In the last 48 hours or so a lot has been said of Suraj Randiv and how the Sri Lankan team robbed Virender Sehwag of a well deserved ton.
One might argue that this issue has been blown completely out of proportion and something that happened in the heat of the battle in the middle must be forgotten if not forgiven. This is generally the case, but I disagree on this one issue.
I say that this issue of denying Sehwag a ton is a big matter for the simple fact that it goes against the very spirit and fundamental values of the game. Every game has certain rules and regulations, and these can be bent slightly for one's advantage, but by bending and manipulating the rules, the very integrity and honour of the game is lost. Not only for the game but also for the perpetuator. Here no rules was bent, but the spirit of the game was definitely damaged, and damaged heavily.
Centuries are landmarks that are cherished by batsman and if the knock comes in a winning cause the more cherished it becomes. It is similar to a bowler picking up a five wicket haul. These are certain landmarks that are cherished by the players and these moments stand to live on long after their time. And by denying something so prized and memorable by small petty means is nothing but disgrace to the game. Cricket is called the gentleman's game and has high regard for fair play ethics and sportsmanship, but sadly this seems to be deteriorating day by day.
What Suraj Randiv did, angers me because it was completely out of selfish reasons with no valid reasons. He surely can't say it's an accident, because the last time I saw a spinner bowling a one foot no ball was almost never. It was clearly intentional. This is why I say this is a big issue. What pleasure is Randiv or the Sri Lankan team gaining from denying Sehwag a well deserved century? Absolutely none, whatsoever. Which brings me back to the question, then why do it, and rain on someone's parade?
To put things into perspective, what would have happened if India had denied Muthiah Muralitharan his 800th wicket in the first test at Galle? Last man out Ohja could have easily lobbed a catch of any other bowler than Murali, or even knocked his own wickets over during another bowler's over, thereby denying Muralitharan his historic landmark. India couldn't have won the match so they could have easily done the atrocious incident mentioned above. But fortunately that didn't happen. Had it happened, there would have been absolute back-lashing of the Indian team for denying the champion bowler a wicket and world wide criticism. Now just a few weeks after that with Sri Lanka placed in an impossible situation to win, do the unthinkable and deny a celebration. And surely they are coping the criticism of the world.
Sunil Gavaskar the great Indian opener had never scored an ODI century in his career until his penultimate match against New Zealand. The New Zealand bowlers respecting the genius and the legend of Gavaskar bowled him a loopy a delivery when he was in the nineties, so that he could reach his maiden ODI century easily. That was how cricket was played. A story by Jeffery Archer titled “The Century” in the book “A Quiver full of arrows” stresses on the very fundamental of the game being a gentleman's game being played in the right spirit.
Cricket is meant to be played hard and competitively, but at the same time, the spirit of the game shouldn't be damaged. This is where the Australians fell I feel, during their reign. They sledged on the field which is clearly not in the spirit of the game and got themselves the 'bad Australian' tag.
Stories are now circulating that it was Sangakara who planned the whole scheme. Whether this is true or not, I do not know. But I do hope it is in the negative, else the entire image of the team will be lost. As a captain, Sanagakara is supposed to set an open example to his players and also the thousands who follow the game. He has that duty and in accordance with law 1.4 and the preamble of the 'Laws of Cricket' (The captains are responsible at all times for ensuring that play is conducted within the spirit and traditions of the game as well as within the Laws.) Sangakara should be the last man doing this.
There is also lot of talk about how the rules are faulted as only the no-ball is counted and not the six that followed it. Many are blaming the umpires, and the scorers, but I digress with them. Why blame the system and the laws that has worked so well for the last century and more. I find this strangely amusing that the law is being questioned when really the thing to be worried about is whether cricket nowadays upholds the spirit of fair play and the long traditions of being a gentleman's game.
Suraj Randiv at least came out in the open and tendered an open apology. An apology doesn't correct the mistake already done, but hopefully Randiv, and the world have learned a lesson not to be forgotten.
One might argue that this issue has been blown completely out of proportion and something that happened in the heat of the battle in the middle must be forgotten if not forgiven. This is generally the case, but I disagree on this one issue.
