In the modern era, sport and politics are often interlinked. With political figures attaching themselves to sporting achievements in an attempt to gain favour with the people they may represent or hope to represent, one may assume that this link is beneficial only to the men and women in political power. But with various sporting incidents over recent years holding a political slant, there is perhaps the notion that the two entities are inextricably linked and that any potential benefits are shared.
Cricket is a sport that has dipped into political affairs on more than one occasion over the course of its history. Controversial events on and of the pitch often have a tinge of global politics to them and it is no surprise that escalating conflicts have arisen from some of the most relatively trivial disputes. Over the course of this essay, I shall attempt to examine the link between cricket and politics since the 1970’s, taking a close look at some specific examples of cricketing incidents carrying a political theme.
To understand the political aspect of cricket, it is important to have knowledge of the scale of the game on a global stage. Cricket is popular all round the world, despite only being played by a handful of nations. In the Caribbean, cricket is the dominant sport with a majority of islands competing in the domestic leagues and the islands joining together to form the West Indies for Test matches. In Asia, cricket is a supremely popular sport with India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh all entertaining huge fan-bases. Australia, South Africa and New Zealand all enjoy good support, despite competition from sports like rugby and Aussie Rules football. Ironically, it is in England, the nation of its birth, where cricket is probably the lowest down on the pecking order of popular sports. Yet, Test matches in England still pull in good crowds.
Perhaps the best way to begin to understand the link is to understand the internal politics of cricket itself. This involves examining the various boards and institutional bodies that rule and regulate the game. Ehsan Masood provides an excellent account of the global politics of cricket in an article for open democracy.net:
“In a curiously democratic sort of way, while the MCC sets the rules, it does not enforce them. The twin roles of executive, judiciary (and much more) fall to a single organisation, the ICC, which is responsible for the game's umpires and referees, handling misconduct allegations, as well as training, development, sponsorship and negotiating TV rights. Until 2005, both the MCC and the ICC were based at the Lords cricket ground in London. But in August of that year the ICC moved to Dubai in what is seen as a deliberate push by the cricket governing bodies of Asia to break the symbolic dominance of England over ICC affairs.”
The occasional indifference between the Asian nations and the alleged sense of dominance from England is symbolic of the current state of distrust and frostiness between East and West in the world today. Respected cricket personality Simon Hughes claimed in 2006 that the Pakistan tour of England was significant as a ‘healing force’ and that the friendliness and camaraderie between the two sides was a positive image as the two sides of the world attempted to slowly reconnect. Hughes was speaking in the aftermath of the infamous ball tampering saga, a cricketing incident that had gargantuan political ramifications for the sport.
In the 4th Test match, with England batting in their second innings, Australian umpire Darrell Hair suddenly called for a replacement ball and awarded England five penalty runs. The decision was based on the suspicion from Hair that Pakistan players had tampered with the ball in an attempt to help their quest for English wickets. Severely aggrieved by the decision, the Pakistan side refused to take the field after the tea break - protesting at what they perceived was an insult to the character and to the sporting nature of their side. With no sight of the Pakistan team , umpire Hair removed the bails from the stumps in the middle and awarded the match to England. It was the first instance of a game being called off and awarded to one side by way of a team forfeit in the history of the sport.
The incident provoked furore from the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) and from observers all over the world. Pakistan captain Inzamam Ul-Haq, who was at the centre of the team protest, was charged with bringing the game into disrepute. Umpire Hair, who came under intense scrutiny, offered to resign from his role as umpire in exchange for a heavy cash sum but is request was exposed, piling more pressure onto the situation. Hair was eventually removed from the International Cricket Council’s (ICC) elite umpire panel, though that decision was eventually overturned after a court hearing. Years after the decision, the ICC decided to alter the official result of the match to a draw, after pressure from the PCB but then reversed the decision and changed the result back to an England win. Inzamam Ul-Haq said, on the U-turn from the ICC: “I think they [ICC] have made it a joke by changing the result and I don't rule out another change in the future. The PCB has also failed to take a stand against this change and they were also weak in handling this matter.”
Many who had witnessed that infamous day at The Oval cricket ground were astounded that a sport with a reputation from gentlemanly conduct and fair play had descended into such farce. Political figures were muscling their way in on the incident and were escalating to a situation which did no-one’s reputation any credit. It further strained relations between Pakistan and the ICC (East and West) and was a body-blow for anyone hoping that a good mannered and open series between England and Pakistan would help to ease tensions.
