Lights, camera, action all go against India

On a dramatic day’s action at the Melbourne Cricket Ground, first came Anil Kumble’s caught and bowled decision off a shot by Gilchrist, which umpire Steve Davis referred to the thirdumpire to make sure whether it was taken cleanly or not, without first seeking the opinion of the square-leg umpire.

The replays could not conclusively prove whether the catch was clean or not, though the opinion was that Gilchrist should have been ruled out. The verdict: Not out. Australia at that stage were at 207-5.

Venkatesh Prasad went on a Tarzan-like victory celebration after getting rid of Michael Slater and was politely reprimanded by umpire David Shepherd. He was subsequently reported and fined by match referee and former Sri Lankan Test player Ranjan Madugalle. Prasad had probably gone overboard and deserved the punishment. But, why was Glenn McGrath not given the same treatment when he showed dissent against umpire Steve Dunne’s decision and the whole world saw on television his use of a four-letter word against the umpire in the Adelaide Test ?

Why wasn’t Justin Langer, who was seen gesticulating in anger after he was ruled out lbw here on the first day not reported or fined ? Two set ofrules for two different teams ? Slater was surprised that Prasad was reported by the umpire. “I don’t think Prasad did anything wrong. He was happy at getting me out and was showing his emotion. He even came to the dressing room and apologised. I am surprised that he was reported.”

The morning itself had not begun well for the Indians. On the opening day of the second Test here, the Australian media, perhaps unaware that the playing conditions agreed upon a few months ago by the two Boards did not stipulate playing under artificial lights, was surprised why India did not agree to extend playing hours.

More than the criticism, the stinging language used “dark ages, meek, timid hearts” must have been upsetting. The issue was simple. The Australians are willing to play under floodlights to make up for the loss time in a Test match, the Indians are not. The Indian reasoning is they do not play first class cricket at home under floodlights and are not sure how the red ball will behave in thoseconditions. The Australians play Shefield Shield under floodlights, whenever required, and have played Test matches too in similar conditions.

England is the only other country which has refused to play a Test match under floodlights. The Indian argument is that it will be wrong to experiment in a Test match. Whatever the merits of the case, there was no reason for the Australians to suddenly go off the handle. How the Australian print media explodes with regard to today’s incidents should make interesting reading.

It is a media and this is the opinion of most of the outsiders who have toured this country which is very `nationalistic’ and `patriotic.’ Perhaps it is the same everywhere in the world. Noted English cricket writer and commentator Christopher Martin Jenkins, after his last tour to this country, wrote something to the effect that the writings in the Australian media can evoke a jingoistic reaction in any person, the visitors including.

No media in the world is free from bias and that istrue for the Indians as well. But after having seen the way the press here protects their own team, ignores incompetent umpiring decisions if they happen to go against the rival team and makes a concerted effort to lower the morale of the visitors Darell Hair reprimanding Saurav Ganguly in a four-day match or the lights issue being a case in point one could agree with what Jenkins said.

The Muttiah Muralitharan chucking episode took place here. Shoaib Akhtar was accused of doing the same here. But when it came to Brett Lee, the general reaction was muted. The whole world would like to see how the `fair’ Australians handle this issue.

Isn’t it a strange coincidence that most of the visiting teams find umpires make human errors on crucial decisions here ? Decisions which have a great bearing on the final outcome of the match. Take the example of the series against Pakistan. Justin Langer looked out in Hobart in the second innings of the second Test, but was given the benefit of doubt. That decision,probably cost Pakistan the match. Sachin Tendulkar was given out on a debatable decision in the first innings of the Adelaide Test at a time when the Indians seemed to be heading towards a good first innings total. He got a bad decision in the second innings too. And now comes the Gilchrist incident.

These things are getting highlighted in the minds of the visitors only because of the sneaking suspicion that behind the facade of `fair-play’ there is another side to the picture as well. The Englishmen seem to agree, the Sri Lankans have suffered far worse and the Pakistanis, arriving here next week for the triangular one-day series, are already in the thick of things.

The Indians cannot and should not be looking for excuses for their poor performance here based on a few debatable decisions. If they have lost the first Test and find themselves in trouble in the second Test, it has everything to do with their being an incompetent side which so far has not shown the capacity for a fight against a side whichis far superior in all-round strength. The Australians should be proud of their team’s achievements. Till now, one has seen and known of the losing side whining, never seen the winners do that.