Cricket World Cup

The exodus of white South African cricketers to English county cricket because of the perceived unfairness of non-white quotas could be slowed after the quota system was officially rejected today.

Although South African cricket has no official quotas, the government puts pressure on sporting bodies to implement black representation. This is a policy that has led to four top players - Kevin Pietersen, Jacques Rudolph, Ryan McLaren and Martin van Jaarsveld - taking advantage of free trade agreements to join the English county game as non-overseas players, bringing fears that both countries will suffer as a consequence.

Confirmation today by South Africa’s sports minister, Makhenseki Stofile, that “quotas are out” - to be replaced by more investment in sports facilities in deprived areas to help black athletes reach the highest level - could now reintroduce selection on merit and begin to slow the exodus of disillusioned whites.

Stofile’s announcement was thought to be made with the full approval of the president, Thabo Mbeke, who was moved to reconsider the merits of quotas, official or otherwise, when a virtually all-white South Africa side won the Rugby World Cup and was held to have improved the nation’s sense of unity as a result.

The England and Wales Cricket Board is so concerned about the number of South Africans in county cricket under the so-called Kolpak agreement that Giles Clarke, the ECB’s new chairman, discussed the issue at an International Cricket Council meeting in Dubai last week with Norman Arandse, Cricket South Africa’s president.

“What South Africa chooses to do is a matter for them, but the ECB has made it clear that we do not encourage county cricket to take the Kolpak route,” said Clarke. “It is healthy for the game that England and South Africa both remain strong.”

It will be intriguing to see how Arandse reacts because he is an unapologetic supporter of quotas, saying after recently taking office: “As long as we have an abnormal society, quotas and targets are not only desirable, but also a constitutional imperative.”

Now Stofile, previously a staunch supporter of quotas, has condemned the policy as “window dressing” and insisted that sporting development could only be quickened with sufficient funding - although the figure, only £15m a year, is limited.

“Quotas were used only for window dressing for international consumption,” he said. “Quotas are out. We are not going to decide who must be on the team. We must kill the myth that black people cannot play certain sporting codes because they are black. Let us put our resources into the development of talent.”

Around two thirds of blacks have regularly supported quotas, compared with one in eight whites. Mbeki may sense that South Africa’s World Cup win is about to change all that. South Africa’s triumph in Paris may not have pleased English rugby, but English cricket might yet feel the benefit.

Cricket is becoming popular globally; day is not far when like Soccer, Cricket will become mass mania across the globe. Cricket is a religion in India and Pakistan. In India all youngsters aspire to become Sachin Tendulkar or Kapil Dev. Cricket mania or pure love of this game can be witnessed during World Cups especially if match is between India and Pakistan.

This fantastic, nerve breaking game is played between teams of eleven players each. Due to increasing interest of corporate in cricket and huge amount of money associated with the game, cricket sports equipments have become trendier.
Following are the cricket equipments:

Cricket bat: Bat is made of wood and has a long handle. It cannot be longer than 38 inches or wider than 4.25 inches. The front portion of the bat is flat and back portion has a slender curve, which gives the bat thickness and balance.

Ball: Standard circumference is 9 inches. The ball is made of cork at its center, wrapped in twine and covered with leather, which is stitched to form a seam. White ball is used in international cricket.

Stumps: These are three wooden poles of height 28 inches. It has a conical bottom and a horizontal groove across the top end. There are three stumps at each end, with two bails sitting across the top of them and are equally spaced to cover a width of nine inches.

Boundary: A rope which demarcates the perimeter of the field is known as boundary line.

Sight screen: It is the screen outside the boundary exactly parallel to the width of the pitch and behind both pairs of stumps for better visibility.

Cricket clothing is fashioned in such a way, so that it is comfortable and at the same time provides the proper protection to the players. Apart from t-shirts with collar, trousers, hats, caps, spiked shoes, and sunglasses following are the important protective wear in the game of cricket.

