The thin red line

Schism is a word which has been bandied about far too often in cricketing circles over the course of this decade for anyone's comfort. Make no mistake, the uproar which has grown out of events at the recent Sydney Test match will not bring down an iron curtain between the Asian countries, who are in possession of the piggy bank, and the rest, principally Australia and England, who would purport to be the guardians of the game. In reality, none of the Test playing countries are guardians of anything but their own bank balances; the much touted "spirit of cricket" is just that - a phantom. We have been here before in recent times - the names Hair and Denness should be sufficient to rekindle the memory of similar shemozzles which left no greater legacy than excess chip paper. But cricket has not existed as the sepia-tinted, much eulogised "gentleman's game" for a very, very long time, it that was ever the case. This year, we mark 75 years since the Bodyline series of 1932-3; other examples fall readily from the tree - Tony Greig in 1976, World Series Cricket, Gatting and Rana. The game is still here and in one piece of sorts; whether the shape of it is satisfactory to cricket lovers and fans is the point in question.

Specific issues arise from the current situation. Have the Australians overstepped the mark with their aggressiveness on the field of play; and was it an isolated example or indicative of a greater trend? What does one make of the Indian reaction, both on micro and macro levels; is that part of a pattern too? Further debate has also been sparked on two old chestnuts: the place of sledging in the game and the extent to which technology should be introduced to help cut down on the most grievous umpiring errors.

It is the behaviour of both teams, especially the Australians, which has been most closely scrutinised. Like it or not, the Australians will always play the game their way; it has ever been so, with examples as far back as the 1920s and the giant in all aspects figure of Warwick Armstrong. Ricky Ponting has not changed the goalposts, but is merely continuing a legacy begat to him by his predecessor Stephen Waugh and Allan Border at one remove. We have heard the, "all's fair in love and war, mate" party-line before and we did again this time. In almost all circumstances, it is a line in the sand which holds for them; no-one wants to be labelled a bad loser or Whingeing Pom. And, lest one forget, aggression is something which has been a characteristic of most winning teams in the modern era; from Clive Lloyd's West Indies side through to the English team whose successful Ashes campaign began with a lethal bombardment by Steve Harmison, the fielders unconcerned as the batsmen wore several hits. People chuntered at the time, but all had been forgotten as the team paraded through Trafalgar square.

But at Sydney, an under-pressure Australia showed an ugly face which Ricky Ponting has been trying to subdue during his tenure and a feature less in evidence since the Australian board made a big show of bringing the team to book in 2003 after a particularly poisonous series in the Caribbean. They happened to pick on the one Indian prepared to give as good, and who said the wrong thing to the wrong man. Whether Ponting was right to report it or not is a moot point; but there is a clear message. That is the need for the abusive side of sledging to be stamped down on; for Cricket Australia to repeat their gesture of four years ago would be mere tokenism, so it must fall to the ICC, nominally cricket's governing body, to set the tone. But anyone with even a lax grasp of cricket politics will realise that the words "ICC" and "action" are two negatively charged poles with a keen interest in avoiding each other, so what are the chances? It should not mean an end to dialogue on the field - after all, cricket history is littered with gems from some of the keener minds and sharper tongues. But those were, mostly, in good spirit, even the profane ones. What we have now reflects little of that great tradition; it is Steve Waugh's so called "mental disintegration" but a simple trade of insults, devoid of wit, exhibits nothing but mental retardation. Ultimately it must be the umpires who control the situation on the field, both by stepping in to avoid heated exchanges and reporting those who cross the line, rather than closing their ears and hoping it is all forgotten. What we see far too often is a posse of fielders surrounding one batsman, which is more than likely to end in some sort of conflict. That is when the officials should intervene and tell them to bugger off back to their fielding positions and get on with the game. Some similar admonishment for those who overtly question decisions, right or wrong, would not go amiss either.

Yet as much as the Australians trampled all over what was acceptable during the game, the reaction of the Indian board, the BCCI, has been similarly overblown. Make no mistake, India were given not only the short end of the stick but several harsh jabs in the solar plexus with it. But the subsequent actions of their board, effectively removing the umpire they disliked from the next game and engineering a situation whereby their banned player Harbhajan can play anyway, have diluted sympathy. It has revealed yet again, as if we needed reminding, that the ICC do not run the game, rather runs errands for the national boards, especially the one containing all three of its initials. Just a glance at the men in the power-broking positions reveals the problem. BCCI chief Sharad Pawar, a politician; James Sutherland, CE of Cricket Australia, a first-class cricketer but a better accountant; Giles Clarke, the ECB's new managing director, a successful entrepreneur and the man who brokered the current television deal in England; and to top it all, ICC chief executive Malcolm Speed, a lawyer specialising in litigation. That is the direction the game is headed in, if it is not there already - witness the formation of the two new leagues, ICL and IPL, two great stinking cash cows, a further development from our old friend the Champions Trophy, coming to some stadia near Pakistan this October. That is not to say the game does not need a commercial or business side and people who know those onions. But that should not be exclusive; where are the former Test cricketers, those who have a genuine love and knowledge of the game? There is so much untapped potential wisdom and know-how; you can read all about it in the press, but we need a higher proportion of minds tuned to cricket, not business, who can directly influence affairs, not just pass comment. Take a long, hard look at the current state football finds itself in - rich and popular as ever, but at what cost? Football, as someone once sagely said, will always be the most popular game because it is the most simple. And that mass of people involved and interested in the game brings money. Cricket can never hope for half the riches or support the national game possesses. And it should not lose some of the precious things it has in aspiring to achieve what it can never attain.

Next week India and Australia should be back playing cricket again. Say a small prayer to the god of back-to-back Test matches that this was the one Test anywhere in the world this winter not to be scheduled three days after the last one. Hope that the specific grievances between the teams can be forgotten, albeit with the important issues arising from them taken in hand by the authorities. The series as a contest is all but over, with Australia having retained the trophy by ensuring they cannot lose it, but that does not mean there is not the potential for some fine cricket to be played. There was plenty of that at Sydney, and hopefully the players will again prove that the game of cricket can ultimately transcend and rise above the problems it sometimes creates. It is in their hands to lift the mood; and that they can, and must.