South Africa not second best team
If it's working, don't try and fix it
Omar Kureishi
02-Jan-2002
If it's working, don't try and fix it. There was nothing
terribly wrong with the way international cricket was being
played before the ICC got pro-active and decided to bring in
fair play through the introduction of a code of conduct for
the players and match referees to enforce it. In effect, to
legislate the spirit of the game.
I have been covering cricket for more years than I care to
admit and though there were controversies, mainly
accusations of biased umpiring, I do not remember anything
particularly untoward that warranted a code of conduct.
There was dissent as there is now but I do not recall any
brawls.
The latest player to fall victim to the ire of the match
referee is Steve Waugh. He stood his ground momentarily when
he was given out by Darrell Hair who chose not to refer the
run out to the third umpire and was fined. He is upset and
has called for a revamp of the code of conduct procedures.
Of course, he is right because there is no right of appeal
against the judgement of the match referee.
It is ironic that Steve Waugh should have seen the light
when it has affected him personally. Earlier in the season,
he had given a high minded statement that his side would
lead the way in world cricket in accepting the umpire's
decision.
"If you are given out when it's not out, then bad luck. If
you're given not out when it's out, then it is your good
luck", he said with moral uprightness.
He had imagined that he was above reproach or possibly no
match-referee would dare to take action against him. He,
after all, was Steve Waugh, the captain of the mighty
Australians. Good for Rajan Madugalle, the match referee.
After what happened in South Africa with the Mike Denness
fiasco and the very clumsy handling of it by all concerned,
the ICC, the BCCI and the UCB of South Africa, one hopes
that the idea of a code of conduct will be re-examined and I
would recommend that it should be done away with entirely
and the umpires should be entrusted with determining what is
fair or unfair play.
The moment something as subjective as this codified, the
problems arise about its interpretation. You cannot
legislate social behaviour. If you were to go to a building
or an office and there is huge sign that says NO SPITTING,
the chances are than the most spat on the building or office
is that board that says no spitting! Cricket does not need
more legislation. It needs less. The ICC which gives the
impression of being overstaffed, is bringing in bureaucracy
in the game. The best way, as always, is to keep it simple,
as it once was.
Bangladesh is finding Test cricket pretty tough sledding and
was routed in New Zealand and now is due to play Pakistan at
home. The going will be even tougher. Pakistan should have
been at full strength but will miss Saeed Anwar who has been
ruled out of cricket for several weeks because of injury.
This will not affect the overall strength of the Pakistan
team against modest opposition but one sincerely hopes that
he gets fit as soon as possible against tougher opponents
with whom Pakistan would be playing and I don't include the
West Indies among them. The West Indies are making an awful
lot of fuss about security concerns for their team's tour of
Pakistan. I am surprised that they are doing so.
Given their present standard which is very much at the
bottom of the ladder, one would have thought that they would
be grateful that a quality team like Pakistan is prepared to
play against them. It isn't even sure that Brian Lara will
be in the team and without Lara, the present West Indian
team is a club side and will certainly not attract crowds as
they once used to.
Besides, if the PCB feels that there is the slightest danger
to the series, it will call it off themselves. The safety of
visiting players is the responsibility of the host country.
The much touted Australia-South Africa series is turning out
to be hopelessly one-sided. South Africa is being trounced
not by a team that is invincible, New Zealand drew the
series against the same Australians and almost won, but
South Africa is not as hot as it is cracked up to be.
With Allan Donald, either not fully fit or getting over the
hill, South Africa does not have the bowling to get
Australia out twice. Shaun Pollock himself seems off the
boil and there is absolutely no menace in the other bowlers.
The batting is not clicking primarily. Gary Kirsten and
Herschelle Gibbs are not giving them the sort of starts they
need. But what must be alarming from the South African point
of view, is their fielding which has become scrappy.
The South Africans are fielding as if they have something
else on their mind. They are certainly missing Jonty Rhodes,
not just his own brilliance but the fact that he is like a
dynamo in the field and lifted the others. South Africa
looks to be a team in transition but no new players are
emerging. Things are not helped by the Ministry of Sports
who seem to be putting pressure to play black players and
appeared not to be amused that Makhaya Ntini was dropped. I
don't think being black is qualification enough to be picked
in the Test team.
I don't think Ntini is a good enough cricketer and his type
of medium-fast bowling is food and drink for the Australian
batsmen. One thing is certain: South Africa is not the
second best team in cricket after Australia. There are other
contenders but I do feel that they are very good one-day
team particularly because Rhodes will be a part of it.