Leg pads: These are worn by batsmen and wicket keeper to protect themselves against the pace of the ball. Today’s pads are very light in weight but are still great protection for the batsmen. Wicket keeper’s pads are similar to batting pads, but they are shorter and lighter in weight, making them easier to move and dive around in.

Gloves: There are two types of gloves, one used by batsmen which has thick padding above the fingers. Wicket keeper wears the other gloves, which are larger in size with web between thumb and forefinger. Wicket keepers like to wear a pair of cotton inners underneath the main gloves.

Helmet: Helmet is worn by batsmen and a maximum of one close fielder or keeper. Helmet is a must to avoid any accident in the field be it full toss, top-edged or a throw, which can land on the players head.

Abdominal guard: It is high density plastic with smooth edge worn to protect the “privates” when batting against a cricket ball or other hard ball. Wicketkeepers and fielders close to the wicket should also wear it. It is also called as box, cup or cricket box.

Other cricket equipments used by batsmen are thigh pad and rib guard for the protection of thigh and chest respectively. If you’ve ever been hit by a quick delivery, you’ll know it’s always better to use the guards in the game of cricket, as much as you can so that the game becomes more fun.

With the advent of “twenty-twenty” in the international cricket, the pace and spirit of the game is at its peak. There may be cricket equipments for safer and better play on the ground but for cricket fans, every time match reaches its climax its magic catches them off guard!

When I listen to or read the various arguments about the demise of West Indies Cricket it never ceases to amaze me how the slant of the argument all ways seem to go towards the lack of talent and the attitudes of the current players.

Even when the discussion leans towards the lack of cricket infrastructure and the poor management of limited cricket resources in the region, the conclusion still is that better attitudes by the current players is all that is needed.

This leads to the question of which should come first the players attitudes or improve management of the cricket resources and a more sophisticated infrastructure.

I am among those who believe that the underdevelopment of West Indies Cricket is entirely due to poor management and the lack of planning by the cricket authorities in the Caribbean. This poor management is to be blame for the player’s attitudes and the inferior cricket structure upon which our beloved game is built.

The counter argument often is that seventeen years ago the West Indies were rated number one with this same inferior structure. It is this argument that disappoints me even more than the ridiculous lows that the team has reach on the field of play.

Because even though at face value this may appear to be so, those of us with an interment knowledge of what made the West Indian cricketer superior before the mid 1990’s, recognize that these factors are no longer present on the regional landscape.

Life in the West Indies has changed and these changes have filtered into our cricket. During the golden days of our cricket history ninety percent of the boy in any village played some form of the game; if you were to do an analysis in today’s environment only ten percent of the boys are playing cricket.

This has resulted in a significant reduction in our cricket playing numbers, as a small cricket nation these lower numbers are not helping our cause. If we were to compare the West Indies with a population of 6 million people to cricket super powers Australia with a population of approximately 19 million people it would suggest that for every 1 high quality cricketer West Indies produce the Australians will produce 3.

Now this is where proper planning and management comes in Australia with more human and financial resources recognized that times were changing and that sound cricket structures had to be put in place. On the other hand the West Indian authorities with significantly less human and financial resources have left our cricket development totally up to chance.

Hoping for a cricket super star in the image of Headley, Sobers, Richards or Lara to appear out of thin air. They seem oblivious to the fact that the great cricketers of the pass were shape by a more nurturing environment.

An environment that included the informal village academies and mentoring systems previously found in the side roads and on the beaches where cricket 101 was taught to the youngsters by the village pros.

The second factor, which had a major impact, was the professional contracts for West Indian players on the English county circuit, these no longer exist in the same portions.

With all these changes taking place it is important that the West Indies Cricket board establish centers of excellence. The centers should be in place from the junior level to harness the skills of our most talented young players.

Only then will the Caribbean be able to produce the type of team that can adequately represent the proud cricket heritage establish by the legends of West Indies Cricket.

Hamilton runs the West Indies Cricket Souvenirs website.The popular site is the un-official cricket gift shop for fans of windies cricket, the site provides inform opinions, news, scores and more.

