'Sportsmanship HasGone For A Six'

Namaste Mr President, ladies and gentlemen

There may be some among you who on receiving the invitation to this evening'slecture must have seen who was going to speak and said "Oh! Yeah! Only ifhe is allowed through the gate!"

There must have been a question in your mind whether the lecture would takeplace at all. It's a bit like getting an invitation to a party on 1st April; youdon't know whether it's for real or if it's an April Fool's joke. Having now gotto the podium which does afford me a better view than my natural height, I cansee that you all did take the chance that I would be allowed in!

I had, of course, made sure that there would be at least a couple of peopleattending by requesting the MCC to invite a few of my friends, who are presenthere.

As you can see, I am here -- let in by the stewards who over the years havebecome quite charming. No more does one hear "Oi! Where do you think youare going?" Instead, now we hear "Excuse me, sir, can I helpyou?" Now this is a tremendous change and the MCC needs to be complimentedon the remarkable improvement in the attitude of those manning the variousentrances at the ground.

Unfortunately, while there has been this most welcome change in the attitudeat the gates, there has been a marked decline in the behaviour on the field --especially in the last 15 years or so, and not just at the international level.I will come to that in due course.

I know from experience that a quick breezy innings brings a lot more smilesand is remembered more than a long one, irrespective of its utility to theteam's cause, and so here I will try and play a quick one. In any case, mythroat does not last long, so you can relax -- it's not going to be a typicalopener's innings.

It is apt that this lecture is named after Colin Cowdrey who, on and off thefield, epitomised all that is good about this great game of ours. Colin showedthat it could be played with great skill and grace in the toughest of conditionsand against the hardest of opponents, and still have a smile and appreciationfor the opponent.

Colin is perhaps the only cricketer to have played Test cricket for 20 years.He played from 1954 to 1974 and the only other cricketer who I can recall havinga similar span is Mohinder Amarnath, who first played for India in December 1969and played his last international in April 1990.

Steve Waugh, who has now appeared in the maximum number of Tests, has playedfor 18 years and, when you look at how many more Test matches he has played thanColin, you will know how much more Test cricket is being played today.

Way back in 1986, Colin was the one with the record for the most appearancesin Tests, when yours truly went past him. On the first morning of that game, Iwas pleasantly surprised to see Colin being ushered into the Indian dressingroom by Raj Singh Dungarpur, the team manager. He had come all the way from hishome just to congratulate me and wish me luck. He was most effusive in hiscongratulations and wished that I would celebrate the occasion with a century.

I guess it wasn't so much that Colin was wishing England ill luck as much ashis Indian roots, having been born in Bangalore. The thing about Colin was hewas always anxious to know what the players felt about the game they wereplaying and how to improve it. He was most keen to meet the newcomers andyoungsters in the team and would have a word of encouragement for all of them.

Years later, I had the pleasure of being in the first-ever cricket committeeformed by the ICC to look after the Laws and Playing Conditions of the game.Colin was the first chairman, and his main concern was how to make the gamegrow, and one of the reasons he felt it was losing out on popularity was thatthe players were not playing in the spirit in which they ought to -- which, inturn, meant that the parents of young kids were reluctant to have their childrenplay the game, and the kids themselves were not too keen to play a game in whichthere seemed to be so much animosity between the participants.

The MCC is the custodian of the laws of the game, and thanks to theinitiative of men like Colin, Ted Dexter and Tony Lewis, to name just three,they have now put down in writing the Spirit of Cricket, which for more than ahundred years was only spoken about and observed, too, until the late 1980s, andnow has been put down in print so that not only Test and internationalcricketers know what it means, but also youngsters who are taking up the game.

But what does it tell us to have to put the Spirit of Cricket in black andwhite? It tells us that the old adage "It's not cricket", whichapplied to just about everything in life, is no longer valid -- and that's areal pity. In the modern world of commercialisation of the game and the adventof satellite television and the motto of winning at all costs, sportsmanship hasgone for a six.

Will we ever get the likes of Sir Garfield Sobers and GR Viswanath again?That greatest of cricketers, Garry Sobers not only indicated more than once toumpires that he had caught the ball on the bounce but also declared his inningsclosed once in a Test match in spite of having two of his main bowlers injuredand left a challenging target for England to get -- which they did, thanks toColin Cowdrey. If a captain does that today, of course, the Anti-Corruption Unitof the ICC would be breathing down his neck, but all Garry wanted was to enlivena dead series.

GR Viswanath was the captain who recalled Bob Taylor when he was given out bythe unpire. Vishy, who was at first slip, immediately realised that Bob's bathad brushed the pads, which had misled the umpire into giving him out caughtbehind. Like the true sportsman he is, Vishy walked up to the umpire andpolitely withdrew the appeal. The match was delicately poised then and thesubsequent partnership between Ian Botham and Bob Taylor took England to awinning position. India lost the Test, but Vishy is remembered for that andloved all the more for it.

