There was a statement by the ICC on Monday about the match-fixing allegations in the Sydney Test between Australia and Pakistan early this year that puzzled me. According to the ICC. its officers were fully involved in scrutinising this Test, during play and after it was finished, and they came to the conclusion that it was above board.
Just to refresh a few memories: Australia was 200 runs behind on the first innings and only a few runs in front when the ninth-wicket batsman, Peter Siddle, came in to join Michael Hussey at the crease. These two pushed the score on, mainly by safe singles, to 381, an extremely big score for the third innings of the Test.
This score gave Australia a lead of 175.
At the time, I wrote on The Roar that I was deeply suspicious of the field settings, which put no pressure on either batsman during this second Australian innings. At no point were the batsmen confronted with fieldsman around their bats. They were able to push and prod their way towards high scores: in Siddle’s case 38 off 117 balls (he has a Test average of 16), with Hussey 134 not out off 284 balls.
Australia’s fightback in this third innings was helped by the wicket-keeper suffering from a case of the dropsies, with four catches being dropped from the defiant pair and an earlier run-out being spilled.
It’s history now that Pakistan were bowled out for 139, giving Australia a famous (or as it must be regarded now, an infamous) victory by 36 runs.
Fourth innings, of course, can be tricky things.
Usually when a team collapses as Pakistan did it is because the wicket has deteriorated badly. But the Sydney wicket actually improved as the Test progressed.
Australia scored at a rate of 2.86 runs an over in the first inning. Pakistan scored at a rate of 3.44 in its first innings. Australia’s rate in the second innings, even though the last pair especially played in a defensive manner, was 3.03. And in its last innings, Pakistan scored its runs at the best rate of the entire Test, at a very fast 3.66 runs an over.
Ian Chappell has summed up this Test very well. It showed that Pakistan was “either the worst cricket” or “the best at match-fixing.”
We know from its play in the first two days of the Test, and many other subsequent performances, that Pakistan is actually a strong team. So Chappell’s other supposition must come into play.
The failure of the ICC officials to have serious concerns about the way Pakistan played this Sydney Test, even when it seemed likely that something grubby was going on, reminds me of a Father Brown detective story written by G.K.Chesterton.
Father Brown was asked to solve a curious case that involved a prediction that an upper class gentleman was going to be murdered in his house. The house had been surrounded day and night, with no one being allowed to enter it. The next day the police entered the house to find the gentleman murdered.
Father Brown studied all the evidence and decided, correctly, that a milk man had committed the murder. As Father Brown pointed out, those guarding the house, with their class consciousness at work, did not regard or even see a milk man as an actual ‘person.’
Chesterton was the genius of the paradox. His point of his story is that, sometimes, something is so obvious, it is not so obvious at all.
This paradox applies, in my opinion, for the Sydney Test. The probability that there was some rigging going on in the Sydney Test is so obvious that the ICC was moved to believe that it was not obvious at all.
It has taken a newspaper with ingenuity, money and guts to do what the ICC should have done some time ago.
The News of the World is sometimes affectionately called by its readers, because of its addiction to sex scandles, as The Screws of the World. Its sting of the Pakistan player agent, Mazhar Majeed, who happened to be in Sydney during the Test, should have been an ICC operation.
The sting put on by the News of the World discovered some alleged cheating indulged in by Pakistani players during the recent Tests against England. The accuracy of the predictions made (and paid for) about when no-balls were going to be bowled, however, is as convincing a proof that the authorities need that rigging is widespread throughout the game, even in Tests like the one played at Sydney.
And if this is the case, this sort of corruption will destroy the game by forcing cricket to become a sport whose results can be manipulated by terrorist groups and corrupt bookmakers.
If readers think this is a bit alarmist they need to read Jamie Pandaram’s article on this topic ‘Spot-fixing leaves a stain on sports that will be hard to eradicate’ in Monday’s Sydney Morning Herald.
Pandaram makes a number of worrying claims and assertions.