The Sydney Morning Herald has reported that Cricket Australia are keen to extend future Ashes series to include a sixth Test. A CA board meeting is being held on Thursday, and the structure of future tours is one of the key issues up for discussion.

Six Ashes Tests would enable a match to be played in every state, something which last happened in 1978/79. CA have confirmed that they would be willing to reciprocate with a sixth Test in England in 2010/11. “That is a current area of discussion that is still underway and we don’t know what the outcome will be,” CA spokesman Peter Young told the paper. “It is known that our preference is for six Tests because it allows us to play one in every state.”

In England various administrators are also pushing to change the cycle of Ashes series to avoid clashes with the World Cup. The proximity of the 2011 tournament in India to the 2010/11 Ashes series is one of the main stumbling points in the plan to add a sixth Test.

In the short term, CA is finalizing the visits of New Zealand and South Africa next summer and is planning to scrap its triangular tournament in favor of two separate head-to-head five-match series. The triangular series is still expected to be resurrected in future seasons.

The attempt by Uefa and Fifa to push through nationality quotas in league football will be a focus of parliamentary discussions of the European Union’s sports white paper. A select committee has been set up to consider feedback from all sports bodies over the EU document that effectively gives sports clubs carte blanche to tackle their federations’ sporting rules through the courts.

Uefa particularly fears a challenge to its diktats over the number of “home-grown” players clubs must field. Its president, Michel Platini, recently spoke out against the “rampant commercialization” in football he believes is harming youth development in his sport, calling for government support. The select committee will now collect responses ahead of a mid-January deadline.

But it seems English football has little time for Uefa’s quota ideas. “We just want to set our own rules,” said a Football Association source. “Uefa have not got a strong track record on regulation.”

The Premier League says that quotas would be legally unenforceable. But the England & Wales Cricket Board believes it has an innovative solution that it will submit to the sports select committee. They have pledged a system of performance-related bonuses for counties producing cricketers who end up representing England. Cricket is convinced this would have a palatable application within football, which would meet the approval of external agencies and would prove watertight against a legal challenge from litigious clubs.

Wembley’s fixture clash

Wembley Stadium operators face a conflict of sponsorship interests when the Olympic torch relay makes its way to London on April 6 next year. As part of its journey from Athens to Beijing, which will take in a jaunt to the top of Mount Everest, the torch looks forward to the Games’ London future with a visit to Wembley, which will host the Olympic football tournament in 2012. But there is a clash with the second of the two FA Cup semi-finals that will also be held at the venue on the same Sunday. There is a convergence of electricity sponsors that presents a particular challenge for Wembley National Stadium Limited’s marketing team. E-On is the title sponsor for the FA Cup, NPower is a commercial partner for Wembley Stadium itself and EDF Energy is an Olympic supporter. According to the organisations’ various sponsorship contracts there must be efforts on the day to ensure that there is no “implied association” between a sponsor and an event they have not paid for. This will mean careful programming of electronic billboards and might require selected standing hoardings to be covered.

French mystery

Intrigue surrounds a set of documents that are being circulated about the transfer activities of a leading French football club. Amid police investigations into allegations of football corruption in this country, the club was contacted by an individual who is threatening to pass these documents to the English press. The club’s general manager made pre-emptive contact with this newspaper yesterday, cautioning that the individual was a “swindler” and that it had already told French police about his threats.

Ferguson’s ban stands

Sir Alex Ferguson’s appearance on the BBC Sports Personality of the Year awards on Sunday should not be interpreted as a sign of rapprochement between the Manchester United manager and the corporation. Ferguson imposed a ban on all BBC outlets after Panorama investigated the transfer business of his former-agent son, Jason. Nevertheless the Scot headed to the NEC venue to present Sir Bobby Robson with the lifetime achievement award at the BBC’s sports awards. “It means nothing,” said a source. “It was all for Bobby.” It was Ferguson’s first in-person appearance at the event since setting up the ban but he did provide a video address for Kirsty Howard, the winner of the Helen Rollason award in 2004. There was apparently no opportunistic attempt from BBC officials at persuading him to lift his ban. “The subject never cropped up at any point in negotiations,” added the source.

