spectators come "to see me bat, not to see you umpire"...

...said the great WG Grace a century back. The Inzamam-Hair controversy has received such one-sided coverage in the British press! Surprisingly, it seems one-sided in favour of the Pakistan team. Or is normal, considering that the British are supporting the Pak team against an Aussie umpire. Meanwhile, the Aussies do what they do best - defend one of their own. Suddenly, cricket is a game that should be played within the codified rules. It is okay for Glenn McGrath and Co., to sledge, abuse and display "gamesmanship" because there is nothing in the rules that prevent them from doing so. So, ball tampering is bad, but mood tampering is okay! But the Aussie article is well-written and is worth a read.

This episode should help bury a few nonsensical myths:

• that playing cricket improves international relationships - perhaps a controversy worsens relationships, but the converse is not true. in fact, when pushed into a corner, cricketers latch on to something parochial such as religion, region, skin colour, etc.
• that cricket is somehow different from other "commercialised" games and umpires are highly respected in cricket
• that the tail is not wagging the dog - what are the chances of umpire Hair being called to officiate at venues around the world? Thus, competence alone is not going to be enough in getting umpiring opportunities

Oh well! Thank you, Saurav Ganguly for standing up to a bunch of bullies and making Indian cricketers better at "gamesmanship".