“If he hits the ball, he gets the run”. Is this direction given by a Captain to the bowler wrong!? Although it appeared to be a normal comment, some TV channels were interpreting it as an attempt to influence the young bowler to overstep the line and deny Sehwag what could have been his 13th ODI century. Kumara Sangakkara has, however, maintained that he had only asked Suraj Randiv to keep the ball tight and not allow Sehwag score a run.
It is not known why the Opponents in the field playing cricket should help each other to break a record or create one. Is it necessary that the opponents should be considerate to each other in the cricket filed. Should not one bowl according to his own conviction or at the direction of his captain. Even Neville Cardus did not say in his writings that ‘gentleman’s game†should be played by helping each other.
Let us see what happened in Dambulla where India and Sri Lanka played the second ODI. In the first ODI, India was defeated comprehensively and it is history now. In the Tri Series 3rd ODI Sri Lanka batted first and were dismissed by India for a meager 170 and India under the brilliant innings played by Sehwag scored 170 runs in their 35th over for the fall of 4 wickets only. It was fitting reply to the home team which had defeated India in the First ODI. Sehwag was at the crease and he was on the threshold of getting his 13th Century in ODI. He was 99 and it was the 35th over. India was 169 two short of victory. One score would have helped Sehwag to get a century. It is at this juncture, all knew that India would win and all must have thought that Sehwag would get a century. The match was event free except for Sehwag who would have added one more feather to his cap. The crowd must have taken the end for granted. To visualize the scene in the ground, I would like to quote Neville Cardus. He said in one of his writings that:
“So much for the season and the setting, the time and the place. The game itself is a capricious blend of elements, static and dynamic, sensational and somnolent. You can never take your eyes from a cricket match for fear of missing a crisis. For hours, it will proceed to a rhythm as lazy as the rhythm of an airless day. Then we stretch ourselves on deck chairs and smoke our pipes and talk of a number of things-the old ‘uns insisting that in their time batsmen used to hit the ball. A sudden bad stroke, a good ball, a marvellous catch, and the crowd is awake; a bolt has been hurled into our midst from a clear sky. When cricket burns a dull slow fire it only needs a single swift wind of circumstance to set everything into a blaze that consumes nerves and senses. In no other game do events of import hang so bodefully on a single act. In no other game does one little mistake lead to mischief so irreparableâ€
This is exactly what happened at that time. Suraj Randiv sent a ‘no ball’ ( intentionally or by mistake or to deny his opponent getting a century) to Sehwag and he hit a sixer, which won the match for India but denied a century to Sehwag. As far as India is concerned, we have won and of course Shewag was denied a century. As Neville Cardus said that one little mistake or mischief would create great harm to the game and sometimes it is irrepairable. This ‘no ball’ has raised a big controversy because one could hear someone ( it is said it is the voice of Sangakara) telling Randiv that if Sehwag hits the Ball, he will get a run. Fair enough. It is cricket. In the words of Nevill Cardus, “When cricket burns a dull slow fire it only needs a single swift wind of circumstance to set everything into a blaze that consumes nerves and senses†That is what exactly happened. A dull ODI series has suddenly awaken to a big controversy attracting the attention of all those who had hardly shown any interest in this series.
The controversy is whether Randiv could have bowled a ‘no ball’ and denied a century to Sehwag or whether the Captain could have ‘stooped’ to that level in this ‘gentleman’s game’ to deny his opponent the century. .The TV channels are full of discussions. It is now said that if one goes by the rules, it was very much lawful. There was no violation of cricket rules. But when it came by the ‘spirit of cricket’ and gamesmanship, one felt let down. Because Sehwag was on the verge of getting his century and he has been denied the same. But what is most interesting is why should the Opponent be considerate to his adversary? This is what one can not understand. It is said “all is fair in war and love†Iy not that one should be encouraged to indulge in mal practices but is it not a legitimate exercise of one’s right to deny his adversary a century?!
One should admire the attitude of Sehwag. When he was told about the “mischief†it is reported that he said “ It often happens in cricket. When a batsman is on 99 and the scores are level, bowlers try to bowl no-balls and wides. The opposing team do not want you to score 100. They tried their best. Fair enough,†This is what Sehwag is reported to have said after the match.
This is the spirit of the game. Hats off to you Sehwag. You are a real gentleman and that too in the true sense of the term. People admire your attitude. I think spirit of the game should not be stretched to that level where one expects his opponent to be considerate (or is it merciful) to enable him to get a century.. Let every player play on his own without leaning on ‘spirit of the game’. Let the players adhere to the ‘ spirit of the game’ but at the same time let them not stretch it to such a level that players should restrict the right of his opponent to play the game as he likes.
In fact that is the spirit of the game.