For a year now Steve Harmison has looked as miserable as Faust. He lost his fitness, his rhythm, his wickets, his high world ranking, his place in the England side and even the company of his best mate in the game, Andrew Flintoff, who has been even more injured than he has.

If that Ashes opener, in which he sent the first ball of last winter’s series in Australia straight to second slip, represented a personal low point there has been little for him to cling on to in the past 12 months. He has made Jack Dee look cheerful.

But after another heartening bowling display here yesterday, following his marathon and stoically heroic performance in the heat and humidity of Colombo last week, he revealed he has changed his outlook. That is certainly easier than changing one’s action.

He enabled England to finish yesterday’s abridged day with optimism, taking two late wickets to finish with three for 28 from 13 overs and said afterwards: “I’ve stopped beating myself up. I feel as though I’m getting better and enjoying my cricket more. You beat yourself up when you’re injured. And this - hopefully - will be only the fourth first-class game I’ve finished in the last six months.

“But what’s the point in beating yourself up when you’re injured and not playing and things aren’t going well? So I’m trying to stay positive and get the most out of it. I always want to do my best for England but it hasn’t been good enough in the past 12 months.”

Nor was England’s opening burst here yesterday good enough after Michael Vaughan had won the toss and gambled on making the most of an under prepared pitch. There was swing, bounce and seam movement but England’s fast bowlers, Ryan Sidebottom, Matthew Hoggard and Harmison, did not attack the off-stump and allowed Sri Lanka’s batsmen the luxury of leaving alone too many balls.

“Michael had won the toss and chosen to bowl and in a situation like that, when you’ve had rain and the pitch has been under the covers, three quick bowlers start clapping their hands and thinking wickets,” said Harmison. “But it can go the opposite way and it did. We bowled full but we floated it.

“We had a chat at lunchtime, Matthew and Ryan, myself and the coaches, and we decided that we had to hit the deck more and stop bowling floated half…#8209;volleys. If we bowled full, we decided, we had to do it with some purpose. We came out and did that and the second two sessions were a lot better.

“When it swung in the morning it did it big. So when they played down the line, with the ball new and the seam hard, they were never going to hit it. I bowled my last four overs holding it across the seam and that seemed to make it skid on a bit.

“Overall, the ball didn’t do as much as we thought it would. But they are 147 for four so we have to be happy. It’s a very happy England cricket team. Conditions weren’t ideal going into the Test.”

England’s good fortune - neither of the lbw decisions that went against the Sri Lankan openers looked correct on replay - was balanced by the dropping of Upul Tharanga and the apparent conviction among the players that Kumar Sangakkara should have been given out caught behind when he had made only two.

It was Harmison’s dismissal of Sangakkara with the first ball he bowled after tea that persuaded the England players this might be their day after all; the batsman swung a short one from the Durham fast bowler straight to Monty Panesar at deep square-leg.

“I felt stiff and when you’re a bit stiff the best thing you can do is bowl a short ball. That’s what I did and it went down deep square-leg’s throat. I was confident that Monty was going to catch it and those big buckets just swallowed it up.”

Harmison’s confidence did not appear to be shared by the fieldsman. When Panesar completed the catch he looked so bewildered he did not know what to do. He went to throw the ball up, decided against it and instead ran in, holding it aloft, to be mobbed by his delighted team-mates.

It is almost a year since the third Test in Melbourne ended in a three-day Australian win that secured them the Ashes they had relinquished in England in 2005. The repercussions were instant and long lasting. Since then, the 5-0 whitewash, offset only to a degree by England’s unexpected success in the subsequent one-day series, was followed by a hapless World Cup campaign. The fallout saw the resignation of the England coach, Duncan Fletcher, with the appointment of the former Academy director, Peter Moores, in his place. There has been a restructuring of the management of the game. The appointment of the board chairman, David Morgan, to the presidency of the International Cricket Council invoked a ballot to find his replacement and, after a deadlock first time round, it was the astringent Somerset chairman, Giles Clarke, rather than Surrey’s more avuncular Mike Soper, who was appointed.

