If the spirit of cricket was a kite, then we all know who should be holding the strings, sending it soaring into the stratosphere.
Mahendra Singh Dhoni made Indians (and connoisseurs of the game) proud with his decision to rescind the contentious appeal made against Ian Bell at the break of tea on the third day of the third Test at Trent Bridge on Sunday the 31st of July, 2011.
The contrasts between the two sides were not more readily apparent than last evening.
One side has gone to town with allegations about ‘bat-fixing’ with Vaseline to fox ‘Hot-Spot’, the other exhibited that the spirit of the game was more important than winning at all costs.
Michael Vaughan tweeted a ‘slanderous’ comment about VVS Laxman using Vaseline to blunt the edge of technology.
The former England captain soon discovered that Indian fans are no rustics. Vaughan is appalled at the virulent responses his remark received from Indian cricket fans all over the world.
The ‘slanderer’ had to change his dinner plans of ‘Indian’ and is reduced to disguising himself when he goes shopping.
The creator of the technology, Warren Brennan, charged the Indians with using stickers to confuse infra-red cameras. It appears that the sponsors like their logos visible from every possible angle. The matter has been brought to the ICC’s notice.
Stuart Broad went so far as to check Laxman’s club to see if there was any Vaseline or cream that negated his team’s appeal.
The all-rounder was disappointed.
Was MS Dhoni right to recall Ian Bell to the crease? Yes, it was the spirit of cricket that triumphed. Or no, he has cost India the second Test and possibly the series.
That Mahendra Singh Dhoni rose above similar petty considerations and brought back Ian Bell after the tea break is a measure of the man. His motto has always been: “Have fun on the field.”
Nothing exemplified this better than his magnanimous decision.
Indian commentators (Ravi Shastri and Sunny Gavaskar) in the box mostly supported the team’s earlier appeal with the honourable exception of Saurav Ganguly. I am mildly astounded that a man renowned for his gamesmanship read the situation better than his more experienced colleagues.
The current Indian skipper played his part in correcting misapprehensions about Indian cricket (read the BCCI) being a big bully. Make no mistake, the BCCI is the elephant in the ICC room and cannot be wished away.
Indian cricketers are aware that their fans go to extremes with their bouts of praise and vilification. Mahendra Singh Dhoni has experienced the highs and the lows of cricketing success. His house was stoned following the 2007 World Cup debacle.
Michael Vaughan rightly pointed this out in yet another tweet: “What are they going to be like when they lose this Test?”
Mahi has done his bit. Will the real Indian cricket fan stand up and be counted?
Linus
Guest
Later news : It was Tendulkar's intervention that saved Bell. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/cricket/series-tournaments/india-in-england/top-stories/Tendulkars-intervention-led-to-Bells-reinstatement-Report/articleshow/9452916.cms
Linus
Guest
As Rahul Dravid aptly put it, "It did not feel right." Yes, Laxman, Fletcher and Dravid weighed in with their opinions. But it was Dhoni's decision to make. Full credit to him. That does not, however, excuse their lackluster cricket. If precedent was to be followed, then the Indian skipper could justify his decision citing numerous incidents. But history is not made by precedent alone, is it?
Brett McKay
Guest
No problems Hutcho, I realise that the term might not necessarily be universal in the context of getting a lucky wicket. My club used to say we 'burgled' a wicket if we ran a bloke out at the non-striker's end of a deflected drive, or if a batsman who was smashing it suddenly chopped one on. We probably weren't entitled to the wicket, but by God we were keeping it!
Hutchoman
Roar Pro
Brett, My apologies if I have taken your point the wrong way. It was just the use of "burgled" that got me going! Perhaps yet another example of as I get older, my fuse gets shorter ...
Brett McKay
Guest
Hutcho, you've just reiterated my point essentially. India didn't bring Bell undone with swing or seem (he wasn't even on strike), but rather because Bell wasn't sure of his ground and wasn't fully paying attention to what was going on. Don't get me wrong, had the decision stood, I wouldn't have been worried in the slightest, and likewise, Bell could only have blamed himself..
Hutchoman
Roar Pro
"Burgled the wicket of Bell, not through their guile and skill, but through Bell’s lack of attention to the game in play." What tosh! Young batsmen are taught two things before anything else ... know where your stumps are and be sure of your ground. If Bell can't make sure of his ground at all times, he should be run out. If it can be expected at junior level, it can be expected at Test level.
Rob McLean
Guest
I wish the Renmark Cricket Club had been as kind to me during my playing days as the Indians were to Bell. In a particularly rambunctious game, a bowler pinged a ball back at me after I'd played it down the pitch. It hit my pads and rebounded to fine leg. Thinking, "stuff you, mate. You hit me, I'm going to take a run", I took off down the pitch. My batting partner, thinking more clear headed than I, sent me back. I strolled back to my crease thinking, "yep, we shouldn't run on that", only for the fine leg fieldsman to hit the stumps with me short of my ground. Decision: out. At the time, I was furious. But it was my own fault for tempting the Cricket Gods. I'd have had no sympathy for Bell had the Indians not recalled him.
sledgeross
Guest
True macca! Calling Dhoni magnanimous is like calling Ponting "The Paragon of Virtue".
Brett McKay
Guest
I have to agree Sledgie. While the right result eventuated, it's worth remembering that Dhoni led his team to Tea having just burgled the wicket of Bell, not through their guile and skill, but through Bell's lack of attention to the game in play. Dhoni and his team didn't make this "magnanimous decision" until the England heirarchy pressed them during the Tea break on whether they indende to let the decision stand. Again, the right result was reached in the end, with Bell being recalled. But why might have been if England just accepted the initial decision? That would have been the only measure of Dhoni's generosity, and indeed, the only way to truly embrace the spirit of cricket. The truly "magnanimous decision" would have been to not appeal in the first place, and remind Bell of what might have been.
sledgeross
Guest
Hahahahaha, so Dhoni does one good thing and hes the eptiome of good sport? I applaud his decision, but hes one of the sneakiest skippers in World cricket.