Bob Woolmer, the former coach of Pakistan, may have been murdered because he was going to expose match-fixing.
Dawood Ibrahaim, one of the most-wanted terrorists, is apparently linked with illegal bookmakers. Ibrahaim has links to Osama bin Laden. Bookmakers, it seems, make fixes with some of the players.
They then place bets based on these fixes with other bookmakers. One Indian bookmaker caught by such a sting who refused to pay up was found chopped to pieces.
Big money is involved.
It has been suggested, for instance, that something like $A400 million is gambled on each major Test or ODI in India alone. And remember, too, that Majeed boasted to the News of the World that he had earned $1.3 million from fixing the Sydney Test.
While I was thinking about all this, I had a Father Brown moment.
I’ve never believed that the objection by the Indian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan, West Indian, South African and Zimbabwean authorities to the possibility of John Howard becoming head of the ICC was based on the fact that he had been a politician and that he had questioned Murali’s bowling action.
It now seems to me to very clear that the real objection lay in the fact that Howard might just be the man with the inclination and the political talents to clean up cricket. For all the criticisms of Howard, it has to be said that he has always been prepared to take tough actions to prevent things he sees as great evils.
He confronted irate members of the gun lobby, for instance, at a mass meeting wearing a bullet proof vest.
He told them that his government was going to enforce a buy-back of firearms and exercise much stronger controls than in the past. The gun lobby never forgave him. But research has just come out that his stringent gun laws have saved 200 people from committing suicide a year in Australia.
There are calls for an official investigation into the Sydney Test.
This is really scratching the surface of the problem. Ian Chappell reckons that ‘corruption is rife’ in cricket. Clearly the surveillance regime imposed by the ICC is not working.
Something more substantial and effective is needed.
The solution, if there is a solution, is obvious. John Howard, a cricket tragic in the best sense of the word and a fearless politician, should be asked to chair a well-funded commission that investigates the full extent of corruption in the game. He should then be given the resources to put his commission’s recommendations into practice.
Newspaper investigations can expose the rottenness that is eating away at the integrity of cricket. Only the game itself can clean up the mess, if it has the will to do so. The time to do this is right now.
And cricket has the man who can do this.
MarkR
Guest
I'm also curious what power he would've had to change things. One of the keys of a good 'corporate change maker' is to be able to get buy in from different parties with differing goals. Personally I found Howard the politician quite divisive with people either loving him or hating him with a passion. While I'm sure that everything he did he believed was in the best interest of Australia I'm curious how effective he would've been in the ICCC as he most likely would not have had the support of a large prtion of it's power base.
ilikedahoodoogurusingha
Guest
Exactly Mark R......everyone seems to have forgotten that initially New Zealand didn't want him either.
Mick Gold Coast QLD
Roar Guru
You are very kind Bayman. I'm not attracted to equivocation however a man who loudly asserts his view without good foundation is a fool, readily desptached over open sights. On Mandela - the young have been lead to believe all manner of wondrous things, excluding the history of a seriously unpleasant mob, the ANC, and their seriously even more unpleasant military wing. They see the world through an awfully distorted prejudiced prism. Intelligent people understand fixed attitudes and immoveable stances change over time, even their own! The symbolism of Mandela and Pienaar's very public genuine affection, mutual respect and leadership in 1995 was a powerful influence on shifting attitudes of those around them at that time. The gods couldn't have scripted those few days any better for what was needed then.
OhMyGodTheChips
Roar Rookie
No thanks.
OhMyGodTheChips
Roar Rookie
Nice logic there.
Klinger
Guest
Peter, Peter, Peter. There have been a number of Roar articles on the ICC/Howard issue and it is clear that correspondents' attitudes are shaped largely by their polics. Yours takes the cake for vitriol and bile as well as false assertions. Howard does have a genuine passion for cricket. Some years before he became leader of the Libs I saw him scoring for his son's team in an under 15s or 16s school match virtually incognito. There were no additional votes in it for him as the few parents present would have been died in the wool coalition voters in any event, or mostly from outside his electorate. I was told by someone there that this was something he often did, unlike most other parents. If that observation of yours is so obviously based on prejudice and not reality, what credibility attaches to the balance of your article.
