Not many might have missed last week's drama erupted over Gautam Gambhir's run-in with what seemed like the entire Australian team but Watson and Katich in particular. To be honest it was highly entertaining and adrenaline pumping to see an Indian dishing out the stuff at the same rate as he was getting it, all the while not losing his cool and going on to make a superb and counterattacking 200. The sight of Watson mimicking to obstruct Gambhir and removing his hand at the last moment only to get back the same with interest only seconds later brought a smile to my face. But things as they stand now, he is all set to miss the fourth test at Nagpur following the 1 test ban on him by match referee Broad.
I am personally not a big fan of the Sreesanth, Harbhajan or for that matter Zaheer's brand of aggression. Seeing Sreesanth beating the groung with his hands in T20 was probably as irritating for me as it would have been for Hayden (ok, exaggeration). In the same tournament Harbhajan could be seen mouthing (if not shouting hoarse"F*** South Africa" after the match was over and no matter how much we kid ourselves about "maa ki" most in our hearts know what Bhajji said to Mr. Symonds in that Sydney test. Zaheer too could have easily avoided some needless show of aggro in the World Cup finals that actually hampered his own rhythmn. Also it is embarrassing to see Zaheer mouth of some niceties to Englishmen only to see them giggling to themselves because they just don't get what he is saying!!
These are all cases of people not sticking to their game but that was not the case with Gambhir. Gambhir is a naturally aggressive player (almost to a fault), infact Mike Hussey compared him to Justin Langer as a plucky character on field despite the size (he went on to add that Gambhir looks to pick fights with opposition). Also unlike the current crop of Indian cricketers he is pretty comfortable with the English language, I suspect that's where the trouble lies. Gambhir not only understood the abuses that the Australians were hurling at him but true to his aggressive nature started giving the same back to them and boy were'nt the Aussies cheesed off !
It does'nt take a lip reader to decipher Gambhir's words of wisdom directed at Simon Katich and company. But they were no more than what was being hurled at him that day. The fact that Refree Broad found such sort of a atmosphere on the field acceptable is baffling! Yes it's true that Gambhir let the moment have the better of him, but frankly I would love to see the reaction of certain Aussies under a similar type of verbal assault. If Mr Katich is anything to go by, being called a "F***ing Cheat" almost got him to trade blows with Gambhir but for Clarke's intervention.
Which brings us to the issue of defining assault on a player. Is ICC as a cricket body so rigid on keeping such a distinction between verbal and physical assault? Fans will recollect a scene where Glen Mc Grath lost his cool in a verbal duel with Ramnaresh Sarwan and spat just next to batsman to vent his anger. Now the by ICC standards, such an incident went unpunished!! Imagine the humiliation and anger that Sarwan had to swallow to continue from there on and concentrate on his job of scoring runs, Gambhir unlike Sarwan did not think he had to cope with such trash and gave it back to Watson who was continuously needling him prior to the elbow gesture.
It was also surprising how ICC when punishing Gambhir used the phrase "Cricket is no-contact sport" while the match umpires Bowden and Rauf did not report the Katich incident under the same clause! Just like Gambhir unsuccessfully disguised his elbowing of Watson on the pretext of taking a run, Katich too was faking to have lost balance and leaning on Gambhir so as to prevent the single. True it did not hurt Gambhir nor was it meant to but it could have resulted in Laxman getting run out. I am pretty sure Aussies would have appealed for it despite Katich's tactics. Why was then Katich condoned off a similar charge ? He was clearly touching Gambhir when he had no business to and then did not have the spirit to take a few words from Gambhir on the chin.
Ishant Sharma admitted in an interview that when Brett Lee called him a "cowboy" for swinging his bat at the fast bowler he had to go to Sachin Tendulkar and ask him the meaning of the word cowboy!! Ishant's candid admission is just a reflection of India's new crop of players who are coming from Meerut, Kerala, Haryana , Najafgarh and of course Ranchi. What do you expect from these players when faced with a barrage of abuses from a team they have grown up admiring? They sooner or later will retort back and retort they will with the way they have grown up playing, where personal abuses are as bad a punch in the stomach. That's the way it is, it's India for godssake! Now why should their retort be treated any differently to the means Aussies employ under the garb of "tough but fair" cricket. They have every right to be offended by these words as Aussies are offended by Gambhir's actions. How ICC is justified in treating one party's grievance as authentic by fining Watson only 10 % Match fees and banning Gambhir!
It's ironic that at a time Gilchrist is harping in his book on the fascinating difference in cultures between India and Australia, his team and ICC are bent on painting one culture as unsporting and ugly while letting the other thrive as it's tough but fair.
PS:
- This piece is too short to mention the various on field ugly banter the Aussies have been involved in, sparing no one from West Indies to England, will compile them sometime later.
- Meanwhile Aussies are upset that Gambhir has been charged with a Level 2 offence (they wanted Level 3),
- Watson had pleaded not guilty to any provocation at the hearing where Gambhir pleaded guilty and was handed the one match ban (fair if seen as stand alone case of repeated physical contact, earlier being with Afridi)
