One tup rule a must: Ponting

Ricky Ponting, the spirited Australian captain (seen alongside, telling the umpire that both the batsmen are out), today urged the ICC's technical committee to consider the inclusion of the one tup catch in the official rules of cricket. Speaking to newspersons at a hastily called press conference, Ponting enthralled everyone with his latest views on the game and what the ICC needs to be do to ensure that Australia's winning streak continues.

"Its a wonderful thing mate. I saw it being put to good use by kids in one of the bylanes of a small city in India.", said Ponting. "The rules are loaded in favour of the batsman, mate. It would be great if we gave the fielding side some liberties", added Ponting as he waxed eloquent on this topic completely defiant of the fact that maybe the Australians had already used this to their advantage.

Investment banking expert, Nitesh "hookka" Naidu was quicker than ever to grab this opportunity to enlighten us with his views since this space hasnt been updated for so long. "Hmmmmm", he said, trying his best to sound pensive enough to impress a hot classmate. "I think It shouldnt be just one tup, but one tup one hand. That would just spice up things a little more", added Naidu, indirectly telling us that he is a batsman and also reducing Michael Clarke's tally of catches by one.

Moin Khan, the former Pakistani captain cried murder when he got to hear of this. "This is not correct. Ponting cant take credit for this. I had thought of this as long back as 1999 (Remember Chennai 1999 ? Saurav Ganguly ? aha now you remember.). These goras I tell you", he said sounding quite agitated.

Next on Ponting's list ?... Sledging may be ? Like they say - This is just not cricket.

On a more serious note, my views on the fiasco down under.
but first, Disclaimer:
If you are an Indian, you may not agree with all of what follows. But read on If you are the open minded types or really have some times on your hands.

There are a lot of issues about the Sydney test that can be subjected to careful dissection and as expected, have already been. The umpiring (including the TV umpire), Clarke's catch to dismiss Ganguly, Symonds scoring 162/3 in the first innings, Ponting 55/2, Sachin 154/1 and Hussey 145/1, Pontings appeal for a grounded catch, Rahul Dravid's dismissal in the second innings and the Bhajji-Symmo slugfest.The list is long indicating that although the Test match was a pulsating humdinger, it did mark five very sad days for the beautiful game.

I believe that those who think a batsman should walk when he knows he has knicked the ball to the keeper are excessively romantic and unrealistic. The reason I say so, is that such opportunities should be used to make up for the times when you dont knick one but are still given out (Rahul Dravid... Sydney Test. rings a bell ? ). If however a batsman has got an obvious edge. For example one that flies to the slips and he still waits for the umpires decision, then it better be a case where it is not absolutely clear that the catch was taken cleanly (Saurav Ganguly.. Sydney Test again). Then there are times when a batsman has got a thick outside edge and the ball flies to first slip who takes it close to chest high and the batsman waits. (Michael Clarke.. Oh My God, Sydney Test again. Remember ? What ? Yes he did. He waited !!!! cant believe it no ? ). This behaviour very simply stinks. And to then go to the press and act defiant - stinks more. Give it a thought, this is a guy who is tipped to lead Australia in the future.

Peter Roebuck, a cricket writer I respect a lot, may have been a bit too harsh in demanding the sacking of Ponting, but it just shows how far the Aussies were from the spirit of Cricket. Appealing vociferously when you have grounded the ball or appealing when as a keeper you can clearly see the ball brush the pad and not the bat and then top it with denial, smacks of arrogance. Roebuck calls for Pontings head because he thinks Ponting has damaged the reputation of the Australian team and embarrassed the Australian public with their on-field behaviour. Good point, Mr. Roebuck. But, dont you think, if Cricket Australia was bothered about the reputation of their cricket team, they would have sacked him long back. Do you really think Ponting and his men have been arrogant and unpleasant in this one test only ? What did the Australian people think when the Aussies pushed Mr. Sharad Pawar, the chief of the BCCI and a Union Minister in the Govt. of India, off the podium in Mumbai ? Did they still think Ponting and his men were good ambassadors for their country ? Ponting may have been the best teenage batsman Rodney Marsh has ever seen and today, statistically, he has proved Rod Marsh right. But it all stops at that. Ponting is not a great of the game. Not in my books. Greats are wonderful players, the Bradmans, the Tendulkars, the Sobers, magicians when it comes to the game, but above all they maintain a certain humility about themselves, even when at their peak. Ponting lacks that quality. Infact he and the Australian team behave like this whenever their backs are against the wall, like a number of times in the Sydney Test.