Much of the restructuring, including the appointment of Hugh Morris as the managing director of England cricket, was in response to recommendations made in a special report into England cricket over recent years, commissioned at the start of 2007, headed by Ken Schofield and including former Test cricketers such as Nasser Hussain, Angus Fraser, and Nick Knight.

Last week in Colombo the Guardian gathered together two eminent commentators on the game and the new power broker. Others do lunch, but we gathered instead for a power breakfast: lunch, as Gordon Gekko observed, is for wimps. Over fruit, pastries, toast and, in Clarke’s case, Marmite, we talked about the upheavals that had occurred and some of the changes to come.

Mike Selvey: Can we begin with you Giles? There has been a massive upheaval post-Ashes and post-World Cup with a change in coaches, administration at various levels and chairman. Shortly there is to be appointed a full-time national selector. All of this emanated from the Schofield report, which was instigated very quickly was it not? When was it?

Giles Clarke: I can tell you precisely. It was instigated in the Sheraton on the Park hotel in Sydney, before the Sydney Test in the New Year.

David Lloyd: I was staying there and I remember everyone who was anyone in England cricket administration walking into the hotel. I also remember it vividly because Paris Hilton was also in the hotel and Brian Lara was chasing her.

International cricket officials were last night locked in intense negotiations to try to resurrect India’s tour of Australia after allegations of racism against one of the tourists’ leading players threatened to plunge the game into crisis.

In a row that has reopened the racial fault lines in the international game, the Board of Cricket Control of India (BCCI) announced yesterday that it had temporarily suspended its tour after the off-spinner Harbhajan Singh was banned for three matches for allegedly racially abusing Andrew Symonds, Australia’s only black player.

The Australians allege that Singh called Symonds a “monkey” in a heated exchange during the second Test in Sydney, which was won narrowly by Australia on Sunday evening. The Indians deny that any racist language was used, and the BCCI’s decision to suspend the tour - in effect a threat to return home if Singh is not cleared on appeal - is a direct challenge to the authority of the game’s governing body, the International Cricket Council.

The Indian board has also demanded the removal of the two umpires who officiated in the Sydney Test and issued an official complaint against the Australian player Brad Hogg, who it claims called the Indian captain Anil Kumble a “bastard” during the game.

The row between two of the game’s most powerful and successful nations brought effigy-burning crowds on to the streets of Indian cities and has prompted comparisons to some of cricket’s most controversial episodes. In a parody of the 1930s Body line controversy, when English bowlers deliberately aimed to hit opposing batsmen, the new crisis has been dubbed “Bollyline” by the Australian media.

The dispute, which has echoes of the ball-tampering row during the Oval Test between England and Pakistan in 2006, has once again exposed the sensitivity of relations between the Asian cricketing nations and the rest of the world.

India is the game’s economic powerhouse, providing 70% of cricket’s global revenue, and with fellow Asian nations Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh represents the most powerful bloc in the world game.

Many in international cricket feel the BCCI is too quick to wield its economic muscle in disputes of this nature, however, and senior figures believe the latest move amounts to India holding the game to ransom.

Race remains an acutely sensitive subject in the game. Symonds was the subject of racist barracking during Australia’s recent tour of India, and the ICC recently settled with the Australian umpire Darrell Hair, who claimed his dismissal in the wake of the Pakistan cheating row amounted to racial discrimination.

The exchange between Symonds and Singh was the low point of a rancorous match in which several contentious umpiring decisions went against India, and contributed to their defeat. The bad feeling between the sides was evident throughout the game, moving the normally equable Kumble to complain that “only one team was playing in the spirit of the game”.

