A common problem faced by teams from the sub-continent

The seeds of distrust had been sown by Hair with his aggressive approach in the tour game and the Indians knew what to expect from him. There was no point grumbling about the decisions that went against them and the manner in which Tendulkar was ruled out because the Indians were bound by the code of conduct,writes VIJAY LOKAPALLY.

DARRELL HAIR observed the Indian request for sawdust was trivial. Sachin Tendulkar was aghast. He had never known such a request being turned down and there was no point in trying to make someone like Hair understand.

The stance adopted by Hair was aggressive from the time he stood in the tour match against New South Wales at Sydney. He acted like a policeman as Kapil Dev pointed out and left no doubts that he would be unreasonable during the Test series.

Much as the Indians would have liked to protest against Hair's appointment, it was futile in the absence of any support from the Indian Board.

The Indian team management was helpless on two occasions. The first time when Hair transgressed his authority to talk to the player directly (Ajit Agarkar) instead of pointing to the skipper. And then when he refused sawdust to the team.

What if Tendulkar too had insisted because the request was genuine. It was as if Hair was getting a pleasure out of seeing the Indians in discomfort.

The Indians had a point to make in private. Why was it that only teams from the sub-continent faced problems on and off the field in Australia. It was a sort of a concerted effort from all quarters to make the touring teams realise that cricket and all its aspects were different when you were in Australia.

Can you imagine any umpire in any other country refusing a small request for sawdust! But Hair took a stubborn stance just to make his point.

The Muttiah Muralitharan and Shoaib Akhtar affairs have only highlighted the issue of not just throwing but the problems umpires have with bowlers from the sub-continent. Granted the Match Referee in the Pakistan-Australia series was John Reid, a New Zealander, and one of the umpires was Peter Willey, an Englishman. How does that convince the Pakistanis that there was no conspiracy to unsettle the team.

Kapil was speaking his mind, and probably the team's too, when he said ``we feel that umpires should run the game, not try to be policemen.'' The Indian coach had made his point to the Aussie media.

Some of the Australians suspected that India was not playing off- spinner Harbhajan Singh from fear of he becoming a target of the umpires, who love to look for bowlers with ``dodgy'' action, little realising that this particular bowler, like Muralitharan and Rajesh Chauhan, had been cleared by the International Cricket Council.

The seeds of distrust had been sown by Hair with his aggressive approach in the tour game and the Indians knew what to expect from him. There was no point grumbling about the decisions that went against them and the manner in which Tendulkar was ruled out because the Indians were bound by the code of conduct.

The fact that Tendulkar chose to speak on the issue of being denied the sawdust despite the risk of being fined showed the man's frustrations at the poor standard of umpiring. ``What can I say'' he said in a very dejected manner as the media pressed him to comment on Hair in particular.

The Indians were received well by the spectators and there was appreciation for good deeds on the field. The standing ovations given to Tendulkar and Laxman were moving sights as the crowd rose to a man. The sore note was struck by people like Hair, who enjoys being in the news, even if for wrong reasons.

The Sri Lankans first and then the Pakistanis suffered from the humiliation of one of their players being branded a chucker after performing on Aussie soil. Nothing can be more devastating for a bowler than such news.

``If Shoaib Akhtar chucks then every fast bowler chucks'', said Wasim Akram. It might have been a reaction in anger but he was probably driving home the point which the Indians.

The action of Brett Lee raised many eyebrows. There was a general opinion among the media that Lee's action was not all that smooth, especially when he fired one with extra pace. The same could be the problem with Akhtar.

The teams from the sub-continent have a common cause and it would be interesting if the ICC studies the tapes of Lee's bowling action. It would be naive, however, to expect an Australian umpire look at Lee's action with suspicion but the ICC has the authority to consider such an option. Will anyone take the lead?

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Sport
Previous : England fails to press advantage
Next     : The heart of the matter