Match fixing: a case for reappraisement

HANSIE CRONJE is a much maligned man, almost all fingers pointing to him accusingly. Yes, he is down, almost out - in retribution for his role in the sordid match-fixing affair which has rocked the cricketing world. There certainly has been involvement of money. Of course, there could be no sympathy for many such despicable acts that have been staged behind the scenes. Nevertheless, an objective analysis of the actual performance of the South African players in the recent one day series in India would bring to light certain facts which could perhaps be considered for taking a balanced view of the entire issue. This analysis would be with specific reference to the performance of Cronje, besides those of Gibbs, Boje, Strydom and Williams, who too have had their names besmirched in this affair. What appears to emerge primarily from the study is that South Africa lost the series not because of these players but in spite of them.

In other words, figures and the score-card suggest that these players have in fact performed admirably. Cronje's role as a captain in deploying his bowlers, field placements, etc. also do not expressly suggest any malafides or a `match-fixing' propensity. What is also of immense relevance is that nowhere in the transcript of the tapes, released so far, has Cronje ever agreed to `throw' any match or the series. The conversation with the bookie limits itself to talk on receiving money, the condition that S. Africa would not score more than 270 if it batted first, (a reference possibly to the third match at Faridabad and an eventuality that didn't come off at all), Gibbs scoring less than 20 and certain non- specific issues.

An analytical study of the first four matches would also bring out certain specific aspects. The fifth match is not very relevant to the issue on account of the fact that after winning the fourth, India had already clinched the series:

First match at Kochi (March 9): Gibbs was a star performer (alongwith Kirsten), scoring 111 runs in just 127 balls. Kallis and Klusener, who have not been `tainted' were sent in ahead of even Cronje while Boje (an attacking batsman in his own right) and Williams did not bat at all. This suggests that no manipulation was attempted in giving strike as far as possible only to those who were prepared to under-perform. Cronje's contribution of 19 in just 20 balls also was a handy one at the end of the innings.

What is notable with regard to this match is also the fact that when India batted, it was Williams who bowled most economically, conceding just 40 runs in nine overs. Pollock, Kallis and Crookes, who too had bowled, had all conceded above 6 runs on an average per over while Hayward had conceded a shade less than 6. Cronje, himself bowling just eight overs, picked up two vital wickets conceding exactly 6 runs on an average per over. In fact, the last over (which was highly crucial) was bowled by Pollock though the most economical bowler, Williams still had one over left. Cronje could also have employed himself or Boje in preference to Pollock - the fact that he did not also perhaps suggests his bonafides.

Another highly notable aspect is that Williams, in spite of his good performance, was not chosen for the next deciding matches in the series - a choice if made by Cronje in his capacity as the skipper, would certainly not have raised eyebrows.

A catch dropped at a very crucial stage of the match when the Indian batsman Jadeja was on 63 was also not by any of the four `tainted' South African players who had played the match. Jadeja, declared also the man of the match, finally went on to score 92 in quick time. In fact in this match Williams had two catches against his name while Cronje himself had one when he caught Dighe at a crucial stage towards the end.

Second match at Jamshedpur (March 12): This match won by India with comparative ease would also be remembered for the fact that the good performers for South Africa (all out for 199 in 47.2 overs) were Cronje (71 in 87 balls) followed by Boje (28) and Gibbs (27). For this match too, Kallis and Klusener were sent ahead of Cronje and Boje while Strydom had come at No. 10. Boje was the pick of the bowlers conceding just 34 runs in 10 overs with two maidens and a wicket.

In fact, but for the brilliant innings of Ganguly, this match could have been close - there also does not appear to be any evidence that he was `allowed' to score this heavily.

