The Second Test match between Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka has just
ended, with Zimbabwe losing but regaining much of their fighting
spirit and self-respect over the last two days.
The match was memorable for several events. The most remarkable
of these was the hat-trick by Nuwan Zoysa in only the second over
of the match. It was the earliest a hat-trick has ever been
taken in any Test match, and the first occasion in Test cricket
when it was also a bowler's first three deliveries in a match.
Zimbabwe were three wickets down without a run on the board, not
quite the worst start in Test history, as India in their second
innings at Leeds in 1952 lost their first four wickets before
scoring a run against Alec Bedser and Fred Trueman of England.
Then there was the superb fighting batsmanship of Andy Flower,
who scored 74 and 129 and was in the field for almost all the
match; when he wasn't batting he was keeping wicket and also
captaining the side. Seldom if ever can one individual have got
through more work during the five days of a Test match. And for
Sri Lanka Tillakaratne Dilshan played a big innings of great
application and determination that made his team's victory
virtually inevitable. Barring rain, it was virtually impossible
for Zimbabwe to avoid defeat, and all the more credit to Andy
Flower and his acolytes for unexpectedly taking the match well
into the fifth day.
Unfortunately there was also controversy, notably in the
dismissal of Murray Goodwin, who was standing firm with Flower
when he absent-mindedly wandered down the pitch at the end of an
over forgetting to check that the umpire had actually called
over, and was promptly run out by the Sri Lankans.
The Sri Lankan position seems to be that it was within the laws
of the game and therefore that was all there is to it; that makes
it acceptable. The spirit of the game does not come into it.
Clearly on such issues as this the cricket world is divided into
two parts. Zimbabwe belongs to the part that still believes that
some things, although not specifically against the laws of the
game, are just not done by cricketers to each other, that they
contravene the spirit of the game. Sri Lanka is obviously on the
other side. Two differing sets of standards, and the problem is
that when these standards clash it is the team with the higher
standards that come off second-best.
Is this really how we want Test cricket to be played? Is it
really worth causing such offence to take a wicket? Would the
Sri Lankans be happy, then, if one of their batsmen, backing up
marginally early, was run out by a Zimbabwean bowler who stopped
in his delivery stride to remove the bails without warning? That
too is legal but has traditionally been considered against the
spirit of the game and has caused much offence when it has been
done. Is this the sort of cricket we want?
We do not want or intend this to be an anti-Sri Lankan diatribe.
It is disappointing and alarming to hear how they are being
spoken of in Zimbabwe at present in some quarters and we
certainly do not wish to add fuel to the fire. But when two
opposing teams are so much in dispute over how the game should be
played, the matter needs resolving.
The laws of cricket are getting progressively longer and more
complex due mainly to the increasing number of players and teams
who consider the traditions of the game are no longer good enough
for them. Legislation has had to be made to deal with such
practices as obstruction, excessive bowling of bumpers,
especially to tail-enders, beamers, time-wasting, deliberately
damaging the ball and the pitch, and so on. But it is more
difficult to legislate for aberrations such as Goodwin's, or for
carelessly backing up too far, or for taking overthrows should a
throw-in rebound off a batsman, for example.
But when one side puts its desire to win above all other
considerations and unapologetically causes great offence by its
actions, then steps must be taken to resolve the impasse.
Otherwise the side that feels victimised may well look for
retaliation, and the problem will escalate and spill over off the
field as well, as it already has done to an extent.
Every year the nine captains of the Test-playing countries hold a
meeting. Perhaps it would be a good idea next time they meet for
them to sit down together and come to an agreement about exactly
how they want the game to be played. Are they prepared to accept
dismissals similar to that of Goodwin as part of the game? If
the majority of countries are in favour, then we in Zimbabwe may
disagree, but at least we will know where we stand and will have
no grounds for complaint when a similar situation occurs - as it
will sooner or later.
There are other controversial issues which the Test captains
perhaps should address among themselves, so that everybody knows
where they stand. Do they really want sledging to be an integral
part of the game, for one example? From what the players say, the
Australians and South Africans do much more sledging than the Sri
Lankans. The Australians were friendly and willing to mix off
the field, though, while the South Africans remained aloof. Andy
Flower reports elsewhere in this issue that he has also found the
Sri Lankans very friendly off the field, and it is sad when
certain incidents on the field may have a detrimental effect on
their off-field relationships. The Zimbabweans have learnt to
fight back with regard to sledging, but they are still novices
and there are many in this country who feel it is contrary to the
spirit of the game. The Test captains perhaps need to give a
lead and find common ground on such issues.
And what about such issues as bumpers, batsmen 'walking' when
they know they are out, and several other problem areas? Not
everything can easily be legislated for. But if there is a
definite policy on controversial issues that everybody
understands, then they will cease to be so controversial and
everybody from the start will know where they stand.