Cricket is a ?gentleman?s game? or is it? Plain and simple abuse on the field of play can hardly be considered gentlemanly! In fact, what is being passed on as banter by the English players is direct, below the belt abuse and should be condemned in the harshest possible terms. For if such a thing is allowed, the much clich?d ideal of the ?spirit of the game? will soon become a complete non-starter.
Banter and needling has always been part of cricket. Fast bowlers looking the batsman in the eye, almost going up to the batsman on the follow through after bowling him a vicious bouncer and even giving him a smirk has always added to the intensity of battle in the 22-yard strip. However, it is only recently that such needling has turned into outright abuse, using the worst language at each other. Such acts, unfortunate and unnecessary, will only result in creating long term enmity among players.
On several occasions during India?s tour of England did Indian players draw attention to this facet of the English game. James Anderson, more than anyone else, we were told was continuously abusing the Indians while bowling. Skipper M S Dhoni even took a dig at the English after the Ian Bell incident saying spirit of the game should not only be restricted to such acts and should be adhered to at all times. But with the English all over India, aspersions cast against Anderson sounded more like an excuse. After all he was tormenter in chief.
In the current series things have now reached a tipping point. With the English fast losing grip and staring at a complete rout, Tim Bresnan and company have stepped up to take Anderson?s place. Almost every Indian batsman is being abused and this simply can?t be passed off as banter. It is outright vulgar behaviour not befitting of cricketers and the Indian team will do well to report it to the umpires. Questioning someone?s parentage shouldn?t and doesn?t qualify as banter in any culture and by allowing the English to get away will only be a disservice to the game in the long run.
The contrast is interesting. On the one hand, the Indian captain keeps refuting the concept of a ?revenge series? saying such words shouldn?t be used in sport. On the other the English keep hurling abuses at Indian batsmen. Clearly one team is playing in accordance with the spirit of the game.
Some have argued that the best answer to such behaviour is being given by the Indians on the field of play. Beating the English fair and square is the best retort. It isn?t. It is the act of allowing such behaviour to pass that constitutes an act of disservice to the game. It will only encourage future cricketers to abuse; new codes of behaviour that cricket can do without.
To make one thing clear: I am fully in favour of on-field banter. A few words add to the fun of watching a high intensity battle. It helps add spice and make the cricketers look human, men giving their very best and playing with passion in a charged atmosphere. That?s what we pay to see. It is only when this fine line is breached that things turn unacceptable. Swearing at each other isn?t sport, it is vulgarity. Trying to get under each other?s skin doesn?t necessarily require one to swear at the other, for if it does then god save cricket in the future.
We keep hearing the ICC has a zero tolerance attitude towards racism. Abuse doesn?t constitute racism but it does constitute a clear breach of acceptable on-field behaviour and one wonders how long it will be before the ICC decides on reacting. May be Mumbai can be a start. If the Indians file an official complaint the match referee has to get into the act. And given we aren?t sore losers anymore the complaint will only add salt to the English wounds. It will be a perfect comeback on and off the field. Even if such a complaint is only a symbolic act it will send a clear message to future cricketers?the game is still (and the word still is important here) a ?gentleman?s game?.
The writer is a sports historian