An alternative issue between cricket and politics is when the sport is forced to turn to politics for an answer and there is no greater example of this than in 2003 and the World cup in South Africa. England were due to play a fixture in Zimbabwe, a country with an appalling human rights record and a dictatorial leader in Robert Mugabe. England’s players felt morally obliged to consider whether they should play the game or not. In essence, if they played they would be actively supporting the Mugabe regime. Despite pleas from the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) to switch the fixture from Harare in Zimbabwe to a South African venue, the powers that be were unable to move the game.
England captain Nasser Hussain was faced with a difficult moral decision. There was no official British government stance that would prohibit England from playing the match - the decision was to be left at the hands of the players, who had received death threats from an organisation called the ’Sons and Daughters of Zimbabwe’. Eventually, England decided not to play the game, risking their reputation amongst world cricket and their chances of competing effectively at the World Cup - the points from the game were awarded to Zimbabwe. New Zealand’s cricket team also decided to forgo their match in Kenya, due to security fears, and also paid the price of exiting the competition.
The issue of Zimbabwe in world cricket has long since been a thorny one. In their opening game of the 2003 World Cup, players Henry Olonga and Andy Flower both wore black armbands and proclaimed that they were ‘mourning the death of democracy in Zimbabwe’. Both players subsequently retired from cricket in the country and chose to play oversees. Olonga claimed that to continue playing in Zimbabwe would be “condoning the grotesque human rights violations that have been perpetrated - and continue to be perpetrated - against his fellow countrymen.” With England taking the first step, countries have since no longer toured Zimbabwe and the Test status of the nation has been revoked. The decision is not a slight against Zimbabwean cricket in any way but it is a firm and conscientious decision to take a moral and a political stand against the continued oppression from Mugabe.
An early example of cricket and politics mixing circles comes from 1970 and the suspension of South Africa from international cricket due to its government’s policy of apartheid. The racial tensions that were present in South Africa at the time led to their cricket team only fielding white players and only competing against white nations such as England, Australia and New Zealand. They were kept out of international cricket for a period of 21 years until the apartheid policy was abandoned and South Africa were allowed to compete on a global scale again. The ban meant that some of the country’s greatest ever players such as Barry Richards and Graeme Pollock would never have a chance to grace Test match cricket. The decision also led to South African born players with foreign parenthood leaving the country to play cricket for other countries - Robin Smith and Allan Lamb both became influential players for England.
During the ban, South Africa also refused to allow Basil D’Oliveira the chance to tour the country. D’Oliveira was a South African born player who moved to England and qualified to play for his adopted country. However, because of his race, the South African government refused to allow him to come on England’s tour. England hadn’t picked him in their side as an attempt to maintain cricketing ties with South Africa (an extremely politically influenced decision). They cited his ability as the reason he was not picked but many saw through the excuse. However, injury to another player meant that England officially selected him and with the South African government unrepentant on the issue, the tour was cancelled - an incident that has since been seen as something of a watershed in the sporting boycott of apartheid South Africa.
Despite the breakdown of apartheid, South African cricket is still littered with racial and political concerns. In an effort to encourage non-white cricket players, South African cricket have employed a quota system which means that the national side has to feature a select number of non white players. There have been many opposed to this move and some players have taken the drastic step of leaving South Africa in order to play. Kevin Pietersen is the most noteworthy example. He left South Africa, disillusioned with the system and convinced that it would hinder his chances of playing top level cricket. He moved to England and qualified to play through his English mother. Since the move, Pietersen has developed into one of the finest players of his generation and has even captained his adopted country on occasion. His move has set the precedent for a number of players to try their luck in England with Somerset wicket keeper Craig Kieswetter the latest South African born player to make his debut for England. Whilst not all players who make the move are as vocal in their criticism of the quota system as Pietersen has been, it is a clear indication that some white players in South Africa feel under pressure to leave.
Nowadays, despite the quota system being officially binned, South African cricket is full of non-white players who flourish in the side. Ashwell Prince, JP Duminy, Loots Bosman and Vernon Philander are just a number of players who have been extensively involved in the side in recent years. The relatively liberal state of South African cricket is such that one of their leading batsmen, Hashim Amla, is a Muslim. But the racial tensions do still exist, even if they aren’t as prominent. Makhaya Ntini was a non-white fast bowler and one of the stars of the side for much of the last decade. But age and a rapid decline in form led to the question of his selection being raised. Ntini was and still is a leading role model for non-whites all over South Africa and there was the fear that his non-selection would lead to many becoming less interested or disillusioned with the side. Eventually, it was decided that Ntini should be dropped. And it remains to be seen what effect the decision will have on cricket and politics in South Africa.