I say that this issue of denying Sehwag a ton is a big matter for the simple fact that it goes against the very spirit and fundamental values of the game. Every game has certain rules and regulations, and these can be bent slightly for one's advantage, but by bending and manipulating the rules, the very integrity and honour of the game is lost. Not only for the game but also for the perpetuator. Here no rules was bent, but the spirit of the game was definitely damaged, and damaged heavily.
Centuries are landmarks that are cherished by batsman and if the knock comes in a winning cause the more cherished it becomes. It is similar to a bowler picking up a five wicket haul. These are certain landmarks that are cherished by the players and these moments stand to live on long after their time. And by denying something so prized and memorable by small petty means is nothing but disgrace to the game. Cricket is called the gentleman's game and has high regard for fair play ethics and sportsmanship, but sadly this seems to be deteriorating day by day.
What Suraj Randiv did, angers me because it was completely out of selfish reasons with no valid reasons. He surely can't say it's an accident, because the last time I saw a spinner bowling a one foot no ball was almost never. It was clearly intentional. This is why I say this is a big issue. What pleasure is Randiv or the Sri Lankan team gaining from denying Sehwag a well deserved century? Absolutely none, whatsoever. Which brings me back to the question, then why do it, and rain on someone's parade?
To put things into perspective, what would have happened if India had denied Muthiah Muralitharan his 800th wicket in the first test at Galle? Last man out Ohja could have easily lobbed a catch of any other bowler than Murali, or even knocked his own wickets over during another bowler's over, thereby denying Muralitharan his historic landmark. India couldn't have won the match so they could have easily done the atrocious incident mentioned above. But fortunately that didn't happen. Had it happened, there would have been absolute back-lashing of the Indian team for denying the champion bowler a wicket and world wide criticism. Now just a few weeks after that with Sri Lanka placed in an impossible situation to win, do the unthinkable and deny a celebration. And surely they are coping the criticism of the world.
Sunil Gavaskar the great Indian opener had never scored an ODI century in his career until his penultimate match against New Zealand. The New Zealand bowlers respecting the genius and the legend of Gavaskar bowled him a loopy a delivery when he was in the nineties, so that he could reach his maiden ODI century easily. That was how cricket was played. A story by Jeffery Archer titled “The Century” in the book “A Quiver full of arrows” stresses on the very fundamental of the game being a gentleman's game being played in the right spirit.
Cricket is meant to be played hard and competitively, but at the same time, the spirit of the game shouldn't be damaged. This is where the Australians fell I feel, during their reign. They sledged on the field which is clearly not in the spirit of the game and got themselves the 'bad Australian' tag.
Stories are now circulating that it was Sangakara who planned the whole scheme. Whether this is true or not, I do not know. But I do hope it is in the negative, else the entire image of the team will be lost. As a captain, Sanagakara is supposed to set an open example to his players and also the thousands who follow the game. He has that duty and in accordance with law 1.4 and the preamble of the 'Laws of Cricket' (The captains are responsible at all times for ensuring that play is conducted within the spirit and traditions of the game as well as within the Laws.) Sangakara should be the last man doing this.
There is also lot of talk about how the rules are faulted as only the no-ball is counted and not the six that followed it. Many are blaming the umpires, and the scorers, but I digress with them. Why blame the system and the laws that has worked so well for the last century and more. I find this strangely amusing that the law is being questioned when really the thing to be worried about is whether cricket nowadays upholds the spirit of fair play and the long traditions of being a gentleman's game.
Suraj Randiv at least came out in the open and tendered an open apology. An apology doesn't correct the mistake already done, but hopefully Randiv, and the world have learned a lesson not to be forgotten.
10 Comments:
Hi Poshin,
Good post.
Personally, I don't agree at all with you. The issue you are having is that a century by sehwag was a landmark, Gavaskar's century and Murali's 800 wickets cannot compare as landmark's to Sehwag's hundred. So I do think it is blown out of proportion.
