Anderson-Jadeja incident: Alastair Cook wrong to suggest India employing cheap tactics

Alastair Cook’s England’s penchant for controversies started from the Sri Lankan tour, and have continued against India

A series that was touted to fade into obscurity in due course of time, since it was held during the buildup of the carnival that was 2014 FIFA World Cup, sprang to life owing to what transpired off and on the field under sombre skies. Sri Lankan off-spinner Sachitra Senanayake was reported for suspect action, and a few days after this charge was levied, the bowler proceeded to ‘Mankad’ England’s Jos Buttler in a ODI at Birmingham. Although Senanayake was well within his rights to pull up Buttler’s tomfoolery, English captain Alastair Cook was seething. “I would hope to think that I would not do that, it was a pretty poor act. In my opinion there’s a line and I think that line was crossed tonight,” he said.

Cook’s England and ‘spirit of cricket’

Law 42.15 of cricket clearly makes allowance for 'Mankading' and, if anything, it was Buttler who deserved to be chided by his captain for what was an obvious case of complacency. Yet, Cook refused to accept his player’s folly and was unwavering in his belief that the opposition had acted against the spirit of the game. It wasn’t the first instance of an English skipper making an attempt to gloss over his batsman’s indiscretions.

In the summer of 2011, during the series against India, Ian Bell walked off believing a shot from the final ball before tea had sped to the boundary. However, the ball was still in play, and as Bell headed for the pavilion, Mahendra Singh Dhoni duly removed the bails following a throw from Praveen Kumar in the deep. Commotion ensued as Bell, despite his naivety, looked dumbfounded at being given out. The then English captain-coach combination of Andrew Strauss and Andy Flower made their way to the Indian dressing room during the interval and requested the appeal be retracted. The frequent visits the duo made to the other touring camps’ room, for similar reasons at the time, evoked chuckle in the social media.

Jimmy’s verbal volleys

There is no questioning the fact that James Anderson has been one of England’s most potent seamers, and his absence from a team list is often a sight to savour for the opponents. While his average, economy-rate and strike-rate, even the red leather he delivers on almost any turf, do the talking for him, his verbal exploits are also well known — although the ones that filtered through may have been few and far between.

He’s certainly not angelic in this regard — Rahul Dravid, who’s faced a plethora of bowlers in his celebrated career, will testify to it. From “chirping” on the ground to taking a dig at Nasser Hussain on Twitter, to inviting the wrath of the Australians Down Under — remember Michael Clarke promising him a “broken f****** arm”?, Anderson’s slate is far from clean.

Dhoni’s complaint – Deliberate exaggeration or genuine concern?

Former Australian captain Ian Chappell often offered an argument in defence of sledging. “A weakness of character is as legitimate a target as a weakness outside the off stump,” he said. The Indians aren’t averse to it either. Nonetheless, there is a line, which even the cricketing fraternity believes, should not be crossed. India has been involved in some volatile contests on the field during recent times, but it has rarely dragged the grubby baggage with it at the end of day’s play — the Rohit Sharma-Dale Steyn tussle in South Africa springs readily to mind. Both teams acknowledged the competitive side of sport and got along well after the conclusion of the series.

It hence comes as a surprise that the usually unruffled Indian side have now insisted on charging Anderson with a Level 3 offence for an alleged spat with Ravindra Jadeja during the first Test at Trent Bridge. Dhoni, alongside the team manager, lodged a complaint within 24 hours of the incident, then declined the suggestion put forth by the two boards — the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and the English Cricket Board (ECB) — to settle the issue amicably without making it official. An International Cricket Committee’s (ICC) lawyer’s attempt to broker peace rendered futile too, owing to Dhoni’s, and perhaps the management’s, firm stand on the case.

This level of steadfastness indicates what ensued between Anderson and Jadeja was more than mere sledging (a player has been charged with a Level 3 offence for the first time since the Harbhajan Singh-Andrew Symonds Monkeygate incident in 2007-08). Moreover, seldom has Dhoni been this impregnable to the authorities. Dhoni, it is widely perceived, is a semblance of calm and authenticity, at least on the field, and is willing to work around the grey areas — Bell’s run-out can be a case in point. He doesn’t turn a blind eye to any of his player’s shenanigans either. A few years ago, when Shantakumaran Sreesanth’s antics superseded his performance, Dhoni was quick to note in the press-conference as follows: “If you want to irritate someone, that should be the opposition and not your side."

It is therefore hard to understand and align with Cook’s line of thinking. When asked in the pre-match conference if this was India's tactic of ousting Anderson from the series in order to minimise threat, he said, “I think that’s pretty much where it’s come from. We are surprised it has come to the situation it has. It is probably a tactic a little bit from India, if we are being honest.”

Seldom has Dhoni employed such tactics in the past, and it is a long shot that he will in the future. If he did want to engage in such ploys, though, would he (and his team) not have kicked off a psychological battle before the commencement of the first Test, when asked to analyse Cook’s form by the media?

"I think it's very important to back players. It does not matter whether he is the captain of the side or a batsman or a bowler. What's important is for the media to realise what they were saying about him the last time we were here how well he has performed," Dhoni said of Cook. It’s hard to comprehend that such sportsmanship, from any player, would drop to zero within a matter of five days.