Sportsmanship Versus Brinkmanship

There has always been a strange paradox afoot in sport. On the one hand, characters are revelled in, romanticised by commentators and deified by spectators. And then, they are held up against the spirit of the game which is applied only when convenient. Is it sportsmanship versus brinkmanship at play?

“Oh don’t stop them… Oh do you see that? That is passion”... Sometimes players crossing the line is just what the sport needs… We need characters…” Sports commentators and grizzly former sportsmen can be quite egregious when they want to be.

Unfortunately they, like the spectators, can be opinionated and vocal about it too, sometimes to the detriment of the vociferous crowd and the very sport that takes a hit when its players, spectators and even custodians get out of line. Who is laying down the law and how?

It is a kind of deception that is deliberately practised. Hostility is prompted when advertisements like those involving India Pakistan matches, bring out dark humour about the spicy nature of the matches. Oftentimes, it seems that all that dangerous hype does lead to a deliberate effort to tamp down riled crowds, while the players themselves are not just tolerant but cordial to their opponents on the cricket pitch.

What is serving the cause, not to mention the duplicity where India plays other sports with Pakistan but keeps cricket on the simmering burner, almost raising tensions across the border? Shouldn’t a singular stance send a fitting message, one way or the other? Or does the decision only matter when it comes to money which then begs the question if it is only about the money or not cross border terrorism in the first place?

June and July has witnessed a plethora of sporting events as it has seen some scintillating action on court, on the cricket pitch, on the racing track to mention just a few. But it has also brought back to the table a lot of talking points. Social media might have aided in making some of these debates more accessible, but the old social norms are very much in place.

The Ashes: It is unsportsmanlike to win in the rain. England felt strongly about it when the fourth Ashes Test, which could have squared the series which could have been great for the game as well.

Had the shoe been on the other foot, might England have felt the same way? Isn’t accepting the vagaries of the weather also incumbent upon those that love the game? Just ask South Africa after England won the semi final of the 1991 World Cup.

But more serious considerations weigh the mind. The Jonny Bairstow dismissal has now gone down in history. It is highly debatable if the act itself would have received as much attention as it did if the situation were not so suspenseful.

To put things in context, England were a Test match down when they arrived at Lord’s. They lost the first Test to Australia who had perhaps warmed rather nicely to the contest with a relatively facile match against an underprepared Indian team at the ICC World Test championship which is a controversial matter in itself.

England’s tactics, highlighted before the series as ‘revolutionary’ to their own sport, with a maverick like Brendon McCullum coaching the team as he played his cricket, were being heavily questioned. England had declared, which set off tongues wagging in the first Test though at nine down, it is a case of if’s and but's if that would have made any difference to the overall target which Australia managed to chase down.

The manner in which some of the poor shot selections panned out, Australia found their sledging roots and the patronising English fans and former cricketers their grudges against the modern tactics, which seemed to defy logic. And they did, until England began to find firmer grounding rather than an odd session or two.

But it wasn’t until the third Test, which they did win to keep the game alive which was important from a jam packed July. But by then the Bairstow issue had sauntered from the spirit of the game on the field to off it.

Lord’s witnessed unusual crowd behaviour unbecoming of the sport with some of the Australian players targeted after wicketkeeper Alex Carrey caught an unaware Bairstow sauntering out of his crease, assuming the ball was dead, and promptly ticked off the bails.

Run out or stumped? It didn’t matter. The batsman had made a cardinal mistake and while some people were expecting a gentleman’s gesture as it were that Bairstow should have been warned, in the day and age of technology where every minutia is dissected to its infinitesimal detail, even Bazball cricket should be focussing on minimising errors that creep into an individual game’s while also, looking to evolving the manner in which it is played.

Carrey followed the rule of law, did his job as the wicketkeeper, watching the game behind the stumps and found his moment. Was it the spirit of the game? Absolutely. It upheld the law of the game and what would be more important than ensuring the laws of the game are upheld?

But double standards will prevail if the Mankad way of dismissal is brought back to the discussion. Was Marnus Labuschagne following the rules of the game when he nicked the ball but didn’t walk later in the series?