Today, thanks to the win-at-all-costs theory, appeals are made even thoughthe fielders know that the batsman is not out. There is the other side, ofcourse, where a batsman knows he is out but stays put and rubs some other partof his body if it's an appeal for a catch or shows his bat if there's an appealfor lbw.

With the game being marketed aggressively by TV, the rewards have becomehigh, and rightly so, but it has to a great extent taken away from the Spirit ofthe Game, where bowlers applauded a good shot and batsmen acknowledged with anod a good delivery from a bowler who beat them. While today, in order not togive any psychological advantage to the opposition, there's hardly any applausefrom the fielding side when a batsman reaches a fifty or a century.

It's hard to understand how applauding concedes any advantage to the batsman,but we see it increasingly where, barring the odd fielder, the others feigntotal ignorance of the batsman reaching a landmark.

This is in stark contrast to my first series in the West Indies, where onecould sit with the greats like Garry Sobers, Rohan Kanhai and Lance Gibbs at theend of a day's play and ask them about batting and how to improve. They weremore than happy to give good sound advice, even though it was to an opponent andcould be used against them the next day to their team's detriment.

Rohan Kanhai occasionally grunted his disapproval from first slip if I playeda loose shot. It wasn't that these great cricketers did not want their team towin. It was just the fact that they had supreme confidence in their own abilityand believed that helping an opponent only produced good cricket and was goodfor the game.

How about the England team under Norman Yardley raising three cheers for DonBradman when he came out to play his last Test innings? Mind you, if the Englandplayers knew that such gestures brought tears to the great man's eyes and gothim bowled for a duck, then they would have done it every innings!

Such a gesture is unthinkable today where the opponents hardly greet eachother and if there's anything to say it's invariably not very pleasant. Thethinking is that with the stakes being so high, any friendly overture takes awayfrom the competitiveness of the player.

Now I have heard it being said that whenever there's been needle in a match,words have been exchanged. That may be true, but what was banter in days gone by-- and which was enjoyed by everyone, including the recipient of it -- today hasdegenerated to downright personal abuse, and which is why the Spirit of Crickethad to be written.

They say sledging has always been part of the game, but is that true? I amnot so sure. I played more than one Test match for my country with and againstbowlers who took hundreds of wickets and there was hardly a word uttered inanger on the field. Yes, towards the end of my career I did get referred to acouple of times by a part of the female anatomy and, more than anger, itsaddened me to hear that.

In fact, one of those instances led to the most regrettable incident of mycareer, when I almost forfeited a game by asking my fellow opener to walk offwith me. I was given out lbw in spite of getting a thick inside edge to the balland, though I showed my disappointment, I was going back to the pavilion andwould have ended up like all disappointed batsmen do -- by throwing my bat orscreaming myself hoarse in the privacy of the dressing room.

But as I had gone about 15 or so yards towards the pavilion I heard the abusewhich made me explode and take that stupid action of asking my partner to walkoff with me. Fortunately, the manager of the team stopped my partner fromcrossing the boundary and so we didn't forfeit the game but went on to win it.That and another time later on are the only instances that I have come acrosssledging and it's simply distasteful.

Let's get the origin and the definition of the word "sledging" tofind out if it has always been part of the game, as its apologists claim. Tosledge is to convey a message as subtly as a sledgehammer. With that definition,one can clearly see that's its a modern phenomenon and not been part of the gamesince the 19th century. Yes, there has been banter but it has invariably beengood-humoured. For example, who would ever take objection to what FreddieTrueman said on the field? There was a dig about the batsman's ability but nopersonal abuse.

Freddie was the master of the banter, as Richie Benaud told us a couple ofyears ago, in the inaugural Cowdrey Lecture. My first commentary stint inEngland was in 1990 -- the year in which Graham Gooch got that massive 333 atLord's and young Sachin Tendulkar scored the first of what will be a recordnumber of centuries. The manager of that Indian team was Madhav Mantri, mymaternal uncle, who had toured with the Indian team here in 1952, when Freddiemade his debut.

Having heard that Freddie was doing commentary, my uncle asked me to conveyhis best wishes to Freddie, which I dutifully did. Seeing Freddie's quizzicallook, I elaborated and said that my uncle was one of the four Freddie victimswhen India were famously four down for zero. Freddie looked up and growled at me"I wouldn't remember him then, would I?" No, of course not, but whocould take offence at Fred when he had such ready explanations?

Javed Miandad was another with a sharp sense of humour. In fact, he was oneof those rare species of batsmen who talked to the bowlers. Remember, I said"talked" and not "talked back". He would do anything to getunder the skin of the bowlers and work it to his advantage.

