Flip through the latest issue of Gulf Weekly.
'Chestgate' (soccer), 'Spygate' (Formula One), 'Sexgate' (FIA and Ronaldo) and now 'Slapgate' (cricket). The sporting vocabulary is indeed getting complex and colourful. Who knows, these same controversies may be prize questions in rapid fire quizs in a few years time.
Here is a sample: In one column may be names like Zinedine Zidane, McLaren, Harbhajan Singh, Ronaldo and Max Mosley and in the other the above mentioned gates, and the wide-eyed quizzers may be asked to match the following. Your time starts now....
'Chestgate' in soccer was waiting to happen for long given the close contact between players and the high-level of competition (good and bad). 'Spygate' was expected given the sheer amount of money involved and the cutting edge software easily available (for both positive and negative purposes).
And 'Sexgate', well it's not the first time something like this has emerged. And it won't be the last either.
But 'Slapgate'? For the romantics at least, it's just not cricket. After all, it's a gentleman's game played on the greens by men dressed in pristine whites while the ladies sipped tea in the stands.
This is, however, a false notion, a half-truth and a romantic mirage. Altercations, fights, dissent and rebellions have always been part and parcel of the game right from the days of Grace and Bradman. But they were confined to newsprint or at best grainy black-and-white images.
The advent of colour television and with it exhaustive coverage with multiple cameras and slow motion gizmos changed the way cricket was viewed, and played. The dynamics and synergy transformed dramatically. It was not just about 22 yards between the wickets - it was much more as giant screens and LCDs replaced 24-inch TVs.
Thus by the time an angry Dennis Lillee unleased a flying kick on an equally aggressive Javed Miandad in the 70s, cricket had invaded hundreds of thousands of drawing rooms across the globe. Nothing could be hidden from the cameras - no action went unseen or no word unheard.
Later one-day cricket and now Twenty20 has further elevated the excitement and ambience. At another level, multi-million dollar deals, multiple endorsements and ever-increasing competition, within same teams and between rival teams, are pushing cricketers to the edges of accepted norms.
The line differentiating manliness and boorishness has got blurred. So has the dividing line between a true sportsman and a mere showman.
Harbhajan and Sreesanth have just been part of another episode of this protracted soap opera. But the question is how can the authorities tackle similar controversies in the future.
The present case has already been badly handled by the Indian cricket board by making Harbhajan look like a devil and Sreesanth more of a saint. Both assumptions are wrong going by the old saying that it takes two hands to clap.
Both the players' past records have been tainted and littered with controversies. Sreesanth's in fact is worse than Harbhajan's if his behaviour in domestic cricket is taken into consideration.
Not too long ago he was involved in a slanging match with his compatriot Virender Sehwag while the latter was having a lean time with the bat. Sehwag let it go. But not Sachin Tendulkar who gave it back strong and square during another spat with Sreesanth.
Sreesanth is reported to have clashed with the maestro during a domestic tournament a few years ago. Tendulkar struck the next delivery straight over the bowler's head and then walked down the pitch and confronted Sreesanth.
"Don't you ever come so close to me again," Tendulkar was quoted to have said to put Sreesanth firmly in his place.
Harbhajan in comparision has reserved his aggression for the opposition. His latest transgression was also against an opponent (remember Sreesanth was in the opposition team) and must have surely been a reaction to an equally unsporting action from Sreesanth.
But this episode was not viewed from all angles. The Indian board had to be seen taking action and it managed to do it by opting for the convenient route of punishing the soft and easy target. After all, it was Sreesanth who had cried and hence could not be punished. Harbhajan, on the other hand, was defiant, and therefore, punishable.
A superficial judgement indeed from a judge (OK, OK, match referee) who was seen wearing the T-shirt of one of the two teams involved in the fracas. I guess it's now time to judge the judges!
One final point: the Indian Premier League is an 'officially unofficial tournament' in the sense that is has the International Cricket Council's blessings but the results and statistics will not be part of the official records.
In that case, is Harbhajan's slap official or unofficial?
