Defeat of the winners

How does a kid who has cheated in an exam, but has yet topped, feel about the result? I am not in the know. Though I cannot claim to have never cheated, I have never topped!

Well, the Aussies would be your best bet to answer that question. Everybody saw what happened at the SCG against India. 7 decisions went against India (were they really 7? Or more than that? I have actually lost count). Oh yea, one can claim that 1 decision went against the Aussies too. But, 7:1 is a poor ratio at any given time. Not only were the umpires at fault, but there is no doubt in any body's mind that the cheating Aussie side had an equally important role to play.

More importantly, it were the players who were given not out (when they were actually out), and those given out (when they were actually not out) that cost India the match.

• Symonds was given not out thrice (worst being, by the third umpire who can use all the technology available, just to declare a batsman not out when he is actually in the otherwise).
• Ponting was given not out when everybody in the stadium heard the nick to the wicketkeeper. Yea, well he was given out finally on 55 when he wasn't, but that did do India a lot of damage as he was on 17 when he had nicked the ball, only to be given not out.
• Jaffer was bowled of a no-ball. But, the umpire decided to enjoy Lee's brilliant yorker and forget that he had actually bowled a no-ball. However, this is just a decision that umpires can get wrong even on a normal day and given Jaffer's batting form, it surely didn't affect the result of the game.
• Dravid, The Wall, who was finally playing nicely, was given out caught behind when he had his bat nowhere near the ball.
• Ganguly (my man!) was given out when Clarke had actually grassed his catch. The remorseful fact about this decision is that the umpire Mark Benson, decided to ask the fielder and his captain whether he had caught the ball cleanly. Did he forget that he actually had a partner in Steve Bucknor at square-leg and another one in Bruce Oxenford sitting in an AC room upstairs whom he could have consulted? Well, in a game where all three umpires faulted, I don't think either of the three would have given the correct decision.

There is not even an iota of doubt in my mind that India would have easily won the game had it not been for the blind and deaf umpires (who could neither hear nor see the proceedings) and for the Aussies who claim to have played in the spirit of the game. How can they claim to be playing "gentlemanly" (and how can the umpires take their word to make decisions) when Ponting and Clarke had not walked when they both had clearly edged the ball while batting? Although I have nothing against them for not walking, they cannot claim to make right decisions while fielding and forget all about it while batting. Like Clarke, Ponting too had clearly grassed and had blatantly appealed to a ball that had popped-up of Dhoni's pad (fortunately) and not his bat. Had he edged it, I am sure the umpires would have ignored that he had grounded the catch.

To add to that, Harbhajan was belted with a 3 test ban for allegedly making racist comments on Symonds. I would not have believed had Harbhajan claimed to have done no wrong. Coz, he is known to be notorious. But when Tendulkar, who was with Harbhajan during the incident, claims that nothing wrong was said, one cannot but just believe his word. Sachin, after all, is the Gandhi of the game of cricket. But when his testimony was not paid heed to during the hearing, it triggered an un-Sachin like call from him, asking the team to back out from the tour (well, thats the news on TV right now). And, when Sachin does that, one just cannot say that it was not Bhajji, but Symonds who was playing foolish and had lied during the hearing.

Ponting has gone on record saying that no one should question is integrity. Well, his integrity is for everyone to see. And Clarke too, who grassed Ganguly's catch, said that he was 100% convinced that he had cleanly completed the catch. (Yea, the videos lied, didn't they?). But he must seriously be joking when he said that both the parties suffered coz of the wrong umpiring decisions. Which two parties is he talking about? Perhaps, the Indian Batting Party and the Indian Bowling Party. If he means India and Australia, he could be sent as a next candidate for the Great Indian Laughter Challenge.

Fortunately for India, every bit of the proceedings was captured on camera and presented to the world. The Aussie media and the Aussies in general are said to be blaming the Australian team for not playing with the spirit of the game. Therein lies the DEFEAT OF THE WINNERS. They are known to do all that it takes to win matches, but to do ANYTHING to win it...its not what a champion side should be made of.

Never in his career, spanning around 18 years, have I ever seen Anil Kumble so disturbed and angry. He has always taken all things - good and bad - in his stride. All the joys, sorrows, triumphs and disappointments with the same smiling face. But his anger was there to be seen. Not through words, but his eyes spoke it all. Perhaps the loudest cheers came during the press conference when he said, "I think only one team played with the spirit of the game." So right he was! He was not defeated. He was wronged.

P.S.: Would have loved to see how things would have shaped up had this episode occurred 4 years back when Ganguly was at his peak as a captain. Though I have high regard for Kumble for the way he has conducted himself during the aftermath of the test, it would have been really interesting to see how Ganguly would have reacted. Theres no doubt that there would have been a lot many swear words used. He was a captain who stood by his side through thick and thin. A particular incident that comes to mind is when Sachin Tendulkar was accused of ball-tampering against South Africa. Steve Waugh, the then-Aussie captain, had unnecessarily said that Tendulkar is at fault (when he actually wasn't). Ganguly had at that time, in a TV interview said, 'Steve Waugh should rather SHUT UP and concentrate on the conduct of his team'. A man who could dare shut the mouth of a legend named Steve Waugh...well, he can do anything then! Perhaps, the Aussies would not have dared to play such a shitty game had he been the captain...