In a Test match at Bangalore, he was batting against Dilip Doshi, who was oneof the hardest bowlers to hit. Javed had tried everything -- the drive, the cut,the sweep and even going down the pitch to the crafty left arm spinner -- but hesimply wasn't able to get him away. Suddenly, in the middle of a fresh over,Javed started asking Dilip his room number.

This went on every other ball and even when he was at the non-striker's end.After some time, Doshi, who was making a comeback to the side, and so wasconcentrating hard on his bowling, couldn't take it anymore and exasperatedlyasked him why he wanted his room number -- to which Javed replied "BecauseI want to hit you for a six in your room".

Now those who have been to Bangalore -- and know how far the hotel is fromthe ground -- know what an impossibility it was. Yet it worked: Doshi,anticipating Javed to give him the rush down the wicket, bowled it short, andJaved gleefully pulled it to the boundary and added for good measure that he wasbowling from the wrong end, else he would make good on his promise.

Nobody minds such banter. In fact, it adds to the stories of the game. Butall this banter was always a small part of the game and happened may be a coupleof the times during five days of cricket and not just every other over, as ishappening today.

When West Indies were the dominant force in the game in the 1970s and 1980s,with their line up of star-studded batsmen and army of lethal quick bowlers,administrators moved to curtail their domination by making laws that muzzled thepace bowlers with a restriction on the number of bouncers to be bowled per over.

Today, though, there is a code of conduct, the verbal bouncers go on prettymuch unchecked and, unless something is done quickly done about it, the goodname of the game that we all know will be mud. Just look at any school gamesanywhere in the world and we will see bowlers having a go at the batsman. Theysee it on TV from their heroes and believe that it is a part of the game, and soindulge in it.

Here it is crucial for the coaches to step in and tell them, while the kidsare at an impressionable age, that this is wrong and cricket has been played foryears without indulging in personal abuse. Maybe we should tell TV producersthat, just like they don't show any of the streakers at the ground anymore, theyshould not show close-ups of players verbalising each other. With the camerasbeing so good it is easy to lip-read and kids can see that it is not the Biblenor the Koran nor the (Bhagvad) Gita which is being quoted on the field.

The sad part is that very little is being done about it. If a player even somuch as glares at the umpire or stays a micro-second longer at the crease afterbeing given out, he is hauled up and in trouble. If there is protection for theumpire from the players, why not protection to players from abusive players?

They say there is so much money in the game and that is what makes playersresort to these tactics to win at all costs and forget good manners -- but thereis more money in other sports like golf and tennis but, thanks to tough laws,one does not find misbehaviour or bad language there. There is today simply nosuch thing as a silence zone in the game, right down to the school encounter. Ifit had enhanced the game, then it would had been welcomed -- but it hasn't and,even at the highest level, it leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.

The problem also is mainly due to the fact that those at the receiving end ofthe abuse feel that they will be called wimps if they report it to the umpiresor the match referee. In fact, by not reporting it, they are accessories to the"crime", if one is allowed to call it that. Their favourite defence is"Let's what has happened on the field stay there" -- even if it iswrong and bad for the image of the game. Imagine if a murderer were to say thatsince murder was committed in the house, he should be allowed to walk thestreets free.

Lest I sound pessimistic, let me say that out of a possible 150 Testcricketers from 10 Test-playing countries, there are perhaps not even 15 whoindulge in this verbal abuse and intimidation, but unfortunately most of thesebelong to a champion side and it makes others believe that it's the only way toplay winning cricket.

Did Bradman's all-conquering side of 1948 practice these tactics? I don'tknow, though I know for certain that Clive Lloyd's champions of the 1970s and1980s never uttered a word on the field to an opponent. A glare and raised eyebrow were enough to put the scare in to you!

Still, while there is life there is hope, and to see both the England andSouth African teams take the field on the first day of the Test last weeksporting black armbands, to mourn the passing away of Jacques Kallis's father,is enough to show that there are people within the game who understand humanemotions and who believe that sharing in a fellow player's grief does not takeaway anything from their competitiveness but does help to lessen the grief.

Cricket is a game that envelops all manner of people from various countries,colour, language, faith and age. The good doctor WG Grace played Tests when hewas nearly 50 and Sachin Tendulkar began when he was barely 15. In all thisdiversity, it is the skill of the player that stays in the mind's eye long aftertheir age and eras are over.

The MCC needs to be congratulated for the initiative in starting this lectureseries, which is aimed mainly at the young impressionable minds, and to tellthem that one can be winners without showing disrespect to an opponent, and onecan enjoy the game even when one is not doing well.

The diversity that this great game has can also be seen by the differentaccents and ages that have delivered the Cowdrey Lectures over the last threeyears. The Aussie drawl of Richie Benaud, the South African accent of BarryRichards, and the sub-continent accent of your truly. Even the ages of thespeakers show that the love for the game has not diminished. Richie70-something, Barry Richards 60-something, and yours truly 20-something ...