- Joined
- Aug 7, 2013
- Posts
- 3,513
- Reaction score
- 7,933
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Steelers
Lurking on Facebook in recent weeks, watching old footage of my favourite tests from the early-mid 1980's onwards, I have picked up on the hostility toward Australian cricketers, particularly from Indian supporters. I can understand cricket supporters finding the on-field actions of Ricky Ponting, Dennis Lillee and other 'confrontational' players objectionable, but to go to the extent of calling these great players 'cheats' is inaccurate, in my view.
So what constitutes cheating? I would include the following 'cheating':
- Claiming a catch that the player knew hit the ground;
- A batsman deliberately impeding a fielder from fielding/catching the ball;
- A fielder/bowler deliberately impeding a batsman's attempt to run;
- Umpires conspiring with the home team to fix the result of a game;
- Match-fixing
- Doctoring the ball/pitch
I don't consider appealing (in the knowledge that the batsman is not out) to be cheating, since cricket is also a test of the umpire (or at least used to be). Constant, baseless appealing is not in the spirit of the game, particularly when the bowler simply doesn't know the rules of the game (for example, if the ball pitched outside leg stump and the bowler appeals anyway). But I wouldn't call it cheating. Nor would I call a batsman 'standing one's ground' cheating. That is why we have umpires! If a player (ala Gilchrist) chooses to walk as a matter of principle, all power to them. But it doesn't mean all batsmen should feel obliged.
Now there have been some instances when Australian cricketers have engaged in unsavoury on-field behaviour, bordering on cheating.
Greg Dyer claiming a catch in 1987 against New Zealand.
Rod Marsh kicking a ball preventing it from being fielded.
Ian Healy's stumping of Brian Lara.
Steve Waugh's claimed catch against India.
On a side note, listening to the commentary from these incidents, just goes to raise Bill Lawry in the esteem of balanced supporters of the game.
However, and this is the main point of the thread (and thanks to those of you who have persisted to this point), for widespread, systemic, blatant cheating, no-one comes near our friends from the sub-continent.
I had some time on my hands today, and looked at all test series from 1978 until 1992. This was an era dominated by the West Indies. It was also an era during which the other major test playing nations (Australia, England, India, Pakistan, New Zealand) were relatively even in their win-loss ratios. I stopped in 1992 because this was the year in which neutral umpires were first used to officiate in tests. My idea was to look at the number of LBW decisions awarded to home team bowlers, compared to LBW decisions awarded to the bowlers from the touring teams, over this period. Here are the results.
Pakistan umpires take the crown as the most biased in world cricket. They awarded 188 LBW decisions to their own bowlers in this era, compared to just 79 to the bowlers of tourists. That's a ratio of 2.3:1. Their best effort came in 1990/91, when they awarded the touring West Indians 4 LBW's, compared to 21 LBW's for their own bowlers. Not once did the Pakistani umpires award more LBW's to the touring team, in any series during that period. Kind of makes you look at Mike Gatting's tirade in a different light doesn't it!
Coming in a comfortable 2nd were the Indian umpires, who awarded their bowlers 131 LBW's, to just 83 for the tourists. A 1.6:1 ratio.
Australian umpires were the third most likely to be biased, awarding 127 to 109 in favour of the home team. West Indian umpires clearly didn't feel the need to favour the home team. Steve Bucknor and his mates have the West Indians 63 LBW's to 62 for the tourists.
Incredibly, the English umpires gave the home team 136 LBW's during this period, whilst the tourists were awarded 195 LBW's. The 1989 Ashes series made a significant impact here, with the Terry Alderman-led Australians picking up 30 LBW's.
What to make of all this?
(a) Thank God for neutral umpires; and
(b) Claims by Indian cricket fans that Australians are the biggest cheats in world cricket, and only won 5 world cups because we cheated, kind of fall flat
The other thing I would point out is that of the 23 international cricketers banned for match-fixing, none are Australian. Five are Indian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cricketers_banned_for_corruption
Thanks for reading
So what constitutes cheating? I would include the following 'cheating':
- Claiming a catch that the player knew hit the ground;
- A batsman deliberately impeding a fielder from fielding/catching the ball;
- A fielder/bowler deliberately impeding a batsman's attempt to run;
- Umpires conspiring with the home team to fix the result of a game;
- Match-fixing
- Doctoring the ball/pitch
I don't consider appealing (in the knowledge that the batsman is not out) to be cheating, since cricket is also a test of the umpire (or at least used to be). Constant, baseless appealing is not in the spirit of the game, particularly when the bowler simply doesn't know the rules of the game (for example, if the ball pitched outside leg stump and the bowler appeals anyway). But I wouldn't call it cheating. Nor would I call a batsman 'standing one's ground' cheating. That is why we have umpires! If a player (ala Gilchrist) chooses to walk as a matter of principle, all power to them. But it doesn't mean all batsmen should feel obliged.
Now there have been some instances when Australian cricketers have engaged in unsavoury on-field behaviour, bordering on cheating.
Greg Dyer claiming a catch in 1987 against New Zealand.
Rod Marsh kicking a ball preventing it from being fielded.
Ian Healy's stumping of Brian Lara.
Steve Waugh's claimed catch against India.
On a side note, listening to the commentary from these incidents, just goes to raise Bill Lawry in the esteem of balanced supporters of the game.
However, and this is the main point of the thread (and thanks to those of you who have persisted to this point), for widespread, systemic, blatant cheating, no-one comes near our friends from the sub-continent.
I had some time on my hands today, and looked at all test series from 1978 until 1992. This was an era dominated by the West Indies. It was also an era during which the other major test playing nations (Australia, England, India, Pakistan, New Zealand) were relatively even in their win-loss ratios. I stopped in 1992 because this was the year in which neutral umpires were first used to officiate in tests. My idea was to look at the number of LBW decisions awarded to home team bowlers, compared to LBW decisions awarded to the bowlers from the touring teams, over this period. Here are the results.
Pakistan umpires take the crown as the most biased in world cricket. They awarded 188 LBW decisions to their own bowlers in this era, compared to just 79 to the bowlers of tourists. That's a ratio of 2.3:1. Their best effort came in 1990/91, when they awarded the touring West Indians 4 LBW's, compared to 21 LBW's for their own bowlers. Not once did the Pakistani umpires award more LBW's to the touring team, in any series during that period. Kind of makes you look at Mike Gatting's tirade in a different light doesn't it!
Coming in a comfortable 2nd were the Indian umpires, who awarded their bowlers 131 LBW's, to just 83 for the tourists. A 1.6:1 ratio.
Australian umpires were the third most likely to be biased, awarding 127 to 109 in favour of the home team. West Indian umpires clearly didn't feel the need to favour the home team. Steve Bucknor and his mates have the West Indians 63 LBW's to 62 for the tourists.
Incredibly, the English umpires gave the home team 136 LBW's during this period, whilst the tourists were awarded 195 LBW's. The 1989 Ashes series made a significant impact here, with the Terry Alderman-led Australians picking up 30 LBW's.
What to make of all this?
(a) Thank God for neutral umpires; and
(b) Claims by Indian cricket fans that Australians are the biggest cheats in world cricket, and only won 5 world cups because we cheated, kind of fall flat
The other thing I would point out is that of the 23 international cricketers banned for match-fixing, none are Australian. Five are Indian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cricketers_banned_for_corruption
Thanks for reading