Perhaps the biggest link between cricket and politics is one of security. Security, in this context, is referring to the safety of the teams in locations where many may have reason to be wary of that safety. For instance, last year’s Indian Premier League was moved from India to South Africa because of fears over the player’s safety. In 2008, a bomb blast by rogue militants in a Mumbai hotel caused England to abandon the last two games of their one day series in India and to reconsider whether they should come back weeks later to take part in the Test series. Consideration was given from a number of angles, both cricketing and political. Middlesex County Cricket Club, who were due to play in India also, were advised by the British foreign office not to. ECB media relations manager Andrew Walpole claimed at the time: “We will be guided by the foreign office. We need to get a clearer idea of what the situation is before we react further.” Eventually, on the advice of their own security consultant, Reg Dickason, England decided to return to India and to play the two Test matches. Their return was heralded as the correct diplomatic decision and the success (for the Indian team) in the series was cited as a perfect rebuttal to those who had threatened the safety of everyone involved.
If cricket is to be seen as a healing power, then the world is better off for it and the link between cricket and politics is a relationship that has the potential to benefit many. There remains, however, the thorny issues that people in touch with the game attempt to avoid. The Zimbabwe debate will run and run for as long as Robert Mugabe remains in power and it’s a difficult issue to resolve. For all the hope of not stunting the growth of Zimbabwean cricket, openly welcoming them into the international cricket family and playing games in their country would be akin to warmly shaking the hand of their tyrannical dictator.
There is little doubt that cricket will have to endure the ongoing mix of politics for a long while yet. Whereas most sports have to simply put up with the odd politician jumping on their individual bandwagons, cricket faces issues that have a direct and uniform link to the political world. Be it furore over selection policies, national security or simply a team threatening to pull out of the remainder of a tour because one of their players was accused of being a racist (India’s Harbhajan Singh was banned in 2008 for alledgedly calling Australia’s Andrew Symonds a ‘monkey’), cricket has to face up to issues of a political theme on a regular basis. It remains to be seen what and when the next international incident will be.
(University essay on Sport, Media and Culture, 2010)
25 April 2010
20 April 2010
Battling Solent overcome esteemed hosts
Team Solent's cricketers recorded a famous and moraleboosting 34 run victory over the Hampshire second XI, a team that featured first team players Kabir Ali and James Tomlinson.
Team Solent coach Dave Yelling was proud of his players: "There’s not many sides who come here and get a big win. It was a really strong performance by a really strong university side."
Solent captain Will Adkin lost the toss and was invited to bat first by Hampshire skipper Tomlinson.
Mindful of the difficulty pacing a 50 over innings, openers Morton and Hill forged a solid opening stand, taking the score to 97 and seeing off the opening spell from one-time England Test player Ali.
Morton, something of a veteran in the Solent side, gave an excellent demonstration of his ability with a series of confident shots against the new ball.
He holed out for a splendid 66 soon after his partner had been trapped LBW but wicket keeper Cater arrived at the crease and played a calm innings, sharing fifty stands with skipper Adkin and middle order batsman Mohod.
He ground his way to an invaluable 69, mixing big shots with sensible running and drove Solent on to a hugely competitive total of 279-6.
Kabir Ali found himself in the unfamiliar position at the top of the order for Hampshire as they set about chasing 280 to win and immediately gave an indication of his class as he set about the wayward Solent new ball bowling. 10 extras were conceded in the first four overs of Hampshire’s reply and the fielders did not assist matters with a succession of dropped chances.
The partnership was broken by Morton with the score on 96, bringing regular number eleven Tomlinson to the crease at first drop. The established pair set about counter attacking Solent’s bowling with a series of explosive and assured shots.
More poor catching threatened to hamper Solent’s chances of victory but when Ali was dismissed 19 short of a hundred, Solent were back in the hunt.
As the required run rate skyrocketed, Hampshire players proceeded to throw away their wickets. Spinner Afzal picked up a match winning 3-47 as he dismissed Ali, Tomlinson and tailender Haggaty and also contributed a spectacular run out.
Skipper Adkin chipped in with three wickets, running through the Hampshire middle order and Solent bowled out their opponents for 245 with just under four overs to spare.
Opener Morton was immensely proud of his team’s accomplishment: "The future students at Solent will see that we play matches against Hampshire and it will attract them to the university.
"Comparing now to what it was four or five years ago, we have many more cricketers that come to the university then what we did back then."
(Solent Speaker Online, 2010)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
