by The disgraceful manner in which Aussie media treated Lankan cricketers
By David Colin-Thome
Following Sri Lankas recent and second consecutive disastrous tour of
Australia, it was interesting to note that the Sri Lankan Press Association
has lodged a formal complaint against their brethren in Australia. Whilst
this action is commendable, they should not be holding their breath waiting
for a reply in the form of an apology - certainly not after the disgraceful
manner in which the Australian media treated the touring Sri Lankan team, and
in particular, Muttiah Muralitharan and Arjuna Ranatunga.
If the Sri Lankan Captain, Arjuna Ranatunga, in cricketing terms, shattered
every ICC code of conduct law in his defence of Muralitharan, in human
terms, he achieved in twelve minutes what peace talks could not achieve in a
decade. The images of this proud Sinhalese man, vigorously standing up for
his young Tamil team-mate under siege, would have brought a tear to even the
most earnest Tamil separatists eyes. Ranatunga did not become petulant
because he got a rough decision that cost him his wicket or his team a loss.
Ranatunga stood up against a perceived threat to his team-mate, team and
country. He was shot down by the Australian press and public for acting in a
trait that Australians pride themselves on - "standing by a mate". In a
recent television interview, when posed the question on Ranatungas
behaviour, Mark Waugh to his eternal credit, remarked that Arjuna stood up
for a team-mate and was left with not much choice. In similar circumstances,
Australians would not have accepted anything less from their past greats like
Ian Chappell, Alan Border or even the more diplomatic Mark Taylor.
After Ranatungas confrontation with umpire Emerson, in criticising
Ranatunga, a frequent claim in Australia was, "we were always taught that
the umpires word was law". All this is very noble, but obviously the fine
print states that this only applies to umpires in England and Australia, or
else the other umpires, particularly from the subcontinent, must have been
granted a special exemption from this grand virtue. How else could one
otherwise explain the numerous John McEnroe" impersonations by teams from
England and Australia on past tours of the subcontinent? Have not these two
nations threatened to take their bat and ball and go home midway through a
tour of the subcontinent?
A recent example of this double standard was when the England Captain, Alec
Stewart told us that in England, too, they are taught about accepting the
umpires decision (Messrs. Illingworth and Gatting must have been playing
truant on the day of this particular lesson). When Mike Gatting had his
infamous finger pointing dispute with the Pakistani umpire, Shakoor Rana,
who Gatting accused of cheating, what kind of disciplinary action did he face
from the English authorities, the then TCCB? The only book they threw at
Gatting was the cheque book`. The TCCB paid Gatting and the whole team an
additional 1000 each, at the end of this tour, and provocatively called it
"a hardship-tour bonus". The fact is that no touring Australian or English
team, no matter how many real or imagined umpiring decisions went against
them, or how unpalatable their perception of the situation was, can profess
to have encountered, even remotely, the gravity of the situation that
Ranatunga found himself in. The strength of character that Arjuna Ranatunga
displayed on the recent tour of Australia, in the face of unprecedented
pressure, was nothing short of awe inspiring. This was all the more so
because in a career rarity, he did not have by his side, particularly during
the height of the controversy, his long term friend and right hand man,
Aravinda de Silva.
When Stewart, perhaps with an eye for future employment, took on the role of
the Match Referee and condemned Ranatungas behaviour, the sweat from
Mahanamas chest was still glistening on his (Stewarts) shoulder. Mahanamas
action was not an act of aggression. It was at worst, a cynical act, more in
line with the Michael Schumacher School of Manocuvres. However, it is food
for thought that one cynical act from a Sri Lankan player was able to extract
the gladiatorial instincts of a group of men, who, for four months, behaved
like church mice in the face of verbal ***s and humiliating defeats at
the hands of the Aussies.
The negativity shown by large sections of the Australian cricket fans towards
Muralitharan and the more hostile attitude
towards Ranatunga is not hard to understand. They were fed by a frenzied and
totally inward looking media, whose
cricketing expertise I will leave for the experts to judge, but whose life
experience I would suggest, does not travel
beyond the SCG Members Bar. Unfortunately for the Australian public, the
number of well balanced media
personalities they are privy to could be counted on one hand, and even these
few were buried by the sheer weight of the
other mobs diatribe.
