Why Randiv’s no-ball is worth its weight in gold

Cricket recently had its gentlemanly feathers ruffled by a rather (un)gamely incident.

Normally, cricket is brought into disrepute by Australians found drunk on Bondi beach, Englishmen found drunk pedal-boating in the Caribbean and Pakistanis found sober, but with hashish, at airports.

Indians have match-fixing on their bad cricket behavior resume, nothing proven of course, but well…

For a change though - which these days means a new format of the game, or a new IPL scandal, or a new Pakistani captain - there was a choice made on the field that raised the issue of sportsmanship.

In fact, not since Douglas Jardine told Harold Larwood to break Don Bradman’s ribs, or since Ramnaresh Sarwan told Glenn McGrath to ask his wife (suffering from cancer at the time, now deceased) what a certain part of Brian Lara’s anatomy tasted like, or since Harbhajan Singh slapped S Sreesanth, has there been such a moral upheaval in the hallowed halls of modern cricket thought.

Actually, strike the last one off. Everyone seems to agree that Sreesanth probably deserved it.

So here’s what happened, if you missed it.

In a recent India versus Sri Lanka one-day international, Tillekaratne Dilshan suggested that Suraj Randiv deliberately bowl a no-ball to deny Virender Sehwag a century.

Sehwag was on 99 and India needed only one run to win.

Randiv bowled a massive no-ball. (In fact, some newspapers are calling it the no-ball of the century, but in a game where you can have a butter chicken and biryani for lunch and then a snooze at third man, such hyperbole keeps fans interested).

Sehwag was denied his century, India won, and all hell broke loose (by cricketing standards at least).

Allegations of bad sportsmanship flew thick and fast and an inquiry was instituted by the Sri Lankans themselves.

Randiv was suspended for one game and his match fee forfeited. Dilshan’s match fee was forfeited as well, though he escaped a ban.

In sports, as in life, one must walk the tightrope between knowing how to win, but learning how to lose.

Given that nobody wins all the time, dealing with loss is important.

But not as important as knowing how to win.

Show me a good loser and I will show you a loser just the same.

I think it was the great West Indian cricket captain Clive Lloyd who said that.

Let that now be the perspective for the rest of this piece, which is in defence of the naïve Randiv (he has to learn how to bowl a no-ball) and the very wily Dilshan.

There is much to be gained from the psychological advantage in any sport.

At the highest level in any sport, games are won by the minutest of differences. In these rarefied atmospheres, the difference in talent is not much.

Therefore, any weakness, even a chink in the armour, must be exploited to the fullest. Likewise, not an inch must be given.

This is the difference between winning and losing in the top tier of international sport.

Which is why, to deny someone a century is absolutely crucial in the psychological battle.

Especially, if you are going to lose the game in any case.

And especially, if that someone is Virender Sehwag.

Of course, Randiv should have done it by getting him out legally.

Bowling a no-ball was very naughty, but it was a naughty that the game can live with.

It was not sportsmanship. It was gamesmanship.

Not admitting to grassing a catch. That is cheating.

Denying Sehwag a century by purposely bowling a no- ball, that’s just smart cricket.

Follow Emirates 24|7 on Google News.