Praise aplenty this morning for the Indian captain MS Dhoni after his decision to allow Bell to be reinstated after tea. But instead of lauding Dhoni we should be lamenting the despicable behaviour of the Trent Bridge crowd, the petulance of Ian Bell, and the questionable conduct of England captain Andrew Strauss.
Unbelievably, when interviewed after the game, Bell seemed to express relief, not that Dhoni had magnanimously allowed him back to the crease but that the Indian captain had come to his senses, claiming "the right decision was made for the spirit of the game". Even allowing for his humiliation, which must have been very great indeed after such an elementary mistake, it was an astonishingly crass thing to say.
The fault for the entire debacle lay with Bell. The ‘spirit of the game’ was only broken if Kumar (the fielder on the boundary) deliberately set out to deceive the batsman by acting as though the ball had crossed the rope. Such a ploy seems inconceivable. Every Indian fielder, Eoin Morgan and both umpires appeared to be aware the ball was still in play. Tea was not called. The fault belongs entirely to Bell. Since when is it part of any sport - ‘spirit of the game’ or not - to automatically enact a reprieve for idiotic mistakes? There is no suggestion the Indian team were involved in a deceit or that they played any part in leading Bell to believe the ball was dead.
The dignified manner in which the Indian players came onto the field after tea amid deafening boos, the faces of the crowd contorted and ugly, made one wonder how England’s players might have reacted in similar circumstances. Would Pietersen have provocatively cupped his ear to the crowd like a football? Either way this much-vaunted ‘spirit of the game’, which appears to me no more than simply being sporting, should be practised by the players and the crowd; the former failed, the latter failed demonstrably. The sheer hypocrisy of a vitriolic crowd booing a team for supposedly having breached an unwritten code of conduct cannot have been lost on the TV audience.
What about Andrew Strauss? Aware of the hostility of the crowd, the Indian team, and Dhoni in particular, would have been feeling vulnerable during tea. We’re full of praise for Dhoni this morning, but the lateness of his decision suggests he was prompted to reach it only after a visit to the Indian dressing room by the England captain. India are a professional team and Dhoni is an experienced captain, why couldn’t we let them reach their own decision? There is something sickeningly condescending about an England captain lecturing the tourists on what is, and what is not, permissible under this gentleman’s code.
As Mike Atherton points out in The Times this morning, the last time the burden of such a tough call fell on the shoulders of an England captain he failed. Guardians of the ‘spirit of the game’? Only when it suits us.
I'm not sure if I could disagree more regarding the crowd. The only thing the crowd are guilty of is having a lack of information.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you have been at a sporting event when something happens, a wicket taken, a goal scored a net point called and formed a view of it there and then based on what you have seen. But your opinion may change when you get home and see a replay.
Sporting crowds react on impulse. They do not have the benefit of endless Sky TV replays.
Not being in the crowd myself, I can only imagine that when the whole incident occurred there was a state of confusion in the stands, and with no one telling them what was going on, they would have formed their opinion on what they had seen and the reaction of the players.
Booing is not something I choose to do when I go to sport, but I know plenty who do and the argument of 'You pays your money and you takes your choice.' comes into play.
And in the defence of the crowd, Sky did not have a clue what was going on until Bell came out after tea either.
My second point of contention is probably more with Mike Atherton, who you reference as using the Paul Collingwood example to show how England would not have done the same.
Please can I refer you to this incident which happened AFTER the Collingwood one to show that in fact Strauss and England do play within the spirit of the game. http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=146494955565
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBut are all crowds the same? It's only the cricket crowd which makes such an issue of the 'spirit of the game'. My point is why react to a perceived breach of this spirit by breaking that 'spirit' (by booing) yourself? It doesn't make sense.
ReplyDeleteThe right of the crowd to boo was never in question, like you I believe their ticket entitles them to express themselves. But their right to boo and whether they were morally justified to do so are two very different things. My point is that even if Dhoni had not reinstated Bell (this is what the spectators believed when the players came out) the crowd would still have been wrong to boo.
And I maintain that Strauss & the england coach had no right to bring pressure to bear on Dhoni during tea. He should have been left to make that decision with his team.
I was unaware of the Strauss incident you linked to. It does cast him (and england) in a better light. But the two incidents are fundamentally different in one crucial way. In the one you link to the england bowler could be thought to be at fault (or partially at fault) for blocking the batsman. In the incident yesterday no Indian player was in any way to blame. So Strauss reinstated Matthews because his dismissal was thought to be unfair largely because of the actions of one of the england team, but that couldn't be said to be the case yesterday with India. Which of the Indian team was in any way at fault?