Fortunately the decision review system accords for corrections and oversights and England’s appeal was upheld. Was he following the spirit of the game, which Adam Gilchrist, attempted to do- walking – a concept not only alien but also, abhorrent to Australian cricket circles?

“That’s the umpire’s job,” they’d say. They wouldn’t be wrong. but it is the spirit of the game, right there?

If the women’s game has lagged behind for want of attention and redressal, Harmanpreet Kaur certainly put the game front and centre stage. But not for the right reasons, which has given way to talk about stereotypes such as women cannot handle the game, that women are not supposed to be aggressive and adamant and also, that this is just one example why women should not be playing sport on an equal footing.

If there is logic in any of those statements, education is required, because it is a bouncer over the head.

Did the Indian captain have reason to be aggrieved in the women’s series in Bangladesh? Plausibly. But dubious decisions from umpires are par for the game, even in the age of technology. Could she have done better in a way to express her angst? Undoubtedly.

But there must be more on the line for someone in the stature of Kaur to react the way she did. It is quite mind boggling that the way she smashed her bat into the stumps upon being given out, unfairly by her immediate judgement. Might it have been the final straw in a series where she has felt that some decisions went against her team?

The spirit of the game was violated undoubtedly by taking her anger in the manner she did at the stumps and also, when she mocked the opponent captain and team when she invited the umpires over to also pose for photographs with the Bangladesh team, suggesting collusion.

She has been punished, quite heavily considering the fact that her absence now affects India’s future prospects when two crucially missed matches could affect the team’s participation. Lesson learnt, or a grievance nursed? Sportsmanship was put to the test and it was not just on the brink of the precipice. It took a nosedive.

There is a bizarre and dangerous theory afoot. Copping the heat has been Germany’s Alexander Zverev who bowed out of Wimbledon, looking still a little raw and under par after his return from career threatening injury at the French Open last year.

Another domestic allegation levelled against him, this time by a former girlfriend and now mother of his first child, has made him public enemy no.1 amongst some fans, who have proclaimed themselves judge and jury.

The tall, unassuming, hungry and ambitious Zverev has always carried a deep passion for the sport while also, holding onto his humour when expressing reverence for the game or the big three and more particularly Roger Federer about whom he makes no bones about idolising.

While sport loves its characters: John McEnroe was a feisty one, as was Martina Navratilova, not always a gracious loser on court and especially with Steffi Graf in her rearview mirror. It is funny and ironic how those who have been called characters of the sport now stand in judgement of others, as both players are now commentators on the sport with the former often landing himself in hot water over some rather outrageous comments, not like some of his outrageous behaviour on court.

Navratilova had taken a dig at the ATP while also singling out Zverev for reasons best known for the rules to be enforced strongly against those found guilty of domestic violence allegations.

At the risk of sounding partisan, this is a dangerous fallout of the “me too” movement where actions are being perceived and projected from reel to real life or from court to personal life.

Whether rightly or not, Zverev had a three year allegation hanging over him which was cleared by the ATP earlier this year. Now there is another situation developing with lawyers and a German court involved. The player has wisely chosen not to comment on the subject while getting on with the tournaments such as Bastad and now the German Open.

Some fans want him thrown out of the sport, and have not stopped at Zverev, but targeting Andrey Rublev who won the Swedish Open beating Zverev at one point and calling it a no win situation to have a result against his best friend.

The dangerous passion has crossed boundaries as Zverev has Russian roots and Rublev is Russian and had had to emphatically state his stance against the war which has also him in hot water.

Now Rublev is being shamed, this despite the fact that his only fault is being Zverev’s friend which they have been since they were prepubescent teenagers playing the sport. He sports social causes – he dumped a huge sponsorship deal to promote his own line and is generally considered one of the most genial men outside of the court.

Outside of the court is important because while Rublev has not been antagonistic of his opponents or even the referees for that matter on and off the court, he is one of the players hardest on himself while he is on it. It is one of the most malevolent experiences upon himself watching such a highly talented player being so derisive of himself on court. He has admitted to working on it with his coach but there is not a single bone in his body that speaks of ill will towards anyone except himself.

