MENTAL DISINTEGRATION, MENTAL DERANGEMENT

Steve Waugh doesn't believe Australia should apologise for their attitude in the second test match against India at Sydney (02 to 06 JAN 2008) which Australia won through unfair means. He says, "Teams playing against Australia fail to understand that banter, gamesmanship, sledging or whatever anyone would like to call it is just the way Australian kids joust and play in the schoolyard and backyards. On the other hand, Australian teams can't stomach time-wasting and perceived manipulation of the rules, including calling for runners, over-appealing and the alleged altering of the condition of the ball." (http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/ausvind/content/current/story/329710.html)

Very interesting, well-researched(!), scholarly comment, but with a rather substantial gap between his perception (and understanding), and the reality on the ground. Tim Lane has this to say in The Age of Australia:
"Apart from the fact that distinguishing "legitimate banter" from "sledging" might test the best legal minds, how do you define the spirit of a game? This is what has brought Australian cricket undone this week. It has been playing by its own book. It lays down its rules and then stretches them. The events in Sydney that sparked the week's crisis are but manifestations of an established attitude. An example is the matter of appealing. The Spirit of Australian Cricket refers to the acceptance "of all umpiring decisions as a mark of respect for our opponents, the umpires, ourselves and the game". But what of the matter of appealing for decisions players know, or at least suspect, would be unjust? Did the Aussies really believe Rahul Dravid edged the ball to Adam Gilchrist on the last day in Sydney? It might have won them a 16th straight Test but was it worth it?


"The other matter that has inflamed India is Ricky Ponting's decision to report Harbhajan Singh for using racist language. The Australian captain did as he had been encouraged to do by officialdom. ......... Presumably, Ponting failed to realise that within such a volatile environment this could have serious consequences. How the hard-nosed Aussies would look complaining against their underdog rival appears also to have escaped the skipper. Being an international cricket captain these days requires some sophisticated thinking."
(http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/01/11/1199988590209.html)

How does all this gel with Steve Waugh's position that it is the other teams that manipulate the rules, and indulge in over-appealing?

Here are some more interesting facts. The following is from Brendan McArdle a former Victorian all-rounder and club cricket stalwart, writing in The Age of Australia again.
"But, for those who have followed his (Ponting's) on-field actions closely, particularly on overseas tours, there have been terrible moments when things haven't gone Australia's way. The turning point for Ponting as captain was the loss of the Ashes in 2005. Since then he has led by his own instincts rather than by consensus, and has taken no prisoners. During that 2005 series we saw the irrational side of Ponting when he blamed England coach Duncan Fletcher for his run-out by the substitute fieldsman, rather than the terrible call of his batting partner Damien Martyn.
There have since been instances of toes being trodden on in the pursuit of success, sometimes involving the unbecoming sight of the Australian captain remonstrating with an umpire. Two seasons ago, during a one-day series in New Zealand, he had a slanging match with Billy Bowden when a no-ball was called because he had insufficient fieldsmen in the inner circle. In Bangladesh, on the way home from a wearying tour of South Africa, he badgered the umpires until he got his way. This against cricket's minnows. Like many of his teammates, he consistently pressures umpires with his aggressive appealing and he often ignores the edict that is supposed to prevent fieldsmen from charging at umpires during their appeals.


"As a batsman he has always found it difficult to accept line-ball decisions; it was no surprise last week when, despite his earlier reprieve, he showed his displeasure at wrongly being given leg before wicket. At the Headingley Test of 2001 he stood his ground after appearing to be caught in the slips for a duck. He won a reprieve based on inconclusive television evidence and went on to make a hundred.

"The issue for Ponting is not how he reacts to Tony Greig's comments, whether he gives some lip to Duncan Fletcher as he leaves the field, or what he did at the Bourbon and Beefsteak bar in his younger days. It's about how he and his team interact with umpires and opposition players — whether it's in the true spirit of the game."
(http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/01/11/1199988590215.html)

Can there be a worse indictment than this about the behaviour of the Aussie captain Ponting and his players? Does any of this description gel with Steve Waugh's perception that the Aussie players are paragons of virtue and it is the others, particularly the sub-continent players, who are the scum of the earth? If and when Steve Waugh hears or reads such indictment of his Aussie team, does he rush to the Bondi Beach in Sydney and do what their national bird, the ostrich, is said to do?

Is it possible that, far from achieving the "mental disintegration", "mental disorientation" of the Indians, Steve Waugh and his proteges have themselves got "mental disintegration" and "mental degeneration" to the extent they are living in a state of illusion, deluding themselves that there is nothing wrong with them and they are behaving perfectly alright, even though the bulk of the world is faulting them?

On the other hand, while the match officials are ready to shoot from the hip whenever they think some player, particularly from the Indian sub-continent, has "misbehaved", they have again and again and again kept quiet and submitted to such rowdy behaviour of the Aussies. Why?


Maybe we have to express our grudging admiration for something else Steve Waugh, his successor captain Ponting and their team appear to have achieved. Rather than the Indians suffering "mental disintegration", it is the arbitrators who have fallen for it and become mentally disoriented and doing the bidding of the Aussies, as can be seen by the plethora of perverse decisions given by Steve Bucknor, Mark Benson, the third umpire and the match referee Mike Procter. As Steve Waugh and his proteges are influencing and altering the condition of the minds of the arbitrators, why should he bother about "the alleged altering of the condition of the ball" by others?