The most notable incident came when Symonds was given not out on the first day despite edging a catch to the Indian wicketkeeper having scored just 30 runs. He went on to make a match-turning 162 not out, and in subsequent interviews was unrepentant about not “walking” when he should have been dismissed.

The row with Harbhajan Singh came on the third day when the Indian was batting, and the pair, both known for their intense competitive edge, were separated by team-mates after a long exchange apparently initiated by Symonds. Despite not hearing the exchange the umpires, the West Indian Steve Bucknor and Englishman Mark Benson, spoke to the players on the field and Singh was charged at the end of the day after Australia’s captain, Ricky Ponting, complained.

At the official hearing, which continued into the early hours on Monday, Ponting and Symonds testified that Singh had used the word monkey. Kumble and the senior player Sachin Tedulkar, who was batting with Singh at the time, denied the allegation. But the South African match referee, Mike Procter, said he was satisfied that Singh had used the word and that “he meant it to offend on the basis of Symonds’ race or ethnic origin”.

With the third Test due to begin in Perth on January 16, the ICC is under intense pressure to deliver a compromise that allows the series to continue. With the BCCI facing heavy financial penalties if India withdraw, few expect the tour to be called off. One option being considered is to delay Singh’s appeal until after the fourth Test, which starts on January 24, enabling the tour to continue.

Racial flashpoints

2007 January South Africa’s Herschelle Gibbs is banned for two Tests when a stump mic captures him saying to the crowd: “You fucking bunch of fucking animals, fucking go back to the zoo, fucking Pakistanis.”

October Australia’s Andrew Symonds complains that Indian supporters made monkey noises towards him during a one-day international.

2006January The ICC appoints India’s solicitor general, Goolam Vahanvati, to investigate racist abuse of South Africa and Sri Lanka players by Australian fans.

August The former Australian batsman Dean Jones describes Hashim Amla, a South African batsman and devout Muslim, as “a terrorist” during what he thought was an advertising break while commentating on the South Africa v Pakistan series. Jones is immediately sacked by Ten Sports.

September Australian umpire Darrell Hair is forced to deny he is a racist after accusing Pakistan of ball-tampering during the Oval Test against England. Pakistan refuse to take the field in protest and Hair rules that they have forfeited the Test - the first such verdict in Test history. The ICC anti-racism code is strengthened.

2003 The Australian batsman Darren Lehmann becomes the first international cricketer to be banned for racial abuse for railing “black cunts” after a dismissal against Sri Lanka in Brisbane.

1968 The England tour of South Africa is canceled after the apartheid regime refuses to allow Basil D’Oliveira, a Cape coloured qualified for his adopted country, to play. The sporting boycott of South Africa begins.

1953/54 During England’s tour of the West Indies an unnamed player turns to an Indian diplomat during a dinner and asks: “Pass the salt, Gunga Din.”David Hopps

After another dramatic day down under, the comment pieces on the sports pages of Australia’s newspapers focussed mainly on India’s reaction to the episode they’re calling Bollyline. Having struck a chord with the Indian people yesterday by calling for the sacking of Ricky Ponting, the Fairfax columnist Peter Roebuck, whose work appears in both the Sydney Morning Herald and the Melbourne Age, addressed the tourists’ behavior in a piece that began: “By no means can the Indians escape censure for the unpleasantness that took place in cricket’s dark hour at the SCG.”

While acknowledging the legitimacy of many of India’s grievances, Roebuck added: “India has a right to demand a second hearing, but it is hardly fit and proper for the entire tour to shudder to a halt in the meantime.

“By skulking in hotel rooms the tourists stand in danger of losing public sympathy. Of course vociferous fanatics will remain loyal but only fools play to that gallery. The players should have continued with an admittedly idiotic itinerary. After all, [Anil] Kumble’s comments were made in the longer term interests of the game. Imperilling matches hardly serves that purpose.

“By staying pending the appeal, the Indians also appear to be putting pressure on those that must decide the matter. India has lots of power and money and ought to use it judiciously.”