Cattledog
Roar Guru
Good post Bayman...perhaps should have been an article in its own right! Agreed, great opening line...the Keating Commentary!
Bayman
Guest
May I just say that Mick Gold Coast QLD has delivered not just one but two of my favourite posts on the Roar. All I can say about his opening line from Keating is - I wish I had written that. As for Howard and the ICC I tend to agree that most comments seem to have been made on party lines. Whether he's the right man or not doesn't really matter. He didn't get the gig and he won't ever get it. Perhaps our northern neighbours (I'm trying to ignore the disgrace that is Zimbabwe) just didn't like the fact he was pushed down their throats after we sabotaged the Kiwi - who just might have got the job. The racist calls are just a convenient smokescreen. I am also indebted to Peter Gregory. Until now I wasn't aware that Nelson Mandela was released just so South Africa could get back on the international cricket and rugby field. Politics and sport perhaps shouldn't mix but they do. Largely, I suppose, because we (mostly) all love sport and we are obliged to take an interest in politics or suffer the consequences. Countries do, after all, get the governments (and the public service) they deserve. And Pete, accusing John Howard of just being interested in John Howard and maintaining government is a bit like accusing Ricky Ponting of deliberately making a century, or a bowling change, just because he wants to win. I'm sure you're right but why on earth would you be wrong? Hawke and Keating weren't interested in maintaining power? Nobody plays to lose, Pete, unless of course you're Pakistani. On the racism issue, one thing has always fascinated me. The subject only ever seems to get raised in relation to white folk and their dealings with black/brown folk. And always in terms of a perceived white supremacy. Why so? Howard is racist based on his colour (and apparent record/beliefs) but those who rejected him are not (based on his colour/record/beliefs)? Does anyone really think the tragedy in Rwanda a few years ago was not racially motivated? Or the traditional Indian treatment of the so-called "Untouchables"? It's easy to point the finger at a "white" person and cry racist if his antangonist is black but why isn't the reverse also true. Or do folk like Peter Gregory and Stuff Happens think only white people can be racist (thereby sub-conciously perpetuating the perception and myth of white supremacy). For example, if a white man mistreats a black man it's racism. The reverse is just the black man fighting back from years of suppression. The very idea of that suggests the black man is still suppressed and the white man is still superior - thus perpetuating the myth. When the apologists can see both situations are the same we'll be further down the track to eliminating the problem. It may not be racism at all - maybe they just don't like each other. I'm sure you'll find a few white cricketers who will tell you that certain West Indian stars of days gone by were absolutely racist. Black and superior - with a liberal dose of getting even thrown in. Perceptions can be dangerous things as some English and Aussie batsmen found out. Let's be honest. Racism in one form or another has always existed and always will as long as their are different countries and different cultures. It does not have to be exclusively black vs white, or indeed, white vs black. If you think all Indian and Pakistani cricketers have had an equal and fair go at getting selected in their national teams you're kidding yourself. I just get monumentally annoyed at the racist card getting pulled out every time somebody takes exception to the behaviour of a Pakistani or an Indian or the ICC. It's not racism - it's just that most people genuinely believe the ICC and it's main body of supporters are corrupt and a waste of space. Not to mention an embarrassment to the game. Personally, I think Australia did itself no favours by pushing Howard at the expense of a very acceptable New Zealand candidate. It's a decision which will continue to hurt us down the track because it did reinforce the perception of Australia throwing its weight around. Is Howard racist? I don't know because I don't know the man but I seriously doubt it. In the end, it just doesn't matter because he failed to get the job - for whatever reason. Meanwhile, we are left with the sad joke that is the ICC and the power hungry and self-serving whores of the BCCI and the PCB. As for the game of cricket - good luck! P.S. For all those having a go at "Aussie" Spiro, just remember he's a New Zealander!
sledgeross
Guest
Pete, I dont think John Howard was evere a terrorist/freedom fighter though! Fly, I like some of your suggestions. The PCB handing power to a panel sounds like a fantastic idea, and I agree regarding Reid being "our" candidate. I do think though that Howard would have the necessary "gumption" to tackle the might of the non-Anglo voting bloc.