Second Sehwag had two balls before to make his century but was probably waiting to hit out Randiv for a 6(we all know Sehwag), maybe the bowler didn't want to be hit for a 6, you must at least give him credit for that.
Third and most important point for me, landmarks are fine, but this is a team sport and they should be only second to an individuals landmark. We cricket fans put too much importance into these unobjective landmarks.
I hope that the spirit of cricket is really not about respecting other player's landmarks.
krishna
Firstly, in reply to Krishna... I agree it is a team sport, but the team had already lost the match (1 run required in 15+ overs)!
In such cases, it is quite understandable that the player was also trying to chase a personal record for himself. You cannot deny him that glory for all the hard work he put it!
But in disagreement with Christopher, I do feel that this issue has been blown out of proportions. What Randiv did was certainly not right! But there was no need for the Boards to get involved. The players sorted it out between themselves and it should have ended there.
Amidst all this, we have missed the issue of what a stupid law it is which states that the match should end at the no-ball and the six should not be awarded to Sehwag. I have deliberated more on this law and the need to change it over here: http://cricsis.blogspot.com/2010/08/six-that-did-not-count.html.
My point on it being a team sport is that the important thing was that India won the match not that SL lost it, so Sehwag's 100 comes after India's win in my opinion. And after the end of the match it looks more like Sehwag was denied a century rather than India won with a bonus point.
Not saying what Randiv did was right, just think that it just was not that wrong! In fact I wouldn't even put righ and wrong in the balance.
He apologised, I am sure he will not remake the mistake although, if a batsman was planning to hit me for 6 I don't know if I'd let him have that enjoyement over me, might be a lack of respect for the batsman, but I don't want to lack respect for myself.
Anyway, 99 or a 100 Sehwag was just brilliant!1 run doesn't change that fact.
"99 or a 100 Sehwag was just brilliant!"
I certainly agree with you on that count! But I am still hung up on my point regarding why such a law should exist that when a team needs 1 run to win and the bowler delivers a no-ball, the runs off the bat will not count! I hope you'll read my blog in this issue (I have pasted the link in my previous comment).
I find it completely ridiculous!
It's true that it isn't very logical.
Nice article poshin , inviting you to submit your articles at sportskeeda to get more readers and followers
Aah, the "bad Australian" tag - and, of course, the Australians are the only ones who have ever sledged.
The rules are not faulted. The game was over as soon as the no ball was bowled, India won. Sehwag didn't score a ton, big deal? Why do Indians value personal achievements more than their team winning? Would such a fuss be created if Eoin Morgan had been denied a century like this? He won us a game in Bangladesh earlier this year, 2nd ODI, by scoring a ton but he didn't even know he had scored a century, didn't even celebrate for that. 70-80 can be better than a ton if you score it under pressure.
Sorry I'm a little late. Good post.
Okay, so cricket is a gentleman's game and all that, but I don't agree that what Randiv did damaged the sanctity of the game. It was petty, no doubt, but when it comes to sports, no matter how much of a gentleman's game it is, petty things happen.
Personally,I wouldn't have condemed Ojha had he denied Murali the 800th wicket. I also don't think someone who doesn't watch cricket will look at Randiv's incident and think 'this game is despicable,I'm never watching again' as they might say at a footballter deliberately kicking another in the chest with spikes at the bottom of their shoes. The game has evolved, and so have people's behavior. I am not saying we should cater to such behaviour, but Randiv got banned for this which is funny. Had he been a fast bowler who had deliberately just hit a batsman in the head, nobody would have been able to prove it. But that is more dangerous and definitely more despicable than bowling a no-ball.
Btw, not talking about Cork and Pollard (I don't think that was deliberate). Just using an obvious example that damages the 'spirit of cricket'. Whatever that is.
What Randiv did was wrong but what Indians did was even worse. Sehwag, ex-Indian cricketers, Shashi Tharoor have totally blown it out of proportion. Read my take on it: http://jimmymycrushie.blogspot.com/2010/08/in-name-of-sportsmanship.html
Post a Comment
Read not to contradict and confute, nor to believe and take for granted but to weigh and consider.
- Francis Bacon