Third match at Faridabad (March 15): This is perhaps just one match where there could be a suspicion on deliberate under- performance. The transcript of the tapes suggests that the conversation between Cronje and the bookie had taken place at the lobby of Taj Palace Hotel at New Delhi where the players would have stayed before the match at Faridabad, very close to New Delhi. Cronje's mentioning his room number is pertinent in this regard. The second part of the conversation commencing with the statement of the bookie that he was in London perhaps too had taken place before the match. If this was the case, Cronje appears to have committed to Gibbs getting out for less than 20 runs and the team not scoring over 270 in case of batting first. If this was the timing of the conversation, Cronje appears to have adroitly bypassed his commitment by choosing to put India in after he won the toss - an act which too perhaps suggests that he was not willing to be a party to losing the match, if he could have helped it. The fact that he asked India to bat first is also notable in the context of the fact that in all the other matches in which Cronje had won the toss, he had chosen to bat first. Perhaps he wanted the cake and eat it too - not having to face the embarrassment of having to score less than 270 and also winning the match. Nevertheless Gibbs getting out for 19, (or was it just a coincidence!) could perhaps be viewed with suspicion. Be that as it may, Cronje stepped in as if to compensate for this, by scoring 66 in just 71 balls, to take his team, along with Kirsten, to victory and to earn for himself the man of the match award. Boje's score though not much (just 14 runs) was made in good time (12 balls). Other than Kirsten, no other `untainted' player appears to have performed creditably with the bat. Perhaps if India had scored significantly more than a modest 248, Gibbs might not have got out for below 20!

Fourth match at Vadodara (March 18): In the chase by India of scoring 283 runs, again the three `tainted' bowlers had bowled most economically - Boje conceding an average of 4.3 runs an over followed by Strydom with 5.3 runs and Cronje with 5.5 runs per over. Of the other bowlers used, Elworthy had conceded an average of 7.4 runs per over, Pollock 6 runs and Kallis 5.6 runs.

It is also noteworthy that the last overs were bowled by Pollock and Kallis though Cronje and Strydom had overs left in their quota. The dropped catch in the last over off Robin Singh again was also not by any of the suspected players. In fact, if this catch (and also the dropped catch off Jadeja in the Kochi match) had been taken, the final result of the series could well have been 4-1 in favour of South Africa, as it had also won the fifth match.

Another aspect of the series has also been that there does not appear to be any particular evidence concerning any stage where South Africa had slipped to an unexpected defeat after being very well placed (as it happens in certain cases on account of wickets falling like nine pins or where the last batsmen score very quickly and heavily to post unexpected victories). In fact in the fourth match at Vadodara, India was very comfortably placed at 267 for 3 (chasing just 283) when South Africa had fought back to grab three vital wickets. This had almost won them the match. On this aspect too, there does not appear to be any premeditated `match-fixing'.

Need for a comprehensive approach: It could thus appear on paper that, Cronje had merely hobnobbed with the bookies, perhaps also helping himself to pecuniary gains. The more serious allegation of manipulating the results of the match should be seen in the light of the figures and performances and perhaps also after an analytical investigation on other related issues too. The fact that Cronje had not over employed the bowlers who have been named, would by itself not absolve him unless enquiries with other bowlers who bowled their full quota and the last overs also do not reveal any evidence of manipulated field placements. It is common knowledge that the captain sets the field in consultation with the bowler, who too can always assert himself. Would any of the regular bowlers be prepared to certify that their suggestions were overruled or if Cronje's field-setting was suspicious? Did Cronje ever give any instruction to them to bowl a certain line that was not in conformity with the field placement? Or did Cronje give instructions to the unsuspecting bowlers to bowl in a particular manner which would have amounted to feeding on the batsmen's strong points? Is it also possible that to make figures appear innocuous on paper, Cronje had set a right field only for himself and for other `tainted' bowlers? What about particular bowling changes made - did these tend to upset the rhythm which a persevering bowler was getting into? Was there any shade of slowness in the field on the part of any of the suspected players at any time - even instances of half-heartedly chasing the ball?