Cattledog
Roar Guru
At Griffith Uni, I believe? Well look after yourself, Mick, one of the teams will need your support!
Mick Gold Coast QLD
Roar Guru
I appreciate the compliment, Cattledog, however I am unworthy - the biggest sheila on the floodplain right now - four days - four days! in bed with the flu. The flu? That is most assuredly not honourable. I am nonetheless determined to watch the grand final on Saturday.
Cattledog
Roar Guru
That was 'Gold', Mick...but would expect nothing less!!
Mick Gold Coast QLD
Roar Guru
Nice one, Cattledog - a keen eye. brasso - you say "there is a need for a particular type of person here" and that's the truth. I'd be as happy to see a street brawler like Paul Keating in the job, if he was a cricket man. "Youse can all get stuffed for a start, ya dirty little money grubbin' mongrels - you want to play with the people's game? Eh? Eh? Which one of you gutless wonders wants to go first?" would be a fabulous opening line to the ICC executive from its new boss, and there are few who can deliver that with the fearlessness and effectiveness of that particular Bankstown boy. Sadly, I believe Howard or any experienced leader of calibre and capability is better off well away from it. The financial clout wielded by the power brokers in places north and north west of Australia is beyond the comprehension of those who've not seen it over there. The scene surrounding the ICC has gradually built its network of favours, victims, urgers, spies, unholy alliances, double agents, wheeler dealers, snouts, cockatoos and smarmy politicians all the way from the bar useful up to the top table. The culture and the cash flow to the right people is entrenched and incapable of being dismantled, in my opinion. It'd be like trying to remake the IOC into a show that arranges competitions in sporting excellence between different countries. The Pakistanis had their way on Murali, ball tampering, Darryl Hair, Nandrolone use, there was something on Javed Miandad I don't quite recall; and the Indians did us like a dinner on Roy and monkeys. Neither of 'em raised a sweat in achieving that. This current thing will get buried in denials, taunts of colonial racism, lawyers, hearings, appeals, calling in favours and then, nothing much. It is so disappointing - I have long argued Zaheer Abbas was a more talented batsman than David Gower or Greg Chappell; we grew up with Majid Khan as a figure of respect; and you'd walk a mile to watch Imran Khan on song. Going back in time you could recite the Paki's batting order as deftly as Billy Birmingham!
Mick Gold Coast QLD
Roar Guru
stuff happens - I do enjoy the exchange here between decent blokes who substantiate their position with facts and data - even with those who substitute that with a fierce passion for sport. Even discussions with former backs. Today I see here, further up: "Howard is hated on the sub-continent, well most of Asia actually" and your assertion: "His attitude towards indigenous people, asylum seekers & refugees was disgraceful" These are demonstrably not statements of fact. They are, ironically, unsubstantiated prejudice. In Asia - Singapore, Indonesia, Manila, Malaysia I have personally been told exactly - exactly the opposite. On several occassions they've heard there is a big white, xenophobic fortress Australian visiting and I have been literally taken off itinerary to look at real projects - eg. hospitals - mounted by AUSAID during that Prime Minister's time, and during his predecessor's (Keating enjoys the same high regard).l The people actually thanked me, as if I caused them, merely because I was from the same country as two fellas whose name they know. I'll not trouble you with an abbreviated objective history of Australian political parties' stances on the matters you raise, expenditures and policy evolution post war. I could, but I think I have nothing that will be of value to you. I will tell you a little of the average bloke's life in those dreadfully unenlightened times. I grew up during the much vaunted White Australia policy "era" in a street settled by blokes who had, 5 to 20 years before, fought in Asia against Asians. Some bore wounds and psychological illnesses from Changi and the Burma Rail. Two of the the families' sons were serving in Malaysia then Vietnam and three worked as plant operators in Asia during the '60s - where I don't know, because we barely knew where this Asia country was, as young fellas. Three