expensive than some other options, I indulged him because of his love for cricket and the fact that it was a health product rather than something more insidious (like the beer ads that are also promoted by the team). We had barely got back in the car to rush back home to watch the cricket when we heard the radio commentary of the incident and the universal condemnation of Ponting's behaviour by all commentators, Australian and English alike. We went back into the shopping centre, watched the replay on a TV screen and it looked so unbecoming that my son suggested, of his own volition, that we return the products for a full refund (which saved me a few bob too, good on him!).

For those who think I'm being a bit harsh on poor old Ricky, consider these incidents dating back to his last five Test matches. In Perth, when the Matt Prior-Peter Siddle feud was simmering, the camera panned to Ponting whose lips were curled in a snarl as he sent Prior on his way. Not a good look. In Brisbane, when he claimed a low catch off Alastair Cook, he was distinctly unhappy when the umpires referred it to the video replay and it proved inconclusive. His sulky demeanour for some time afterwards ... not a good look. In Mohali in October, having been run out by Suresh Raina when he was cruising towards another century, he reacted to an alleged comment by Zaheer Khan and engaged in another unseemly altercation. Not a good look. And these are just his last five Tests. From the captain no less.

What made yesterday's childish performance even more galling was that his ire was directed at entirely the wrong people. This is what happens when personal frustrations bubble to the surface and someone as unsuited to the diplomatic demands of captaincy, leaving aside his obvious strategic inadequacies, cannot handle the responsibilities that come with being the unflappable sort of leaders that Benaud, Taylor and Waugh were for example. Even during his terrible form slump in 1997, Taylor's dignity and poise spoke volumes for his understanding of the totality of the role that is expected of a captain. It is more, so much more, than reading pitches, setting fields and rotating bowlers. That's the easy part.

Remonstrating with the Aleem Dar and Tony Hill was the sign of a man for whom the descending red mist clouded all sense of judgement. Dar referred the decision to the third umpire, the replays showed nothing and that should have been the end of the matter. A few head shakes perhaps to let all of us in our lounge rooms know that he was disappointed but get on with the game captain. Did he honestly think that Dar was going to reverse his decision after the third umpire had already ruled in favour of the batsman? If his anger and disappointment clouded his judgement to that extent, I maintain that his personality is essentially unsuited to the pressures of the job.

The clinching moment was when he then turned his attentions towards Kevin Pietersen. What on earth was all that about? Surely he wasn't suggesting that Pietersen should have 'walked'? From the same man who unashamedly plays cricket The Australian Way, where you never walk until the umpire gives you out, let alone when the umpire has said "not out"! From the same man who gloved one down leg side in Perth just last week and (totally justifiably) stood his ground until the third umpire confirmed his demise?

The ridiculousness of the whole incident and the ICC's complete inability to create a system that has any real teeth, despite endless rhetoric about the Spirit of Cricket, can be summed up by this quote from Madugalle: "He apologised for his action and stated that he has nothing but respect for the umpires and his on-field actions were not intended to show disrespect to Aleem Dar or Tony Hill."

With respect, nothing could be further from the truth than 'respect' in this instance. If he had nothing but respect for the umpires, what was all the fuss about? Yes, defenders of Ponting will revert back to his greatness as a batsman as a defence of his actions. His team-mates will be as loyal as ever in their love for the man and that sort of loyalty is an admirable trait in Australian cricketers. Yes, they will point to mitigating circumstances around his poor form and the Ashes slipping away, put it down to frustration and the notion that he is under stress. If that's his problem, I can vaguely recall an advertisement for a vitamin product to fix his immune defences! High quality batsman that he is, he will probably peel off a match-saving double century and attribute it to the motivation that came from this incident. What's more, there will be some money left over from the Man of the Match award to pay his measly fine too. That's simply the cost of doing business for a Pratt.