Tony Becca | A few lessons from ‘Down Under’

After the storm usually comes a lull, and so, we hope, that after the embarrassment of Australia will come not only a lull, but a long-lasting one.

A few weeks ago, cricket went through a disappointing and embarrassing time in South Africa, and three players, including the Australian captain and the Australian vice-captain, were sent home and later banned from cricket for up to one year.

The initial charge was ball tampering, a charge that was later turned into premeditation and cheating by Australia, and the penalty moved up from the ICC's maximum of one month to Australia's sentence of one year from cricket.

Some people have queried, not the charge, but the severity of the penalty, citing the inclusion of first-class cricket and remembering that the players are all professional cricketers.

The query seems justified, especially moving from a one-match ban to a one-year ban from cricket.

With due respect to that school of thought, however, the more important thing at this moment is the state of cricket, and, especially, the present reputation of the game.

Once known as the "gentleman's game", cricket has been losing its aura of decency and civility over the years, especially recently, and is in need of a soul-searching exercise and a genuine attempt to change its course.

The hope is that as bad as it was, the incident in South Africa will serve as the wind of change.

For too long, the Australians have been allowed to stretch the line of sportsmanship as their arrogance has gone too far on many occasions. In fact, a few people had called for the penalties to include members of Cricket Australia who turned a blind eye during the build-up to this incident, those people but who are now dishing out punishment because they are embarrassed.

As far as I am concerned, however, and in my experience, all the other countries, bar none, followed the Australian example to a degree, especially when they were winning.

It was as if they were simply following what the Aussies were doing, or they believed that that was the way that winners behaved, or should have behaved.

Once up on a time, the umpires' decision was final. Once up on a time, it was believed to be so, except in Australia. Once up on a time also, based on my experience, the feeling by every country was so in every other country, bar none.

Ironically, since the coming of television replays and the use of the fourth umpire, dissent at umpires' decisions has become, sometimes, probably even more prominent than before.

Players shrug their shoulders and do all sorts of things when they are given out to suggest that they are not out. They also do all sorts of things to suggest that they have taken catches when they have not, and players do all sorts of things to show their displeasure at umpires while in the field and especially so when appealing for leg before wicket.

They abuse opposition players, they bump into the opposition players, and they curse opposition players, and their families, in the most obscene way, all in the name of sledging.

 

TAP ON THE WRIST

 

They have, from time immemorial, among other things, tampered with the ball, either by using vaseline, lotion, finger nails, bottle stoppers, and recently, sandpaper, with the umpires, team officials, and the ICC not doing anything except, until recently, giving a slight tap on the wrists of the offenders.

Cricket has lost its lustre, and it is not Test cricket alone. It is all through cricket.

Batsmen have been seen protesting and standing at the crease for a while before slowly meandering off, and batsmen has been seen to whack all three stumps out of the ground, all in dissent of umpiring decisions.

At Melbourne recently, during the Under-15 regional tournament, a Trinidadian bowler ran out the non-striker for backing up too far to get the last wicket of the Leeward Islands' innings, and the players ran around the field in utter ecstasy.

For those who believe that cricket is truly a "gentleman's game", the time to act is now, remembering that out of little things grow big things and also that what is allowed to blossom in school cricket and club cricket blooms in Test cricket.

It would be good to remember also that a national representative is obligated to represent the people creditably and that a captain is responsible for many things. As a captain, he is expected to know cricket, but as a leader, he is expected to understand his role and lead his charges, not only in cricket, but also in protecting the integrity of his country.

Roy Simpson, the manager of Jamaica's senior men's football team, wrote recently: "Players need to understand that once you are called to a national squad and put on the national colours, you have a responsibility to represent the people of Jamaica. So the way they carry and conduct themselves must be reflective of such a responsibility."

I will for a long time remember the emotions, and the tears, of Smith and Warner in the aftermath of their error. It was a far cry from the swagger of their glory days, especially those of Warner.

It was a humbling experience for Smith, Warner, and Bancroft, and that should serve as a reminder to cricketers, and sportsmen, for generations to come.

For too long, sportsmen, many of them, have behaved like they were God's gift to all and sundry, not realising that as great as they may be, they are ambassadors of their country, and in some cases, in small and sometimes poor countries, they represent nations looking for a place in the sun.

Regardless of a country's size or wealth, however, sportsmen and sportswomen should remember that to whom much is given, much is expected, especially by the people they represent.