came home with wives from Asia, who these dreadful men of that awful era welcomed as - well - wives of their neighbours' sons. Easily, unostentatiously, no conspicuous compassion or marches across the Harbour Bridge or even the one across the local creek. That part of Sydney was homogenous - John Howard grew up two suburbs east and Paul Keating three suburbs west. Each one of use grew up amongst an ever increasing number of Italians, Greeks, Eastern Europeans, some Egyptians, Lebanese. Next door, in our classes at school, playing sport on the weekends, blue-ing in the back lane, going to the pub and nightclubs together. Howard, Keating and I had exactly the same experience. By your reckoning, having heard something about this dark period, I too have remained in a mythical time warp. My missus will be much amused if I care to tell her that - not sure if I should recount it in her national language, her provincial dialect or the more localised one we speak when we visit her village in Asia. Incidentally - my Sri Lankan dentist loves cricket, talks with me about it and she thinks the fact we had a Prime Minister who truly loved the game is a wonderful thing. As discussions on cricket are.
Billo
Guest
Being opposed to the ideology of multiculturalism, and refusing to take part in the media event that was Rudd's 'apology' to Indigenous Australians, isn't "playing the race card", whatever that expression means.
Fly on the Wall
Guest
And these links will show you why choosing Howard as candidate was a disgrace, much like the man himself. http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/a-tale-of-two-countries-search-for-icc-candidate-grows-more-and-more-farcical-with-each-passing-day-20100131-n6lv.html http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/howard-choice-is-the-wrong-way-to-go-20100121-modb.html http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/icc-arena-no-place-for-this-inexpert-rightarm-slow-20100121-mob3.html The Kiwi Reid would have been rubber-stamped by the ICC
Fly on the Wall
Guest
As if the Asian cricketing nations are going to bow down to little Johnny Howard! If the BCCI does not agree, it does not get done. That is the state of things today in world cricket. And how many media organisations - all sanctimoniously lining up to criticise the Pakistan players - accept advertising / sponsorship from gambling / betting organisations? Just about all of them. Front page of Cricinfo is an ad for betting. Nine have live odds updates throughout their coverage. Hypocrites. Here's one from left field - Pakistan is banned from all cricket unless the PCB agrees to hand over all aspects of admin to an ICC panel which will pay the players and seek sponsorship - and hand over a percentage to the PCB.
Peter Gregory
Guest
Interesting how short memories are. The old 'politics and sport shouldn't get mixed up' argument remind me of another sport in the not so distant past. Bounce that attitude off Nelson Mandela, perhaps.
Peter Gregory
Guest
I think my comments on Howard the shallow, and very destructive politician, should properly dealt with in my memoirs!! For the purposes of this discussion, the fact that Howard was so willing, on so many issues and so many occasions, to play the very ugly race cards that he did poisoned any chance he might have had to be put forward in the first place as an acceptable candidate to anyone not white and of Anglo Saxon heritage. I no longer live in Australia, and was never passionate about cricket in any case, so am a bit out of touch with the issues. But my understanding - perhaps mistaken - was that a New Zealander should have been the candidate, and was likely to succeed, but some heavy handed politicking by Australia shoved Howard down the cricket world's throats and it all went pear-shaped. If that is a wrong impression, I stand to be corrected. But it reeks of Howard, so doesn't sound unlikely to me.
Hansie
Guest
I'm with Spiro on this issue. The members of the ICC who rejected Howard never (to my recollection) gave reasons, and only ever hinted at his past views on apartheid, or his comments on Murali's action, or his treatment of Zimbabwe as reasons for his rejection. In truth, I think they were running scared that Howard might have the strength of character and doggedness to tackle corruption in the ICC. His rejection was a missed opportunity to try and clean up the game. And before anyone asks, I never voted for Howard.