A pup, a tiger, a jumbo, a punter and two blind men

Those who watched the Chappell Hadlee series in December might remember Michael Clarke claiming a catch which was in fact a bump ball, as replays indicated. Hamish McDouall discussed the issue here. The appeal was upheld by the umpire, but that one was at an inconsequential stage of the game, when Australia had things well under control. But even in hindsight this must have left a bitter taste in the mouth, knowing your opponents are willing to overlook a shadow of doubt in their all-consuming desire to win. And guess what? Barely two weeks later the same Michael Clarke claims a catch of Saurav Ganguly at a decisive moment on the last day of the Sydney test, and replays aren't able to establish the legitimacy of the claim. The immediate events are already well known but let's recap: Ganguly stands his ground, adamant that a referral is needed. Umpire Benson is uncertain, and then - this is the key - decides to consult not the square leg umpire Bucknor, but Ricky Ponting who is right beside Clarke. In the light of the previous days' events, maybe Benson had no confidence left in either Bucknor or the third umpire?

As a spectator I can live with bad umpiring, but not with players taking the umpire's job into their own hands. It has been revealed that Ponting and Kumble had an 'unwritten pact' before the series, about batsmen taking the fielder's word in the matter of a contentious catch (I'm assuming the umpires were made aware of this too). It's hard to decide which was more shocking - Benson taking the word of Ponting and Clarke(the same player who stood his ground when clearly given out the previous day), or Kumble having actually agreed to the 'pact'. Surely if Ganguly, who was at the receiving end of the decision, was in kumble's position he would have called the pact for what it was - garbage. For being suckered in, maybe the Indian team did deserve the dismissal in the end. But seriously, if Benson knew what he was doing out there, in effect he was admitting that the players were in a better position to adjudicate than the umpires themselves! Which is why I would like to see India pressing forward a plea against Benson officiating in future games, just as they have done for Steve Bucknor. As for the man with the dreaded finger, I wouldn't be surprised to find him umpiring in Perth. The Indians have already expressed no confidence in him in the past, but apparently it's just not important.

The test was a riveting one, but disturbing all the same. Ponting insisted that barring the Harbhajan-Symonds incident, the test was played in the right spirit between both teams. But this is clearly the Aussie-only definition of 'spirit'. I have a good deal of respect for punter in the way he managed to tidy up the side's image after that blatant mental disintegration propaganda of Steve Waugh; but since the last year or so, he and the rest of the side seem be to believing it's up to them to redefine the behavioral standards for everyone. This was especially evident when he lashed out at the Indian journalist who questioned him appealing for a catch which had touched the ground, because the man seemed to imply that his unshakeable integrity was in question. When did he decide he was holier-than-all? It's a bit rich that a set of players who have a recent history of indulging in everything from excessive appealing and provocation to racist comments (yes, does anyone care to recall Darren Lehmann and the 'black cunts'?) should have enough moral high ground to negotiate beforehand about walking and catch disputes. India, of course, gave up their own high ground thanks to the Harbhajan issue, and if he did use the word 'monkey' he was incredibly stupid and deserved to be punished. I just wonder how conclusive the evidence was for the Aussies to think it was worth pushing the case.

On a purely on-field note, I salute Ponting for the decision to use Michael Clarke at the end. Some people believe it was a move based on gut feel which he was happily able to justify later on in the press, but I think otherwise. The logic behind it was spot on, and he would have remembered Clarke's 6-9 in Mumbai three years ago. For me, it defined what test cricket is all about - an excitement which the artificial thrills of the limited overs game cannot replace. The irony that the hero at the end was Michael Clarke will not be lost on anybody. It was the best example of rough justice I've seen.