The forgotten non-Test Match that wasn't

[Lillian Thomson]

In all the cricket controversies over the years this non-Test after the Mike Denness Affair tends to be overlooked.

South Africa v India 2001

 

[zMario]

Very true, I almost NEVER find this mentioned.

 

[NUFAN]

In all the cricket controversies over the years this non-Test after the Mike Denness Affair tends to be overlooked.

South Africa v India 2001

I remember feeling really sorry for Shaun Pollock as at the time he hadn't made a Test Century. It was a great innings by him that day. Bit of a joke that this wasn't a Test Match.

LOL at the Indian opening pair though.

 

[Richard]

Another game that could have done to have been a Test but it was essential for matters of off-the-field importance that wasn't.

Insane case, though. Some of Denness' punishments to the Indian players were OTT, but to refuse to play unless he was removed as Referee was both childish and utterly pointless. With demanding Bucknor's removal as Umpire, that at least had an amount of sense behind it. This, though, didn't. And ITE Dalmiya and whoever else was responsible for it did cricket one hell of a lot more harm than good with their stupid stance.

 

[chaminda_00]

Feel sorry for Conner Williams, got robbed of Test debut.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I remember watching this game live, was gutted for Shaun.

 

[Evermind]

Woah what's this about? Never heard of it!

 

[Richard]

 

[Days of Grace]

Someone please tell me the story of this match. I have forgotten about it.

 

[Richard]

Well the story of the match itself isn't really interesting - South Africa cakewalked it.

The interesting bit is what happened during and just after the previous match.

Mike Denness, I$C$C Match-Referee, penalised six(?) Indian players for a variety of offences. There was the sometimes-seen outrage (in this case completely ridiculous, unlike several) in India. This was not helped by the fact that the tabloids everywhere had worked-up a relatively harmless bringing-the-game-into-disrepute charge at Tendulkar into ball-tampering (which he was neither accused of nor penalised for in actuality). Jagmohan Dalmiya, BCCI President at the time, decided to take a stupid line (not for the only time) and insist that India would not play the final match if Denness remained Referee. I$C$C, naturally, refused to remove him. The South African Board decided that the lost revenue from rebates to whichever TV company was providing the coverage would have been a greater harm than the loss of Test status for the match. So they refused to give Denness access. I$C$C, naturally, therefore refused to give the match Test status.

The trouble didn't end there - in fact what happened next was possibly worse. Incuded amongst the fines was a 1-Test ban for Virender Sehwag, who had played and excelled in the opening 2 games. India took no notice of the revocation of Test status and did not play Sehwag in the final game against South Africa. No-one seemed to notice this at the time; I was very worried (India's next series was at home to England). Sure enough, Sehwag was included in the squad for the First Test. And there followed a period of brinkmanship between Dalmiya and Malcolm Speed, who said that Sehwag playing would once more render the First Test unofficial; Lord MacLaurin, ECB Chairman of the time, said England would go home if the Test was not an official one. Eventually, perhaps inevitably, Dalmiya backed down and instructed the selectors to omit Sehwag from the squad. But there were a few days when a hell of a lot of people were very worried.

 

[Days of Grace]

Will this test match be given test status in the future do you think?

Would be a boost to Pollock's averages anyway.

 

[Dan]

Sounds like bureaucracy gone mad

 

[sideshowtim]

Was it given first-class status?

 

[Richard]

Was it given first-class status?

Yes, basically counted as another tour-game. Indians vs South Africans.

Will this test match be given test status in the future do you think?

Well in many ways it'd be great if it was as it was stupid that it had to be denied it ITFP. But for similar reasons the forfeit in the England-Pakistan Test of '06 must stand, this non-Test must also do. To rule otherwise would overturn a decision taken for reasons of vital off-field authority-upholding.

 

[Richard]

Sounds like bureaucracy gone mad

Well it was a case of Jagmohan Dalmiya gone mad, yes. The man had his plus-points, by jove he did, but when he was bad he really could be horrible, and as I say - this time he brought cricket to the point of schism.

