If it’s fine in Australia, why criticise India?

That trip not only gave me the opportunity to rub shoulders with some of the greatest names in the game, but to see for myself what a united country Australia is. I have been to Australia several times since then, the latest being last year when the Indian team played a five-match Test series there. In most other countries that I have visited, there’s always someone who is grumbling about the shortcomings of the country. Not the political kind of complaint, but generally about something that they feel is lacking in their country. In all my travels to Australia, I have never ever come across an Aussie who has a go about his country. Yes, there may be political differences, but apart from that, the Aussies are as thick as thick can be.

That first year exposed me to varying playing conditions and also to the officiating in these countries, and I was staggered by the wrong decisions that were made. In the West Indies the decisions were probably made with a concern for personal security against possible crowd reaction, so a local hero, especially a batter, couldn’t be given out early. In England, it was cunning where the error was made to favour the home team when it was in a tough position, and these decisions changed the course of the match. In Australia, it was simply the feeling that come what may, Australia can’t lose, so the umpiring was blatantly pro-Australian. 

As a young budding cricketer growing up and devouring every word written on the game, it used to hurt whenever our umpires were called cheats and worse especially by the tabloid journos from England and Australia. So, the impression that the umpiring in these countries would be near flawless had taken root before that first year opened the eyes to the reality that the umpiring in these major countries was downright biased for the kind of reasons elaborated above.

Sub-continent umps targeted

When the sub-continent umpires made mistakes, they were given all kinds of epithets and nasty headlines, but when their umpires made wrong decisions it was called a human error. And of course, with the then media in the sub-continent usually born before independence, they were reluctant to take issue with their counterparts from the old powers.  

With Indian cricket now being the engine that drives the game which was once their preserve including the veto right, the old powers have latched on to the pitches in India to make an issue of.

As of writing this column the Perth Test match has ended in less than two days with 32 wickets having fallen, including 19 on the first day, but as yet there’s not a word of criticism about the pitch there. Last year too, 17 wickets fell on Day One at Perth between India and Australia, and I can’t recall a critical word about the pitch which had more grass on it than usual. The same was in Sydney where 15 wickets fell on Day One. The argument, as enumerated by the curator in Perth last year, was ‘this is Perth, Australia, and you will get bounce’. Fine, but then when the pitch affords turn, why can’t it be accepted that this is India, and there will be turn. If you complain about the bounce, then the counter argument is you can’t play fast bowling. Why is there never a counter argument that you can’t play spin bowling when the pitch affords turn in India?

Human error vs cheating

Is it the old syndrome of mistake being made by their umpires being called human error, while those errors made by sub-continent umpires was cheating? So similarly, is it that the curators there have no agenda, but those in India do? It’s good to see some of our recently retired cricketers asking questions about 19 wickets falling in a day.

So guys, it’s time to stop pointing fingers at Indian cricket as there are three of the same hand pointing back at you.

Professional Management Group