Haddin Deserves ICC Sanction - II

As you can see from the comments on my post about Brad Haddin's comments (and the response I had on my twitter feed), most people seem to see it in one of two ways. These are, I would wager, the usual, formulaic ways of seeing it.

1. The Aussies think this is a whinge - that India are losing, and hence looking for ways to get back at Australia.
2. That this is a severe reading of Haddin's comments, which, lets face it, are the usual Aussie fare about the opposition. After all, Australia have never been shy of offering their opinions about their opponents.

The first, I must dismiss out of hand. I have no affiliation with BCCI or India's Test team. Indeed, part of my point is that India are not likely to say anything to the referee. This is implicit in my claim that the ICC Code of Conduct be applied to Haddin, since, if you are familiar with the rules, this is possible if either the Umpires or the Indian team lodges a complaint.* India's preferred mode of responding, entirely predictably, seems to be to take the sporting high ground (in a manner of speaking anyway) and mock Brad Haddin's wicketkeeping.



The second is, I think largely true. This is a severe, close reading of what Haddin said. I believe this close reading is necessary. First, it was not said in reference to a specific incident, nor was it said in reference to a specific player. Had this been the case, there would have been no problem, because the assertion could then have been examined and either embraced or disputed, partly or fully. Second, it was not a case of a reporter paraphrasing a more nuanced point. We hear it in Haddin's own words. He is talking about his current opponents. And so, this could be dismissed as the usual banter.

This is precisely what I think needs to be disrupted. This kind of talk has not always par for the course - what can be and is said about an opposing team has changed (like most things in the world) - it has a history. This history is not inevitable, it is shaped by how concerned people respond to these things.

The view that Haddin's comments are par for the course is ridiculous upon any reasonable inspection. India play many series every year. How often have they suggested that an opposing team has some innate tendencies - not skills, not observable, technical deficiencies, but deficiencies of character? Virender Sehwag once famously said that the Bangladesh Test team didn't have the means to bowl India out twice in a Test Match. This claim is different in fundamental ways from the sort of claim that Haddin makes. Steve Waugh tried to turn "mental disintegration" into a science - this is was a normative proposition on Waugh's part which had to do with something he considered to be central to his team's tactical approach. Teams have long said that India's batsmen are flat track bullies - that they don't like it when the ball bounces more, or, in extreme cases, it has even been suggested that some of them even back away to leg. These are claims that can be observed - either they do back away to leg, or they don't. They are claims that are arguable and contestable.

There are also numerous instances when it has been suggested in the press, by press reporters, that members of a team "turned on each other", or, more commonly (press reporters tend to be careful about this), that specific, named members of teams "turn on each other". It has never, to the best of my knowledge, been said by a player about his opponents as a general group.

The claim -"We know this side can be as fragile as any team in the world if things aren't going their way and they can turn on each other and the media turns on them pretty quick.", trespasses decisively into realm in which there is no defense possible. It alludes to a kind of ethnic or racial stereotype. Haddin is not even pretending to refer to any actual events on the field. He says that this is something "we know" about this side. In doing so, he's also reinforcing a certain, in my view distinctly unsporting and unhealthy way of analysing sport - as some kind of battle of wills, where you can succeed simply by wanting it more (in the 6 year old holding his breath till he's blue in the face sense). Cricket is more complicated than that, as I'm sure Brad Haddin knows better than any of us.

It has long been said about Indian teams that they are "soft", or that they play like "lambs" - Ian Healy (i think, it may have been Michael Slater) said about India's performance in 1999, but he said it after the 2003-04 tour, in a manner of drawing contrast. Healy was not a member of the Australian side in the 1999-00 series or the 2003-04 series (Slater played the 1999-00 Tests).

For a current player to say it about his opponents in a series in which he is a participant, is unprecedented.

And we can all play the ICC's Match Referee and decide for ourselves whether or not his comments merit censure. But we are not the ICC's Match Referee. If the Code of Conduct is a serious institution, then it must be applied in this instance, given the way Clause 2.1.7 and 2.2.3 are written. If it is not applied, then the next time it is applied, this incident will have to be referenced.

I have my doubts as to whether the ICC Match Referee should even exist. But given that the position exists, and given that its role is defined the way in which it is currently defined, I can see no reason, other than apathy, for Brad Haddin to not invite the referee's censure.

If players participating in a cricket match are to be regarded by the same standard that a tabloid reporter, or TV commentator reporting on a cricket match would be, then something is surely wrong. Yet, from the reactions to my original post, and all the counter examples deploying the phrase (and variants of it) "turn on each other" that I got, it seems to me that this is precisely what seems to be done. This is partly my fault as well, given that much of the response on twitter, was due to one intemperate tweet from me (which I have removed with apologies, it substantively, and without basis, extended my originally careful comparative claim about the racial stereotyping inherent in Haddin's comment). But the response on twitter and on the blog, even before I typed that tweet was not significantly different from what I have described.

I maintain that Brad Haddin deserves an interview with the Match Referee at the very least.

*The referee's attention can also be drawn to this kind of thing if the ICC's CEO lodges a complaint.