From: vigneswa@ecs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: MCC and TCCB Selectors.....
Date: 23 Jan 93 18:35:05 GMT


MCC have no right to sledge the 'umpire' J J Warr argues that
it is a sad day when  people who should see themselves as the
custodians of the laws of cricket - and, much more, its tradi-
tions and spirit - seek to undermine their moral authority.

By  J J Warr

	Next Wednesday, members of MCC will be asked to approve
a resolution "that  the Marylebone  Cricket Club  have no confi-
dence in England's cricket selectors". If it is passed, it will
be a perfect example of abusing the umpire and showing palpable
and obvious dissent. Even worse, it will be sledging the umpire
before  his alleged  incompetence has  even  been  proved.  The
success or failure of the tour to India will not be known until
March.  Until then, what will happen is  purely a matter of sub-
jective conjecture.  The selectors are the umpires in this case,
and what will  happen next  Wednesday is well beyond everything
MCC should represent.  The club are  custodians of  the laws of
cricket and, much more, its spirit and tradition.  That members
should be  seeking to undermine that moral  authority is  a sad
day indeed.  I cast my mind back to 1988 when Mike Gatting, the
then England  captain, was seen  wagging a finger at a Pakistan
umpire.  That picture appeared on the front page of practically
every newspaper  in this country.  On the  same day  the United
States and the then  Soviet Union signed  a nuclear disarmament
treaty which might  have helped to save  the planet from extinc-
tion.  That got  coverage  on Page 2.  Searing editorials  were
written and I dare say the signatories to next Wednesday's reso-
lution raised their collective  hands in horror.  The following
year, the  Test  and County  Cricket Board's  cricket committee,
under the same chairmanship as today, vetoed  Gatting's appoint-
ment as  England  captain -largely, I  suspect, because  of the
incident in Pakistan.  They showed the  same distaste of accusa-
tions  of bias  towards  an umpire as I do.  I was  present  in
Sydney when  Chris Broad was given out, and to show his dissent
he  knocked all  three stumps out of the  ground before leaving
for the  pavilion.  Howls  of outrage  from  the  press rightly
followed.  In New  Zealand, Colin Croft, the  West Indian  fast
bowler, showed his  dissent by  deliberately  running  into the
umpire on his  way to the wicket.  It is impossible to read the
account of an international match these days without reading of
fines  for dissent.  Even Allan Border, the  Australian captain,
was found guilty recently.  It has become so bad that the Inter-
national  Cricket  Council have  felt it  necessary  to appoint
referees for international matches to keep the peace.   What is
it going to look  like to the  international  community if  MCC
join in this fashionable and  undesirable  practice?  There are,
however, other overtones in the resolution which I find hard to
take.  It is assumed that David Gower's omission  from the side
and the non-selection of a  specialist wicketkeeper cannot have
been taken on cricketing grounds alone.  There have been accusa-
tions about how the selection  is run by people  not of officer
material. The selectors are said to favour the artisans against
the artists; the  roundheads have  triumphed over the cavaliers. 
Somehow, the lower  classes have gained control.  The fact that
four peers of  the realm have signed the resolution recalls the
peers' chorus in Iolanthe:  "Bow, bow  ye lower  middle classes,
bow bow ye  tradesmen, bow ye  masses."  To impugn such bias to-
wards what I have said is the umpire in this case (collectively,
men of  undoubted integrity) suggests  that the modern tendency
to  see a  conspiracy  everywhere  is gaining  a hold  even  in
cricket.  I would like, finally, to point to the purely cricket-
ing aspect of this affair.  The tour of India and Sri Lanka  is
heavily weighted towards  one-day cricket, with three  Tests in
India and  eight one-day games  altogether.  One-day cricket is
now firmly part of  the scene, whether  we like it or not.  The
technique required to win such matches puts a heavy emphasis on
fielding and  running between the  wickets.  The result  is fre-
quently determined by a brilliant catch or an equally brilliant
run out. Gower did not take part in the 1987 World Cup in India
because his throwing arm had gone and he needed to put it right.
Regular watchers of the game well know that his throwing arm is
no better in 1993 than it was in  1987.  This is a distinct dis-
advantage  in  tightly-contested  one-day games.  Also, I would
venture  to suggest  his  running between  the wickets does not
bear comparison with that of Fairbrother. As for his batting in
one-day games, sad to  relate, it is frequently the  unorthodox
or the impoverished shot that gets results.  Gower is sometimes
too much of a purist to  prostitute his  skill in such unseemly 
activities.  What  does this  all add  up to?  First, and  most
important, MCC must  not be  seen to  flout  the  authority  of
people appointed and, in most cases, members of  MCC themselves.
Next, the idea that  there is some sort of  hidden plot to keep
certain players  out of the side  who are in India  is too ridi-
culous to  contemplate.  I  would  add  that  the selection  of
Gatting, after serving out his  suspension, was perfectly justi-
fied on the grounds that he is arguably the best player of spin
bowling  in  first-class  cricket.  Finally, I  have  witnessed
myself  the need for physical  fitness, track-suited cricket if
you like, on a tour of India.  It can be a gruelling experience,
mentally and physically, and while everyone is entitled to join
in the national sport of tickling up the selectors, the  resolu-
tion next  Wednesday has  gone well over  the top and should be
rejected.

JJ Warr, the former Middlesex and England fast bowler, has been
president of MCC and is now a committee member.

Thanks:  The Daily Telegraph