London: What, precisely, is the role of the cricket pundit? Must he simply observe, report and analyse? Or must there be a critical edge to his voice which distinguishes him from others? More importantly, just how contentious or controversial should he be, and at what point is a line transgressed that makes those views unfairly and dangerously biased?None of these concerns will be addressed within the English media as they reflect on a significant and heavy Test victory over India which puts the national side on course to take over the number one mantle for the first time. England are also just one draw away from registering their first Test series win over India since 1996.
And yet, if there is something that ever so slightly sours the sweet taste of success for Andrew Strauss’ sides, then it comes in the heavy-handedness of some of the comments from the home side’s best-known media figures.
Former English skippers Michael Vaughan (L) and Nasser Hussain enjoy stoking the fires of controversy as they did during the second Test at Trent Bridge. Clive Rose/Getty Images
Take Michael Vaughan, Ashes-winning captain in 2005 and now a fully paid-up member of the ex-players-in-the-press-box club.
When totally unsubstantiated rumours began circulating on Saturday that VVS Laxman might have survived an appeal for a caught behind by applying Vaseline to the edges of his bat – thus deceiving HotSpot — Vaughan mischievously sensed an opportunity.
He asked his 160,000 Twitter followers: “Has Vaseline on the outside edge saved the day for Laxman?”
By simply posing the question, Vaughan had unwittingly waded into treacherous waters. Laxman is a hero to many Indians, the scorer of an almost mythically brilliant 281 to douse Australia’s fire at Eden Gardens in 2001 and set up a remarkable win.
Ten years later, he is still revered, the elegant shot-making continues and above all else, his disciplinary evidence is spotless. Vaughan had not directly accused Laxman of cheating, but he had suggested the possibility, and that was the problem.
When Vaughan woke up on Sunday morning, he found a barrage of criticism directed at his Twitter account from ordinary Indians, much of it foul in the extreme, whether in Hindi or English.
Some of it might have been prompted by this separate tweet: “If I was them (India’s bowlers) I would get the jelly beans out and get the ball swinging.” It was a cheeky reference to an unpalatable moment in the 2007 series between the two sides.
Vaughan, who is making a decent living out of working for the BBC, the Daily Telegraph, Betfair and Channel Five, rather enjoys stoking the fires of controversy, you suspect. He is not afraid to make bold predictions on air, and above all else does not want to get lumped with the bland, unopinionated second division group of commentators who have to be sufficient on a diet of county cricket and the occasional One-day International in Durham.
In that particular regard, he is similar to Nasser Hussain, the man he succeeded as England captain.
Hussain, a regular figure on the UK’s live televised cricket coverage on Sky Sports, is also doing stints for ESPN during this series, thus bringing himself into contact with Indian viewers.
It so happened that he was in ESPN’s studio when Harbhajan Singh became the second victim of Stuart Broad’s hat-trick, lbw despite a big inside edge which was hard to detect in real time, but patently obvious on the close-up slow-motion.
Because of the half-baked use of the decision review system (DRS), no batsman can ask for a reprieve from an lbw verdict in this series, and Hussain was quick to put the boot in. He reminded his audience that it was the Indian board which had objected to that element of the DRS process in the first place, so the players could hardly complain of bad luck.
Another ESPN pundit, Ravi Shastri, was less than happy about the position taken by Hussain, saying there was “jealousy” about India’s progress to becoming the best side in the world, and that the choice taken by the Indian board on DRS was its business alone.
The argument continued to simmer, with Hussain telling readers of his Daily Mail column on Monday: “If I am being paid to give my opinions by ESPN, that is exactly what I will do. I played 96 Tests and I have every right to say what I feel about India’s refusal to use the DRS, whatever spectators I was addressing.”
As someone who works in the British media, I understand Hussain’s position. It was always going to be difficult to sympathise with an Indian batsman let down by a bad decision when the DRS was not being fully implemented at the instance of India itself.
With Vaughan, on the other hand, it’s probably a case of a lesson learned. He would find it easy to dish out and receive “banter” from Australian fans in the same situation, but he perhaps should have respected that the English sense of humour does not always translate easily across borders.
Graeme Swann, for example, chose to belittle the big Sunday talking-point — the run-out and subsequent reprieve of Ian Bell – by making one of his Twitter jokes that endears him to his home supporters, but runs the risk of alienating him from Indian cricket fans.
“The big issue about ‘the run out that wasn’t’ hasn’t been mentioned yet. I had already started a cheese sandwich so it was definitely tea,” tweeted Swann.
Apart from producing a few lusty blows with the bat on day one, Swann had a match to forget, picking up a hand injury, failing to take a single wicket and kicking the stumps in frustration at one point on day two.
Many of his teammates at Trent Bridge were outstanding, however. If Vaughan and Hussain have ruffled a few feathers – as they clearly have – at least England’s cricketers have been doing their nation proud.
0 comments:
Post a Comment