Tony Becca
The Test series between Australia and India is over and, after a tough fight, it ended in Australia's favour.
Although they lost, it showed that India is a strong team. Probably more importantly they won, it showed that Australia is not invincible.
The series, however, will not be remembered for the batting, bowling and fielding of either team - not for the batting of Matthew Hayden; not for the fast bowling of young Ishant Sharma, and especially so and more so, not for the batting of Sachin Tendulkar.
Unfortunately, the series between two of the toughest teams in cricket will be remembered for events in the second Test in Sydney.
Again not for anything to do with the bat and the ball but with the umpiring and a verbal clash on the field - the clash for which Harbhajan Singh of India was fined 75 per cent of his match fee and suspended for three Test matches.
At the appeal, the charge was reduced by Justice John Hansen from racism to abusive language, the fine reduced to 50 per cent of his match fee and the suspension lifted.
No consistent evidence
Harbhajan Singh
According to the judge - with some saying they heard this; some saying they heard that; some saying they heard nothing but Harbhajan using the word 'monkey' to Andrew Symonds; some saying they did not hear Symonds saying anything to Harbhajan before that; and some saying they heard Symonds using abusive language to Harbhajan, and with Symonds admitting that he did use abusive language to Harbhajan before Harbhajan's reply - there was no consistency in the evidence presented by the Australians and so he could not prove that Harbhajan did use the word 'monkey' to Symonds.
On top of that, in giving his evidence of what happened, Tendulkar, who it was proven was in a position to hear everything that went on, said that in answering Symonds, Harbhajan spoke, for a while, in his native language, that he used a term, teri maki, and that to any one who did not know the language, that could sound like 'big monkey'.
Based on the evidence, the verdict must have been the right one, and, obviously, it was applauded by the Indians.
The Australians, however, were hopping mad - to the point where they and England were the ones who unashamedly called the shots in cricket for many years, they accused India of sticking up the ICC, of threatening to end the tour if Harbhajan was not cleared of the racism charges, of going as far as to having a plane on standby to take their players home should in case the appeal went against Harbhajan, and they accused the ICC of surrendering to India's threats because of India's vast wealth.
The Australians, the man in the street and the players, have also nailed Cricket Australia for bowing to India because of money - because of the revenue expected from the tri-nation one-day limited-over series.
Did Harbhajan use the word 'monkey' and not teri maki it is strange that none of the Australian players heard anything but the word 'monkey', even though Tendulkar heard teri maki, an probably no one will ever know the truth, it is possible that in response to Symonds' taunting, Harbhajan did use the word 'monkey'.
Change their ways
What is important, however, is that cricket, and the ICC, learn from what happened in Sydney.
Cricket teams around the world, Australia and others, and including the West Indies, which believe that standing and not walking when one has touched the ball and the ball has been caught is not cheating, which believe that appealing for a catch when one knows that the batsman has not played the ball or that the catch was not taken cleanly is not cheating, and which believe that running down the pitch and surrounding the umpire like a pack of wolves is not cheating - is not putting undue pressure on the umpire - must be made to change their ways in the interest of the sport.
According to Symonds himself, what started the problem in Sydney was when fast bowler Brett Lee bowled a good yorker to Harbhajan. The Indian player managed to get his bat on the ball, the ball went away to fine-leg, and at the end of the over, in passing the bowler, Harbhajan, in a friendly gesture, in acknowledging a good delivery, patted Lee on the buttocks with his bat.
Symonds, in foul and abusive language, then told Harbhajan not to do that because he (Harbhajan) had no friends among Australians.
CIVILITY IN THE GAME
What is really interesting, however, was Symonds' reply when the judge asked him why did he have objections to Harbhajan's action: "Did I have an objection? My objection was that a Test match is no place to be friendly with an opposition player. That is my objection."
If that is really so, and remembering that cricket, including Test cricket, is only a sport, that players should be civil and do not have to be rude to each other in order to play well and to win, then God help cricket, and, more so, Symonds.
The third and fourth Test matches in Australia were well played by both teams. The players demonstrated that the game can be played hard but fairly. And remembering Ricky Ponting's part in the way Australia have been playing the game, apart from the selectors and the boards around the world who select the captains, it is the responsibility, the obligation of the ICC to see to it that the Test players, the professionals who are the heroes and the role models of the ordinary mortals who play the game, to conduct themselves in the true sprit of the game.
As far as the ICC is considered, the umpiring blunders in Sydney - the simple mistakes that led it to the unusual and unfortunate decision to replace Steve Bucknor - should make everyone appreciate the importance of getting as many decisions in Test cricket as right as possible. Therefore, an Bucknor does not believe it should be done, moves should be made as quickly as possible to use technology as much as possible.
The embarrassment of Sydney will be remembered for a long time. Out of it, however, could come some good - and especially so if the ICC acts and, without fear or favour, without going back to the old days, take the game away from hooligans, from those who believe they invented it and therefore own it.