Coming to the Harbhajan - Symonds issue, it is impossible to prove, given the evidence, whether Bhajji called Symonds a monkey or not. The reason that the Indians are peeved is that Procter's decision is a case of one man's word being used against the other. Why did he believe Hayden and Clarke and not Sachin Tendulkar ? Monkey is a word that has no racist connotation associated with it in India. At best, It is seen as a feeble attempt at insulting somebody, though definitely not his race. In Australia it is taken as racist. But then the Indians too, dont take to the word "Bastard" as easily as the Australians do, do they? Then why not pull up Brad Hogg for this ? There is definitely a cultural disconnect here and Mike Procter should have considered this. It is an issue the ICC itself should look at closely. What is insulting in a way that can hurt sentiments in one country is sometimes light banter in the other


Coming to the point because of which I have the disclaimer in place above. I do believe Mr. Steve Bucknor's umpiring has been well below par over the last 2-3 years and unfortunately the Indians have been at the receiving end most of the times. Infact, Sachin took longer than expected to reach his 34th Test century thanks to Mr. Slow Death. However, I dont think it was right to call for his removal from the third Test. Short-sightedness is a very dangerous problem that can affect people and institutions very easily. Unfortunately the BCCI and the ICC have been affected by this for a long time. Replacing Bucknor has set a very dangerous precedent and may kick off a disturbing trend. Whenever a side feels hard done by the Umpiring, they will call for the umpire's head and the game will take a backseat. Being the richest and the most powerful Cricket Board, the BCCI should be expected to behave more responsibly and in the greater good of the game. Having said this, I do understand why Team India, with seasoned players and highly respected seniors like Tendulkar, Kumble, Ganguly and Dravid have responded in the way they have. These guys have been around for years now and have seen how different Indian teams have been treated over the years. To be frank Team India has got a raw deal from most match referees. Ganguly has been pulled up on numerous occasions for the slightest show of dissent but Ponting can wait at the crease staring at the umpire for an eternity before walking off the field banging his bat on the boundary lines. Sehwag and practically half the team was pulled up for excessive appealing, but the Australian team got away with it in the Sydey Test didnt they ? Michael Slater went finger pointing at the square leg umpire and used the choicest vocabulary to urge Dravid to walk. And what did he get - docked 50% of his match fees and a one Test suspension over a six month period (Meaning if he transgressed in that six month period, the ban would take effect). Andre Nel can get away with anything on the pitch, but Shreesanth is docked for shaking a leg. I think the seniors who have seen this for so many years were not prepared to take things lying down again and for them enough was enough. So all those who think that in removing Bucknor, the ICC has buckled down to a board that is awash with money and power, you may be right, but there is enough evidence that the Indian team has been hard done by in the past. Therefore In my humble opinion, India's frustration with Bucknors sudden incompetence over the last few years is justified, but pressurising the ICC to quash his appointment for the next Test is not justified. The BCCI should have waited for the series to get over and forced the ICC to take extraordinary measures to bring his incompetence to book. Surely it has the clout to do so.

Finally, I hope India plays the Perth Test because, if not anything else, we will be remembered for this. It would be such a massive achievement If India can pull off something special at Perth. Those cynics who think Perth, being the fastest wicket in the world, will afford India no chance of a favourable result must mind one thing. India has started playing well away from home since around 2001 and it hasnt played at Perth post 2001. Therefore it isnt entirely fair to go by India's performance at Perth in Tests before 2001. But it is going to be difficult and it will truly test the character of this team. Hopefully this crisis will serve to bring the team closer rather than distract them and a victory at Perth will make it a memorable final series in Australia for the seniors.


For Restaurant reviews, online table booking and online ordering in Pune, check out TastyKhana