It's a rare Test match that features a bowler being reported for a suspect action, intense and graphic verbal confrontations, and the breaking of a long-standing world record. Rarer still that it is the Australians on the losing end of such a contest. The Aussies usually get what they want and the perception is they thrive on hostility. Not this time, on either count.
What Australia wanted in this instance was a historic 4-0 Caribbean clean sweep, an unprecedented whitewash of the West Indies at home. To make some more history. Instead, history was made against them.
Firstly, it was inevitable that the record for the highest fourth innings chase would eventually be broken. It will be again, probably many times over. The proliferation and experience of one-day cricket has made all teams more comfortable chasing targets, large and small, than they once were. When pursuing 300 in a 50-over game is considered achievable, why should 400-plus in unlimited time be thought insurmountable? Through their innings' of class and character, Sarwan and Chanderpaul showed that it wasn't.
What is surely most pleasing for the West Indies about their chase is that it was achieved without a substantial contribution from Brian Lara. Typically, if the West Indies score 400 to win then one imagines Lara contributing near 200. It's a dependency that had to end -- Lara is 34 now, and won't produce marvellous feats forever. That two players scored hundreds, neither was Lara and one was 22-year-old rising star Ramnaresh Sarwan is auspicious for West Indies cricket. Also promising was the decisive 47 not by Omari Banks, remarkably composed and correct for a 20-year-old two-Test player of limited first-class experience.
Apart from the jubilation at the epic nature of the win and the relief at staving off the humiliation of 4-0, the victory showed that some of the earlier criticism of the West Indies, particularly the bowlers, was unduly harsh. On easily the best pitch of the series, Jermaine Lawson captured seven wickets, the West Indies scored more than 400 when it mattered, and Australia were actually bowled out twice. Dillon, Drakes, Lawson and co. aren't as bad as they were earlier made to appear, though they could all learn a lot from the patience shown by Jason Gillespie. The Australians appreciate wickets need to be earned over time, and can't usually be won by experimenting with two balls an over.
Ricky Ponting was man of the series for his 523 runs in three Tests, deservedly enough. Credit to Ponting for his concentration in capitalising on the conditions, but the runs were surely the easiest of his Test career. The greater merit really goes to Gillespie's 17 wickets at 20.76 on the flattest pitches on which he's probably ever played, a tremendous display of effort and discipline. He helped win matches that any other side would have drawn.
The fourth Test will be known in the record books for the figure 418/7 but it will be equally remembered for its ugly side. Australia and the West Indies have had infamous clashes before, but this must have been the worst. On day two, Lara had a confrontation with Hayden upon his arrival at the crease, umpire Shepherd not stepping in until the two skippers went face-to-face.
This was very tame stuff, however, compared to McGrath's astonishing conflagration with Sarwan. Reports indicate that McGrath thought Sarwan said something about his wife, recently treated for cancer, but that he misinterpreted whatever Sarwan actually said. Certainly, Sarwan looked bemused at McGrath raging in his face, and was quoted as saying on Wisden CricInfo that the pair had apologised to each other and "appreciate each other's friendship." All a misunderstanding in the heat of battle, it seems.
Still, the question remains whether it's acceptable. Let's say Sarwan did say something offensive about McGrath's wife. Is McGrath then entitled to "rip (Sarwan's) f***ing throat out," as he reportedly threatened? What are the umpires and captain doing about such clashes?
Apart from umpire Shepherd stepping in when Waugh and Lara confronted each other, Shepherd and Venkataraghavan showed little interest in intervening. Nor did Steve Waugh, whose failure to control the behaviour of his players has been one of the black marks against his captaincy. A couple of years ago, Australia made noises about improving their behaviour and image, that they wanted to lead the world in this regard too. Fortunately for Australia they're considerably better at achieving their cricketing goals, for there's been no evidence of improvement.
What's most disturbing is that the scenes in the fourth Test have been given official approval. Match referee Mike Procter decided to take no action against McGrath or Sarwan, feeling that umpire Shepherd stepped in at the right time. "Australia has always played pretty tough cricket, I don't think anyone wants them to change the way they play," Procter was quoted as saying by Wisden CricInfo. "Sometimes, people like to knock the people at the top. They are a wonderful side and play in the spirit of the game."
This is an interesting comment from one of the ICC's elite match referees, for the message seems to be that if you are a "wonderful side" -- i.e., you win a lot -- you are granted behavioural dispensation. The key to behaving with impunity, then, is to first develop a reputation for toughness (for then you won't be expected to change), and to have a high winning percentage. If you achieve those two things, then no matter what you actually do, it becomes axiomatic that you "play in the spirit of the game".
The implications of this are intriguing. Using the Mike Procter scale of determining what is within the "spirit of the game", Bangladeshi players might warrant suspension for wearing their caps crookedly -- for they are neither successful nor reputed to be tough.
The fourth Test provided another example that no matter how many officials or procedures are in place, if those responsible are not interested in doing their jobs then it's all irrelevant. This is not necessarily to say anyone deserved punishment in this case -- we don't know what actually happened, only how it looked, and neither camp is aggrieved -- but to question how officials determine whether it's warranted.
Of course, despite McGrath embarrassing himself, the Aussies are not nasty monsters, and the Australian public does not approve of their worst aspects. Of the more than 40 letters the Sydney Morning Herald received on Australia's behaviour, not one was supportive, the paper said. It should also be noted the Australians applauded Sarwan on reaching his hundred and Waugh shook his hand after he was dismissed, later saying Sarwan "doesn't have a mean bone in his body". Respect exists between Australia and their opponents, they just have a unique way of showing it on occasions.
The loss of composure actually carried its own punishment for Australia on the field. McGrath didn't know it, but his outburst signalled the beginning of the end, precipitating a flurry of boundaries by Sarwan and Chanderpaul. Considered masters at verbal intimidation, ironically it was the Australian bowlers who mentally disintegrated in the aftermath. The momentum generated by Sarwan and Chanderpaul was never checked that afternoon, and by day five it was too late.
Coach John Buchanan noted after the hostilities that Australia tend to move away from their game plans when opponents fire back, and it costs them. One would hope they learn.
- Aus vs WI: The close encounters
- Waugh rubbishes boring tag
- Aussie behaviour gets brickbats
- Australians got ruffled: Waugh
- When teams dared to dream
- WI score historic win | Images