In the Australian, Peter Lalor went even further. Wondering, not unreasonably, whether the cricket world would now be a more peaceful place if India had not lost three wickets with only minutes to go, Lalor attacked what he regards as the double standards operating in the Indian attitude. “What,” he asked, “would the pontificators have said if it were an Australian player accused of racially abusing an Indian?”

Lalor answered his own question: “Hopefully, Australian cricket would have responded with respect for the process, outrage at the crime and shame that we would treat people in such a manner. Instead, a tired and emotional Indian team spat the dummy and sat in its Sydney hotel refusing to go on.

“When Symonds was subjected to shameful monkey chants at three one-day international matches in India, the authorities denied it was happening until shown photographic proof. It now seems that they require a sound recording of this event before acknowledging it.”

Back in the Fairfax fold, Tony Stephens said the International Cricket Council had “buckled before the demands of the Indian team and their administrators” by removing Steve Bucknor from the panel of match officials for the third Test at Perth starting on January 16. He pointed out that Harbhajan would be able to play until his appeal was heard, but - perhaps optimistically - argued “it was inconceivable [the appeal] would be delayed until after the fourth Test in Adelaide. If it were, the council would be seen to be caving completely to Indian demands”.

In Brisbane’s Herald Sun, Robert Craddock adopted a different take on the Bucknor issue, saying his sacking had saved the series. “The International Cricket Council, so often criticized for its handling of a crisis, did well to make a tough call,” wrote Craddock. “For all the talk of the eternal cultural differences between the Australian and Indian teams, dodgy decisions are at the heart of most disputes.”

Michael Epis of the Melbourne Age, meanwhile, chose to get stuck into the attitude of Ponting’s team. “I don’t like cheats,” he began. “And I don’t like this Australian cricket team.” Fuming over the Australians’ lack of grace throughout the Sydney Test, Epis wrote: “The Australians have just equaled the game’s longest winning streak. Next week in Perth they should better it. Then go one better again in Adelaide. Who knows where it might end. Well, they can stick their streak where they can stick their 3 mobile [an Australian team sponsor]. After this effort, I couldn’t care less.”

The allegation that the Indian spin bowler Harbhajan Singh called the black Australian all-rounder Andrew Symonds a “monkey” during a Test match in Sydney last week might be shocking in itself. But the more general idea that “sledging” - cricket’s term for on-field chat of the non-Women’s-Institute variety - might have strayed into a realm it should never touch is, sadly, not.

The term itself is thought to derive from the phrase “subtle as a sledgehammer”, but much of the yabbering that today’s players cynically pass off as gamesmanship tends to be even more labored than that. The former Australia captain Steve Waugh did his best to confer a degree of skill and mystery on the practice by calling it “mental disintegration”, but the truth is that sledging is often crude, occasionally offensive, and only rarely witty. “How’s your wife and my kids?” Ian Botham was once asked as he arrived at the crease. It was the high point of the conversation.

Popular sentiment has helped enshrine sledging’s place in cricket’s mythology. Books have been published on the subject, email circulars chuckle at the latest gems, and YouTube puts faces to the name-calling. You don’t need to be a fan of cricket to have heard the one about the Australian fast bowler who asked the Zimbabwean batsman why he was so fat. “Because every time I fuck your wife,” came the supposed reply, “she gives me a biscuit.” If players are continually veering into the sexual or the scatological, other types of insult will inevitably enter the fray.

It goes without saying, of course, that the Sydney furore has been accompanied by obligatory laments about the damage done to cricket’s standing, as if everyone has been turning a deaf ear all these years. Few in the establishment care to admit it, but the gentleman’s game has always been more streetwise in reality.

After all, sport’s first superhero, the Victorian all-rounder WG Grace, would replace the bails if he was bowled, blaming a non-existent breeze or telling the umpires the crowd had come to watch him bat. Match-fixing, ball-tampering and chucking - illegal bowling actions - are as much a part of cricket’s lexicon as leather and willow. But sledging seems to demand a chapter of its own.