What is the Spirit of Cricket?

I mean, what does it really mean? Does it exclude gamesmanship? Is it about promoting sportsmanship? Does outright cheating contradict this charter or is cheating itself a matter of being caught doing it? Is it about playing within the laws of the game but walking on the very edge of the line that separates black from white? Where do the umpires fit in to this charter – are teams only contravening this spirit if they question the umpire’s verdict? What about things like sledging, walking or claiming a doubtful low catch when no one but the player knows the real truth?

The fall-out from the thrilling finale to Cardiff Test match merely underscores the pointlessness of an amateurish concept like ‘the spirit of cricket’ in what is essentially a cut-throat, professional business. At the end of the day, it’s about the bottom line, it’s about winning. And it’s about not losing. How does something spiritual expect to exist in that sort of environment?

The only way for a noble but essentially irrelevant concept like this to meaningfully find its way back into cricket is for the ICC to take a firm position on what it stands for. Otherwise, it will simply become a toy gun conveniently toted by captains when it suits them. The moral high ground will merely become another cynical platform that floats on very thin ice.

For instance, what is the position on issues like walking or claiming dubious catches? Do we just leave all decisions to the umpire and accept them gracefully? Is it that “grace” that defines the spirit of cricket? Or does it go beyond a mere passive acceptance of a decision to actually walking when you know you’ve nicked it or not appealing for a catch that is clearly not out?

When it comes to the matter of sledging, is there an invisible line in the sand that all cricketers respect? Is race, religion or ethnicity placed on a higher moral plane than someone’s marriage or their sister’s alleged promiscuity or any other special category of insult designed to put them off their game? Who decides and who arbitrates? Are there special allowances to be made for cultural sensitivities and personal circumstances? Clearly, it is almost impossible to come up with a sensible line in the sand that all cricketers agree on. What’s deeply hurtful to one cricketer will be a laughing matter for another. What’s more, what might be a joke today might be a mortal wound tomorrow, even to the very same individual. So where does the spirit of cricket sit in relation to sledging or mental disintegration or any other fancy term that is used to legitimise verbal intimidation? Why is it just so-called ‘time-wasting’ that has got Ponting so worked up?

Who is judge and jury? Clearly the ICC has yet to come up with a system that is consistent and reliable. Gautam Gambhir gets suspended for making physical contact with Shane Watson by the English match referee, Chris Broad. Yet, when his own son, Stuart Broad, makes physical contact with Peter Siddle at a tense moment of a gripping Test match, the match referee sees no problem with that. That sort of inconsistency merely tempts players to test the boundaries. Ask the players and they’ll tell you it was all in the heat of the moment and they’re all big boys who can handle matters between themselves. Why was the Gambhir case not handled like that too then?

I did not recall seeing England complaining too much when the West Indies held out for a draw in Antigua recently. Strauss and his men simply accepted that it was a perfectly legitimate way to save a game. Leave it to the umpires. Similarly, when the roles were reversed, it was now England’s turn to adopt whatever strategies were available, including some fairly obvious stalling tactics, to save this Test. Australia did that in Old Trafford in 2005 when Ponting played a masterful innings. Until the umpires say otherwise, that is deemed to be an acceptable tactic for any team to adopt when faced with that situation. It makes a mockery of Ponting’s indignation - since when was the spirit only restricted to this tiny facet of the game? What about sledging or walking or gamesmanship or slow over rates or any number of other aspects of the modern game that all teams engage in when it suits them?

And how does Strauss keep a straight face when he claims that “our intentions were good”? Why not just come out and say “yes, we did everything possible to drag out the game and save the Test?” Where’s the shame in that?

In the end, it was left to Nathan Hauritz to bring some much-needed honesty to the debate by admitting that he would have done the same thing if the role was reversed. The only thing surprising about this whole episode is the ridiculous pretence that the spirit of cricket actually exists when there’s a game to be won or saved. For the spirit to be reincarnated, it needs to be an “all or nothing” approach to honesty and fair play. In an era where we now have third-umpire referrals, even for catches, it’s foolish to expect that.