NEWS
STAT SHEET
DIARY
HOT LINKS
OTHER SPORTS
SLIDE SHOW
BOOKS & THINGS
PEOPLE
DEAR REDIFF

We wuz robbed!

Prem Panicker

India played Sri Lanka four times, in the one day format, over the past seven days. The scoreline at the end of it reads 3-0 in favour of the hosts.

Does that translate into an indicator of the overwhelming supremacy of one team over the other? If, indeed, that had been the case, there would have been no cause for concern - after all, cricket has from time to time thrown up teams that appear totally, completely invincible. The West Indies outfits of the seventies and early eighties is a case in point - rival teams went in against them knowing that the best they could do was put up a good fight.

What however is alarming about the scoreline of this latest series between the world champions and India is that, viewed objectively, it has to be said that the real scoreline should have been 3-1 in favour of India. In the first game, the touring side chases 303, comes to within two runs, and loses. In game two, it is thoroughly outplayed in all departments of the game. In game three, the Indians stare a win in the face - but the umpires decide to step in and take it away. And in game four, again, India gets it right for 90 overs, and then throws it all away in the last ten.

The overall conclusion is inescapable - this team is now so thoroughly scared of losing, that it has forgotten how to win. And that is, for all those concerned with Indian cricket, a frightening thought. Openers can be found. Ditto all-rounders. Ditto bowlers. What cannot be found, what must come from within, what the team - irrespective of the identity of its individual components - must generate on its own is team spirit, motivation, and above all the desire to win.

Before we get to Sunday's game, however, one point should be made about the Saturday fiasco. In mail, I have received dozens of protests about the fact that my review of the final stage of that game, when the umpires called off play, was too lukewarm.

There is a reason for it - I was deliberately not harping on that, because no one needs to give the impression here that the Indian team needs excuses, needs to talk of umpiring lapses (of which there have been several during these four games) or even the sheer daylight robbery of Satuday's game, as reasons for its uncomplimentary scoreline.

However, while trying to do that, I appear, if emails are a yardstick, to have presented a less than clear picture of what actually happened on Saturday. Therefore, a quick recap, before moving on to Sunday's game.

On Satuday, India batted first and put up a highly competitive total of 291 in its allotted fifty overs. In the Lankan response, Sanath Jayasuriya as usual went off to a flier - so much so that 80 runs had been knocked off the target in just 7.3 overs. And then the rains came.

When the skies cleared, two things had happened. One - the target had been reduced, so had the overs. Two, the playing conditions had become very inimical to the fielding side - the outfield was wet and greasy, the ball would become next to impossible to grip, and Lanka were well placed to win the game, given that all 10 wickets were still standing at the time.

Ranatunga wanted the game played, and finished, on the day. Tendulkar, consulted by the umpires, agreed to take the field. At this point, the additional fact needs to be mentioned that the odds, at that stage, were heavily in favour of India losing the game.

And then, inexplicably, Sri Lanka lost it. And lost it bad. Faced with a situation wherein they only needed singles - and the Indian field placing, as always, was of the kind to facilitate, rather than inhibit, such accumulation - the Lankan batsmen tried to do it with big hits, and lost wickets in the kind of fashion the Indian side has patented in recent times.

Aravinda D'Silva was the last of the specialist batsman to hole out - Lanka losing its sixth wicket and, with it, all realistic chance of going for a win. And the minute the sixth wicket fell, the umpires indulged in some head shaking, whipped out their light meters, frowned over the reading, and an over later, offered the light to the batsmen - who accepted it and walked off, smiling.

In cricketing terms, these are the issues involved: first, the reading at that point was 5.6 on the meter, and it is when the reading touches 3.5 that umpires are allowed to mandatorily call off play for bad light without reference to either team.

At the point when the umpires actually did the darkness-at-noon number, the reading was well above that. Thus, the umpires had, as per rules governing light, only one brief - to assess the situation in terms of possible danger to the batsmen. And only if it was felt that such danger threatened, were they allowed to offer the light.

The notion that the bowling of Robin Singh and Nilesh Kulkarni posed any physical danger at all is ridiculous enough to be disposed of without elaboration. Interestingly, the umpires did their number with the light meters not from the respective batsmen's creases, but from somewhere near cover, where the shadow of the adjoining buildings was falling over the playing field. Sachin Tendulkar at that point had to go up to the umpires and point out that if a reading were being taken, it had to be taken from the batsmen's end, not from where have you.

Overall, the conclusion was inescapable - that the umpires had used light as an option to let the home team off the hook.

Greg Chappell, in the television commentary box at that time, first said, "Appalling decision", then went further and said "A shame for the game of cricket, and criminal injustice to the Indians."

He was right. Simply because the act was too blatant, too 'in your face'. An umpiring lapse or three - and the instance when Dravid was ruled run out without any of the fielding side having even appealed was the more glaring of the lot - can be, perhaps, filed under the 'human error' column. But this was deliberate, open, high handed, and totally, completely, immoral.

Ratnakar Shetty has lodged an official protest with ICC match referee John Reid. Even as I take note of the fact, my response to it would be to shrug, and say, 'So?'.

The match referee was right out there, at the edge of the boundary, even as captain Tendulkar and coach Madan Lal were pleading with the umpires to allow the game to proceed. He stood there, hands in his pockets, surrounding by what looked like half the Lankan cricketing establishment, and made no move to intervene - at a time when he should, were he intent on fulfilling his brief, have marched out to the middle, taken the light meter, checked the reading, demanded of the umpires what their rationale was, and then given his own ruling.

His inactivity at the time indicates nothing more or less than the fact that he, too, was privy to the action of the umpires - or, at the least, that he did not view their action in bad light. And if that is his mindset, then what is Shetty's protest but a mere gesture? After all, having been the man who allowed the farce to be perpetrated, is Reid now supposed to do a volte face and slam the umpires for calling off play that day? Obviously not! The incident is over, for all official purposes - and if it leaves a bad taste in the mouth of cricket afficionadoes, then the only thing I can recommend is a good mouthwash.

'We wuz robbed', yes. In broad daylight, what's more - which is ironic, given that lack of light is the gun the umpires used to hold the Indians up with while picking their pockets of a win. But beating one's breast about it, at this point, is a waste of mental energy - the only option is to absorb it, accept it, and move on.

And when India took the field on Sunday, it did appear that the side had done just that. More of that, in the match report which follows, next page.

Third ODI match report