Early thoughts on match fixing
ted dexter copy for the cricketer magazine
3rd november 2000
I received a news release recently from the International Cricket Council headlined “ ICC commits to ongoing fight against cricket corruption”, a statement of intent which had all the impact of a cotton wool ball bowled at a brick wall. “ICC suspends three nations from international cricket for three years” – or “ Seventeen Test cricketers banned for life” would have knocked one or two bricks out of the wall at least.
More earth shattering revelations were to come. “The Pakistan Board intends to pursue a policy of no tolerance to corruption.” Which suggests that prior to the recent ICC meetings in Nairobi, there was a possibility that a blind eye had been turned to certain misconduct in that part of the world. I am amazed that Pakistan could have approved the text of a release with such negative implications.
On a more positive note, it was the first time that I became fully aware of a formal Anti-Corruption Unit under Sir Paul Condon and the existence of individual investigating processes in each affiliated country.
Turn the page, however, and matters seem to descend into pure farce with the reqirement for every Tom, Dick and Harry involved with international cricket – including groundsmen – to sign “honesty” declarations with a pro-forma players’ form attached. It is rather like one of those old-fashioned immigration forms where you were asked whether you had ever been involved in subversive activities for the overthrow of the state.
Is any player seriously going to have a sudden change of heart and admit to match fixing just because he is faced with a new scrap of paper to sign?
Every existing player contract contains a clause binding him to observe the Code of Conduct which already theatens disciplinary action for everything from dissent to drug taking and includes a detailed list of offences involving cricket gambling of any kind. To add a further layer of bureaucracy is surely pure window dressing.
And so to the mention of Alec Stewart's name within the Indian Government enquiry into cricket related misconduct. Some have dignified these mentions with the word “allegations”, but since they emanate from a self confessed criminal corrupter, an Indian bookmaker acting unlawfully in the first place, it is totally irresponsible and odious to do so. If ever there was a need to remember the old maxim of “innocent until proven guilty”, it is now in relation to Stewart. It also strikes me as a total overreaction for a posse of anti-corruption officers to rush over to India in the light of such a totally unsubstantiated linking of the Stewart name to the very serious offences admitted by other individuals.
There is just one more small point of probably academic interest only.
I see that the relevant Appendix to the ICC Code of Conduct dealing with gambling starts with the words “ at any time after the 1st July 1993”. The England Tour to India finished in March 1993.
My off-the-cuff recollection of the 1992/1993 tour to India was of England performing so poorly that there was no possibility of a bet of any kind. We lost all three Tests by such margins that under-performance by one or two of the Indian batsmen would scarcely have made any difference. It is quite scary to note that our two spinners, Tufnell and Emburey took their grand total of 6 wickets in the series at an average of 69 and 72 respectively.
However the 6 match series of one-day internationals was well contested with England and India winning 3 matches each. I have looked at the analyses of each game, not to see what Stewart did or did not do, but to see whether there was any pattern which suggested anything unusual and my conclusion is one of total inconclusiveness. Perhaps that is where the so-called glorious uncertainties of cricket play into the hands of unscrupulous gamblers. 0 one day and 100 the next is commonplace without any help from ideas of match-fixing.
Going back to the ICC release, I was dissappointed to see that the penalties imposed on Herschelle Gibbs and Henry Williams were confirmed. As young players early in their careers, it must have put them on the spot in an unprecedented way to be instructed to underperform by their Captain, Hansie Cronje. Such was the general high level of respect for Cronje before his fall from grace, it was virtually impossible for such juniors to blow the whistle.When I first played under Peter May, his word was law as far as I was concerned and I am sure I would have done whatever he told me to do. It would have been a nice way of emphasising the crucial role of cricket captains in the conduct of the game if those penalties had been suspended by ICC.
It warms my heart just a little to finish by talking actual cricket. Watching the first one-day international in Pakistan, my heart was in my mouth when Hick started to take a swing at Saqlain's very first ball. He was clearly nowhere near the pitch of the ball but miraculously there was a meaty connection and the ball sailed away for six. It was a defining moment which heralded a famous victory just as much as the wonderful clean hitting by Flintoff.
Only a few days later, exactly the same scenario emerged in the Final. Saqlain to Hick, a mighty swing and victory to Saqlain on this occasion. Now who could have bet on that.
