The good, the bad and the ugly

Prem Panicker

I must confess I am slightly disappointed in Sourav Ganguly (The fact that my disappointment is "slight" should make it clear that what follows is not about his exploits with the bat).

My disappointment stems from that joint press conference the Indian and English captains addressed, and what Hussain said during its course.

Here is a direct quote from Hussain: "I bowled the Indian team out for scores of 291 and 238 in the two Tests. Australia came here this year and was taken for 570-odd runs with Laxman getting a huge 281. So you be the judge now, and tell me what’s wrong with our gameplan?”

It was at this point that Ganguly missed a half-volley outside his off stump. I found myself wishing that the Indian skipper had turned to his counterpart and asked: "You've been making a big fuss about the dismissal of Michael Vaughan, handled the ball. Well, the bottomline is, we got him out for 64 didn't we? So what is wrong with that?"

I would have dearly loved to have seen Hussain's face, and heard his answer, to that one.

It never ceases to amaze me, this ability of modern cricketers to see things one way one day, another way the next. Hussain is the latest, but by no means the only, example.

In a signed column on Wisden dated December 19, Hussain while discussing the Vaughan dismissal says, "It’s a question of whether certain actions are in the spirit of the game, and that’s purely a judgment call. It’s not a question of right or wrong. If the Indians felt that the appeal was in the spirit of the game, then that’s their call. I know what my gut feeling and Michael’s gut feeling is about it all, and I really don’t want to say any more than that."

With due respect to the England captain, he shouldn't even have said as much.

Just wondering: How is it that the Indians appealing when Vaughan grabbed at the ball is not in the spirit of the game, whereas Andrew Flintoff bowling so persistently down leg side to Sachin Tendulkar that he had to be spoken to by the umpire, or Ashley Giles from over the wicket sending down an astonishing 58 per cent of all his deliveries down the line wide of leg stump, is justifiable because it got results?

Sorry, Mr Hussain, you can't have it both ways -- either there is something called the "spirit of the game", in which case your tactics were cynical, crass and completely against said spirit, or there is no such thing, in which case your angst over the fate of Michael Vaughan is hypocritical at best.

On the other hand, Ganguly deserved unstinted praise for having spoken out in no uncertain terms -- rarely, in fact, have I heard terms as uncertain as those used by the Indian captain -- on this issue of coach John Wright.

Remember? "There is no question of Wright losing his job" -- that was the Indian captain, speaking just before the Bangalore Test and, more crucially, before BCCI president Jagmohan Dalmiya was due to decide the fate of Wright, and physio Andrew Leipus.

It took courage to make that statement, at a time when his own batting form is suspect -- suspect, hell, for a long time now, it has been non-existent -- and his captaincy skills are in question. Indian cricket history records very few instances of players standing up for what is right. And every single time someone has done that -- the names of Krish Srikkanth, Ravi Shastri, Sunil Gavaskar, Bishen Bedi and ever Sachin Tendulkar (vide the selection, or lack thereof, of off spinners for the last tour of the West Indies) come to mind -- the board's busybodies have immediately closed ranks and ensured that the rebel came to a sticky end. Against this background, for Ganguly to be as outspoken as he was took some doing.

Ganguly and Wright have had their differences -- sometimes, in public. And yet, the Indian skipper decided to speak out -- and that is the most eloquent testimony you would want of the value of Wright to the side.

Sachin Tendulkar also pitched in, with his public defence of Wright on the occasion of a promo event at the Adidas showroom in Bangalore on the eve of the third Test. Meanwhile, Anil Kumble weighed in with unstinted encomiums for physio Andrew Leipus. Speaking on television after becoming the second Indian to join the 300 club, Kumble said that Leipus was primarily responsible in ensuring that he could get back to the cricket field after his shoulder surgery.

Players coming out openly, in this fashion, to support their coach and physio is unparalleled, especially in Indian cricket. And there is no denying that the stance taken by the senior players, led by the captain, forced Dalmiya to back down and not go through with the sacking of Wright and Leipus.

To my mind, that support, that statement of Ganguly's, is worth a big hundred. On any wicket, against any opposition.

Read also: The gentlemen in question

The Rediff Diary -- the complete archives           

Email : Prem Panicker