Robert Craddock, the Chief Cricket Writer for Sydneys Daily Telegraph, is
not one of those reporters that could be counted on one hand. Once, due to
an obvious lapse in concentration, he did write a positive piece about
Ranatunga, thereby shocking all those around him. However, his recovery was
swift, and in a summing up of the recently concluded cricket season, he
wrote about the "feuds of the season". Amongst others, he ended it with "and
Arjuna Ranatunga versus the rest of the world". This is a typical sheltered
life attitude of the majority of the Australian media. What Craddock and
his ilk have not discovered yet, is that, the worlds population is a tad
more than 18 million, the North Pole is not Darwin and the South Pole not
Tasmania. More than a billion people in the subcontinent that see Ranatunga
as a hero can attest to this fact.
Following Sri Lankas controversial tour of Australia in 1995/96 and
particularly after their win in the 1996 World Cup, the Australian media
have created an unhealthy "us and them" situation, which has unfortunately
flowed on to their public. For example, Malcolm Knox covered Australias
last tour of Sri Lanka in 1996 for the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper. What
he saw were fanatical, hostile crowds against the Australians. In addition he
saw stray dogs and cattle, garbage on the streets and so on. Covering this
same tour was Ian Chappell, who reported in the Inside Edge magazine that
the crowds in Colombo were amongst the best behaved and entertaining in the
world. He also noted that Sri Lanka is an ideal country for Australia to
send their junior teams to as a part of their future development. A balanced
reporter like Chappell is someone who, whilst proudly standing below their
countrys flag, none the less reports events accurately as they unfold.
Certainly, in relation to the Australia/Sri Lanka cricketing relationship,
the majority of the Australian media has continued to run around with the
Aussie flag firmly attached to their eyebrows.
Off the field however, in the name of ratings and sales, no one can expect
to be spared - certainly, the truth is not going to get in the way of a good
story. Just look at the shameful manner in which the Ricky Ponting incident
was reported. If they could treat one of their own countrymen in this
manner, what chance does a foreign player have? The Australian public have
been taken for a huge ride by their media over the Muralitharan issue. The
media consistently peddled a litany of lies, myths and misinformation in a
most disturbing manner. To add credence to their harangue, they constantly
quoted a variety of so-called people "in the know", such as "Senior ACB
Officials", "past or current umpires", all of whom of course did not wish to
be identified. This is the most gutless, cowardly and unethical form of
reporting. If someone is not prepared to be identified, he simply should not
be quoted.
The answer to the question on the legitimacy of Muttiah Muralitharans
action should not be based on an allegiance to a country, team or
individual. Just as there are many Australians who believe Muralitharan is a
chucker because an Australian umpire said so, there are many Sri Lankans
who believe Muralitharan is legitimate simply because he is a Sri Lankan. An
"us and them" situation is definitely not the answer. What is required,
however, in line with that strongest of Australian ideals, is a "fair go" -
in other words, an impartial and equal chance at success.
There is no question that Muralitharans bowling action is very unorthodox
and was always going to raise a few eyebrows around the cricketing world. As
a consequence, Muralitharan was "no balled" by three Australian umpires in
1995/96. Everyone has his or her own theories regarding the events that
unfolded on that tour. However, what can be said about the course of action
these three umpires chose to follow is, at the time, there were no guidelines
or guidance from the ICC with regards to Muralitharans action - the umpires
were left to their own devices.
In the current context, umpire Ross Emersons decision to "no ball"
Muralitharan in January this year was inexcusable and intolerable, either by
the individual or the current system or both. As a consequence of
Muralitharan being "no balled" in 1995/96, an eminent ICC panel cleared his
basic action and pronounced it as legal. Their decision was based on video
footage and medical evidence, which enabled the panel to understand the
mechanics of Muralitharans action. The panel concluded that "No remedial
action was required". This certainly does not mean that Muralitharan or any
other bowler in a similar situation cannot subsequently bowl illegally, nor
does it mean that an umpire cannot "no ball" him in the future.
The burning question, then, should be whether the ICC
...
read more »