The questions, as above, as also others which could be evolved by experts, could be gone into as a post-mortem exercise on the basis of a candid though confidential discussion with all the players involved and also, if necessary, viewing the tapes of the concerned matches. It would be in the interest of the other South African players too to come clean for exposing the truth. The present situation is pregnant with possibilities and any development could prove decisive in determining the fortunes of one-day cricket in the background of the severe beating which its image has received. Unless the damage control exercises, done in right earnest and with a genuineness that would be befitting this `gentleman's sport', are initiated, it is possible that there could be a lasting damage leading to erosion in public enthusiasm and interest. In fact the public opinion at this moment seems to be in favour of even putting one-dayers on hold until such a time that the whole issue is cleared.

Not in the heat of the moment: Now that the dust is settling down, and in the moment where passions and accusations may not run as high as when the scandal surfaced, it would also be in the fitness of things, especially in the light of the analysis of figures and performance, to consider a magnanimous view of this particular issue. An approach marked by understanding would perhaps be fair in the light of various other revelations which have been made of late. The admission of the South African coach Bob Woolmer and of certain former South African players about the `offer' that was actually discussed by the entire team during their earlier tour of India in 1996, besides allegations of the former Indian cricketer Manoj Prabhakar (though not followed up to their logical conclusion) and those of some Australian players and the England player Chris Lewis also are suggestive of the fact that the malady runs deep and that many of those concerned have been befriending the bookies and manipulators. Why should these elements even have been allowed to approach the cricketers in the first place and why at all should an `offer' which deserved instantaneous and contemptuous dismissal have been `discussed'? The former President of the Cricket Board of Control in India, Mr. I. S. Bindra has also gone on record stating that ``every single match in cricket is fixed''.

Thanks to the excellent work done by the Delhi Police, the murky state of affairs has surfaced. Perhaps this is the tip of the ice-berg. It is also notable that initially Cronje and even top cricketing officials dismissed the carefully planned out operations and investigations as ``rubbish''. It was only when unassailable evidence gathered themselves over the scandal that tunes were sought to be changed. A deeper probe by a high powered body and an approach marked by integrity and seriousness would unearth what could possibly be also a major economic offence - that involving dubious foreign exchange transactions and a criminal nexus. Besides, certain other skeletons in the cricket world's cupboard could also surface. All these would be for the good of all those concerned with propriety and fair play and also good for the game of cricket.

Whatever be the reality, it would appear that Cronje has been singled out, just because of the `damning evidence' in the form of tapes. On this too, it could be argued that Cronje was merely a victim of circumstances, a victim of his own acts of ``foolishness and naivity'' - to use his own expression. In these days when the players are exposed to much stress and too many games, is it possible that such acts of diversion (perhaps mad diversion) are often resorted to more for releasing their tension than with a deliberate eye for causing disrepute to the game itself? Mike Gatting had to pay dearly with his captaincy for that fling with a bar-maid, an act which could perhaps be seen just as a diversion or an act of `cooling the nerves'. The present situation, as it applies to Cronje, though more serious, perhaps could finally boil down to one of ``foolishness and naivity'' and possibly nothing significantly more. It is in this light that extreme statements demanding Cronje's ban for life could be viewed. The totality of the situation, besides facts which emerge through an unbiased and objective analysis of actual performance, could also be seen in the context of the many instances of intrigue, the blasphemous acts and manipulations that abound all over the world in many aspects of life, living, government and sports. Viewed in this broad perspective, there could be a case for a second look at all accusations which presently seem to land only on one person - Hansie Cronje. In this background, the following statement read out by him a few days back in his lawyer's office in Bloemfontein could possibly bear a fair amount of truth: ``All I will say is that I was not involved in fixing or manipulating the results of cricket matches. I always played to win''.

K. VIJAYARAGHAVAN

(formerly Deputy Collector of Customs & Central Excise) and V.SWETHA

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Sport
Previous : Let's look beyond Hansie Cronje
Next     : The accent looks to be on quantity rather than
           quality