Neuroscience - the solution to the Bhajji-Symonds argument??

The cricket world is in an uproar with regards to the Harbhajan - Symonds issue. While many blame racism, I beg to differ - the answer lies, but obviously, in the realm of neuroscience!

To help you better understand, you need to first be aware of the facts. These are outlined below.

"This is what happened before our confrontation," Symonds said in the Herald Sun. "Brett Lee had just sent down a delivery and Harbhajan took off down the wicket. When he was returning to his crease, he decided to hit Brett on the backside. I have no idea why he did it.

"I was standing nearby and when I saw what happened, I thought, 'Hold on, that's not on'. I'm a firm believer in sticking up for your team-mate so I stepped in and had a bit of a crack at Harbhajan, telling him exactly what I thought of his antics. He then had a shot back, which brings us to the situation we're facing."

Now, many believe that the basic problem is that Symonds accuses Harbhajan of calling him a "monkey" - a racist term. However, I think the crucial point has been missed by one and all.

Let us proceed logically, Symonds says "....he decided to hit Brett on the backside. I have no idea why he did it......"I was standing nearby and when I saw what happened, I thought, 'Hold on, that's not on'."

This raises two obvious questions.

1) Brett Lee was allegedly hit in the rump (touchy, derriere, JLo etc.) by Harbhajan.
Brett Lee did not complain about anything (that we are aware of). Why? Is it because his he really enjoyed it? Or perhaps, his nerve endings are a little off?

Medical science tells us that the backside has a lower concentration of nerve endings than most other parts. However, people still manage to feel it when they are hit on the Beyonce. How is it then, that Brett Lee, a supremely fit athlete, did not? One must, therefore, logically conclude that there is a problem with his nerve endings, a problem for pure neuroscience!

Another major point is that Symonds thought "..it was not on....I'm a firm believer in sticking up for your team-mate".
Now, why did Symonds think it was not on? We have seen the Aussies celebrate wickets on TV, and slapping the hindquarters is one way of congratulating your teammate (watch it next time if you don't believe me). Perhaps Symonds felt his territory was being threatened? It would certainly make sense, as team bonding is a valuable tool. Perhaps he felt Bhajji and Brett might become very good friends after that (chaddi-buddies/langotiya yaars, if you will), and this might take away some of Brett's hostility? Obviously, Brett Lee did not think there was any such danger, as his lack of action later proved.

One must, in the end, not forget what started the whole thing, "...Harbhajan took off down the wicket. When he was returning to his crease, he decided to hit Brett on the backside...."
Why did Harbhajan do this? Did he felt he could reduce Brett's hostilities by befriending him? Perhaps, in the light of what transpired, it was a deviously calculated ploy to elicit the necessary response from Symonds - Australia's best batsman in the first innings. We are all aware that teams today watch videos of their opponents before games to strategize. Perhaps this was one of those cunning stratagems? Whatever be Bhajji's intention, we may never ever actually know!

Perhaps, then, it's not just a matter for neuroscience, we must consult the psychologists as well!!

The Sydney Fiasco (BollyLine)

Ok. Here's my $0.02 about the whole Sydney fiasco.
Firstly, there is the umpiring. Bad decisions are part of umpiring. The human element makes that inevitable. Having been at the receiving end of some shockers throughout the match, I give India credit for the way they not only stayed in, but strangled the Aussie run machine in spite of a weak bowling attack. They also kept their calm thorough the umpiring throughout the match and got on with the game.

I do not believe Andrew Symonds or Ricky Ponting did anything wrong by not walking. Never in cricket history has anyone walked consistently, and asking them to do so is being naive and irrational. A batsman is perfectly entitled to stay until the umpire gives him marching orders. Yes, even if he is clean bowled, there is nothing that prevents him from staying, aside from looking extremely foolish. Symonds had 4 lives today, tomorrow, he could get 4 bad decisions. None of this reflects in any way on the integrity of the player in question.

I did not personally have any problem with the Dravid decision - it was lousy, but it happens. The Ganguly matter is not so straightforward. Since the captains had agreed before the Test series that they would take the opposing captains word on the catches, Ponting signaling "out" is perfectly justified. I do not believe Ponting or Clarke are cheats, and I believe Clarke was genuinely certain that he had taken it cleanly, and Ponting knows Clarke well enough to take his word on it.

The problem I have with that decision, is what Mark Benson (the umpire) did. Now, according to the rules, he is supposed to consult with the square leg umpire first (a ridiculous notion, given that Bucknor was standing miles away, and would have been no use), and, if still unsure, go to the third umpire. This is procedure. By not following it, he has shown what can only be termed incompetence. Even allowing for the fact that he may have been aware of the agreement between the captains prior to the series, making such a call on the fifth day of a close Test match, given what had transpired on the first four days, was - stupid.

I believe India is to blame for the loss. If your tailenders cannot survive 2 overs to draw a Test match, against the bowling of a part timer, you don't deserve to win. That's pretty plain.

The most controversial issue - the alleged comments by Harbhajan towards Symonds. Personally, I'm pretty sure Bhajji must have probably said the M-word, after being provoked by Symonds. Bhajji isn't the most calm character on the field, and has a rather limited vocabulary at heated moments. What I find ridiculous is Ponting's decision to report it to the match referee. I think he's acting a little precious. Being called a "b****rd" may be a term of endearment in Australia, but it is not so in the subcontinent or England. The Aussies are very clearly aware of this fact. Yet, I am sure that term is used fairly liberally. You don't see the Indians complaining to the match referee every time they play the Aussies now, do you?

The only real absurd thing in the match was Proctor's decision against Bhajji, based on hearsay. Whether Bhajji actually used it is irrelevant, you need to prove it, and you cannot take one man's word over another's.

I felt the Indians overreacted to the whole thing a tad. All they had to do was file an official complaint against Bucknor & Bensen with regards to the umpiring. They could also just have appealed Bhajji's ban within 24 hours (a procedure allowed by the rules), which would have ensured the ban would be suspended till the hearing. Creating a ruckus only makes you look like a bully - never a good idea. Muscling Bucknor out was unnecessary. Even if he did umpire and give bad decisions in Perth, he would have only hastened his own end.

Instead, the Indian team is now in a position where they have lost focus slightly - not a good idea. Based on their performance in the last test, I believe this team is good enough to square the series. However, given the drama that has ensued, I now have my doubts regarding their focus.

Lastly, I found Kumble's conduct as a captain fantastic. Staying around to shake hands with the umpires and the Aussies after a heartbreaking last over, and a rough Test match, shows a man who genuinely believes in the spirit of the game. He does not just talk the talk, he walks the walk. (FYI - The Indians have no "signed" personal code of conduct) No one can ever argue with that!

We lost

Another Sydney Test match comes to a close. Australia have won their 16th consecutive Test match. India have lost yet again.

India had the world champions Australia down at 6/134 on the first day.
We lost!
India were trailing Australia by 118 runs with 3 wickets in hand, and ended up with a lead of 69.
We lost!
VVS Laxman scored a brilliant counterattacking century.
We lost!
Tendulkar made the most measured, intelligent century of his career.
We lost!
Harbhajan had the world's best batsman out first ball for the 5th time.
We lost!
Ishant Sharma & RP Singh had the Aussies crawling at 2 runs per over.
We lost!
The Aussies took 1 full day to score 282 runs against an attack of Sharma,Singh, Singh & Kumble.
We lost!
The best team in 130 years had to wait with 8 minutes to go on the 5th day of a Test Match on their Home Ground for a victory against an Indian team with an inexperienced bowling attack.
We lost?