 

[stumpski]

Interesting that two South African umpires - Orchard and Koertzen - stood in that match. Was that because it wasn't an official Test, or did the 'neutral' umpire system come in more recently than that? I thought it had been around for 10 years or so.

 

[Richard]

Think it was first introduced over 15 years ago or summat - possibly even the late-1980s. Certainly remember it being one-home-one-independent early on in my time watching.

Of course, the two-independent-Umpires thing wasn't introduced until 2002.

I presume there were two South Africans in that match because I$C$C decided there was no point wasting money by flying in an independent Umpire to stand in a match that was no longer a Test.

 

[Slow Love™]

Another game that could have done to have been a Test but it was essential for matters of off-the-field importance that wasn't.

Insane case, though. Some of Denness' punishments to the Indian players were OTT, but to refuse to play unless he was removed as Referee was both childish and utterly pointless. With demanding Bucknor's removal as Umpire, that at least had an amount of sense behind it. This, though, didn't. And ITE Dalmiya and whoever else was responsible for it did cricket one hell of a lot more harm than good with their stupid stance.

It was childish, but I probably wouldn't say it was pointless. It worked and they got what they wanted, after all. Most of the punishments were one match suspended sentences though, weren't they? It's probably the charges themselves more so than the punishments that the BCCI and Indian fans objected to (particularly when we're talking about Tendulkar's exalted status, which was obviously also a significant factor in the recent Harbhajan thingy).

IIRC, South Africa were mainly in support of playing the next game without Denness because they believed the cost of losing the match to be far too great, I don't know that they were actually in moral support of the BCCI's concerns (not that you said that, but I think it sometimes gets assumed).

I never saw the actual game (the previous one of course - didn't have Foxtel back then), so I've never really known what to make of it all. What are the opinions of those from neutral countries who watched the game? Was Denness way off or did he have a point? I remember at the time there was a bit being written about players ' appealing and charging umpires, so I suppose it's possible he decided to make an example of the Indians given what was happening in general but if so, he probably chose the wrong team to do it.

On the other hand, he could have just gone loony.

 

[Captain Cricket]

Nicky Boje's shocking.

 

[Richard]

It was childish, but I probably wouldn't say it was pointless. It worked and they got what they wanted, after all.

But there was just no point to what they wanted. Denness wasn't going to impose more punishments in the next match. It would have made absolutely no difference whatsoever had he stood in the Centurion "Test".

Most of the punishments were one match suspended sentences though, weren't they? It's probably the charges themselves more so than the punishments that the BCCI and Indian fans objected to (particularly when we're talking about Tendulkar's exalted status, which was obviously also a significant factor in the recent Harbhajan thingy).

I never saw the actual game (the previous one of course - didn't have Foxtel back then), so I've never really known what to make of it all. What are the opinions of those from neutral countries who watched the game? Was Denness way off or did he have a point? I remember at the time there was a bit being written about players ' appealing and charging umpires, so I suppose it's possible he decided to make an example of the Indians given what was happening in general but if so, he probably chose the wrong team to do it.

On the other hand, he could have just gone loony.

As I said, the biggest thing was that Tendulkar - as you rightly say a man of exalted status - was basically trumpeted-up (wrongly) by the tabloids as having been accused of ball-tampering. I reckon much of the fuss wouldn't have happened - and maybe Dalmiya wouldn't have taken that stupid stand - if it weren't for the ridiculous media over-reaction. Tendulkar was penalised for bringing the game into disrepute for what was in all likelihood cleaning the seam and no more. It was probably careless of Denness not to give him the BOD, for a multitude of reasons.

I'm near enough certain that if Tendulkar hadn't been charged, there'd have been minimal fuss about the other charges (they're so insignificant that other than the non-suspended ban for Sehwag I can't even remember what the charges or the punishments were).

IIRC, South Africa were mainly in support of playing the next game without Denness because they believed the cost of losing the match to be far too great, I don't know that they were actually in moral support of the BCCI's concerns (not that you said that, but I think it sometimes gets assumed).

Yeah, it was exactly that. They decided that it'd be a bigger loss to them to lose the TV revenue than it would be to lose a Test. They never commented on the validity or otherwise of Denness.