3rd november 2000
I received a news release recently from the International Cricket Council headlined “ ICC commits to ongoing fight against cricket corruption”, a statement of intent which had all the impact of a cotton wool ball bowled at a brick wall. “ICC suspends three nations from international cricket for three years” – or “ Seventeen Test cricketers banned for life” would have knocked one or two bricks out of the wall at least.
More earth shattering revelations were to come. “The Pakistan Board intends to pursue a policy of no tolerance to corruption.” Which suggests that prior to the recent ICC meetings in Nairobi, there was a possibility that a blind eye had been turned to certain misconduct in that part of the world. I am amazed that Pakistan could have approved the text of a release with such negative implications.
On a more positive note, it was the first time that I became fully aware of a formal Anti-Corruption Unit under Sir Paul Condon and the existence of individual investigating processes in each affiliated country.
Turn the page, however, and matters seem to descend into pure farce with the reqirement for every Tom, Dick and Harry involved with international cricket – including groundsmen – to sign “honesty” declarations with a pro-forma players’ form attached. It is rather like one of those old-fashioned immigration forms where you were asked whether you had ever been involved in subversive activities for the overthrow of the state.
Is any player seriously going to have a sudden change of heart and admit to match fixing just because he is faced with a new scrap of paper to sign?
Every existing player contract contains a clause binding him to observe the Code of Conduct which already theatens disciplinary action for everything from dissent to drug taking and includes a detailed list of offences involving cricket gambling of any kind. To add a further layer of bureaucracy is surely pure window dressing.
And so to the mention of Alec Stewart's name within the Indian Government enquiry into cricket related misconduct. Some have dignified these mentions with the word “allegations”, but since they emanate from a self confessed criminal corrupter, an Indian bookmaker acting unlawfully in the first place, it is totally irresponsible and odious to do so. If ever there was a need to remember the old maxim of “innocent until proven guilty”, it is now in relation to Stewart. It also strikes me as a total overreaction for a posse of anti-corruption officers to rush over to India in the light of such a totally unsubstantiated linking of the Stewart name to the very serious offences admitted by other individuals.
There is just one more small point of probably academic interest only.
I see that the relevant Appendix to the ICC Code of Conduct dealing with gambling starts with the words “ at any time after the 1st July 1993”. The England Tour to India finished in March 1993.
My off-the-cuff recollection of the 1992/1993 tour to India was of England performing so poorly that there was no possibility of a bet of any kind. We lost all three Tests by such margins that under-performance by one or two of the Indian batsmen would scarcely have made any difference. It is quite scary to note that our two spinners, Tufnell and Emburey took their grand total of 6 wickets in the series at an average of 69 and 72 respectively.
However the 6 match series of one-day internationals was well contested with England and India winning 3 matches each. I have looked at the analyses of each game, not to see what Stewart did or did not do, but to see whether there was any pattern which suggested anything unusual and my conclusion is one of total inconclusiveness. Perhaps that is where the so-called glorious uncertainties of cricket play into the hands of unscrupulous gamblers. 0 one day and 100 the next is commonplace without any help from ideas of match-fixing.
Going back to the ICC release, I was dissappointed to see that the penalties imposed on Herschelle Gibbs and Henry Williams were confirmed. As young players early in their careers, it must have put them on the spot in an unprecedented way to be instructed to underperform by their Captain, Hansie Cronje. Such was the general high level of respect for Cronje before his fall from grace, it was virtually impossible for such juniors to blow the whistle.When I first played under Peter May, his word was law as far as I was concerned and I am sure I would have done whatever he told me to do. It would have been a nice way of emphasising the crucial role of cricket captains in the conduct of the game if those penalties had been suspended by ICC.
It warms my heart just a little to finish by talking actual cricket. Watching the first one-day international in Pakistan, my heart was in my mouth when Hick started to take a swing at Saqlain's very first ball. He was clearly nowhere near the pitch of the ball but miraculously there was a meaty connection and the ball sailed away for six. It was a defining moment which heralded a famous victory just as much as the wonderful clean hitting by Flintoff.
Only a few days later, exactly the same scenario emerged in the Final. Saqlain to Hick, a mighty swing and victory to Saqlain on this occasion. Now who could have bet on that.
Trackbacks
No Trackbacks
The author does not allow comments to this entry
Comments
Display comments as Linear | Threaded