Still, spectators at the stadium and online have not spared the genial, strong minded Russian. Where does the sport go from here?

While there has been so much injustice, to deem someone guilty until proven seems a dangerous way not only to destroy the person, if proven innocent, but also, speaks to an equally volatile society that makes hasty decisions, without even looking deeper into the matter at heart.

Why is this being raised? One has to understand the fan logic to understand how we got here.

Fans have cited Zverev’s racquet breaking in the past as evidence of his aggression and anger. He even had a situation in a doubles match last year when he was not happy about the umpire’s call and was seen breaking his racquet at the referee’s chair, close enough incidentally to the resting feet of the referee who promptly got off his chair.

Later Zverev apologised and spoke of his shame of walking around the locker rooms and himself advocated more stringent punishment if he repeated his behaviour.

It is debatable whether a player who faced up to the media, embarrassing himself again, would shy away from taking responsibility for the allegations. But this is still not where it stands.

Fans have now associated racquet breaking as instances of aggression out of control. It bears noting that there are an innumerable amount of videos on social media of Novak Djokovic breaking his racquet, the latest was the viciousness with which he took to the net cord as it became apparent that Carlos Alcaraz had the upper hand, having broken the eight time Wimbledon champion, in the final set of the final two weeks ago.

Does that say something about Djokovic’s personal life? Should we draw or not draw conclusions when there are no allegations in the light? And if allegations alone are enough to condemn, or on court behaviour a sign, then given the number of broken racquets, shouldn’t tennis have more allegations floating around? The logic makes no sense, though the gravity of the situation is not lost on anyone at the same time.

While cases of acquittal are not unheard of, there are also instances where players and celebrities have been accused with a financial angle or with a revenge tactic at hand. Sport has witnessed ugly like in the ice skating scenario.

Closer to home, it brought back the situation with Mohammad Shami in cricket. The Indian cricket team cannot seem to survive with the ageing warhorse who is benched only to be brought back in back-to-the-wall situations. That India’s fast bowling department has been exposed with Jasprit Bumrah’s frequent breakdowns is another matter.

But the BCCI is not getting vilified like the ATP for why it stands by and letting Mohammad Shami play the game while his wife has levelled some serious allegations not just limited to domestic violence but bordering on basic human rights violations.

What is the measure of the ruler being used? Even with rules and restraints in place, there is still plenty of room for arbitrary enforcement and allowing room for some dangerous opinions being formed and spectators getting increasingly vocal and vicious, through justified cause or not.

These are issues that must be addressed because in the age of social media platforms and trigger happy crowds, the lines are blurring fast between sport and social norms.

When public opinion is formed not on the basis of facts, social media can be a dangerous place where judgements are delivered. It becomes not only embarrassing but also, sometimes dangerous to have some hardliner spectators at the stadiums or even the Long Room at Lord’s.

Novak Djokovic was called out for another tactical ploy – the controversial lengthy toilet break. It could be argued that it did not work against Alcaraz in the end stages. And it is certainly not winning Greece’s Stephanos Tsitsipas as his toilet break in the match against Andy Murray, played out over two days, is still being talked about.

The contention here is that players like Tsitsipas, using their father as coach on the sidelines even before court side coaching was allowed, was speculated as using mobile phones by which information is being passed on from the players’ box to the locker room while the match is in progress.

And if one goes back to the pages of time, it is not hard to see where several players have called Tsitsipas out on the circuit. Even the on-display-for-everyone PR of romance that was the case with Tsitsipas and Paula Badosa, which took on a cringeworthy sideshow of a soap opera at one point, could not deflect that the talking point about the toilet break.

Speaking of breaking the opponent’s rhythm, the ball bounce before serving was another dish waiting to be served.

The commentators were subtle but persistent on the subject no less in the course of the Wimbledon final. Players generally get counted down when they are about to serve, and the ball toss in the air or bounce on the floor of the tennis court has only a limited time in which the player can either sort out his tactic or increase the anxiety and impatience of his opponent.

Does Djokovic get away because he is of rarer air as part of the big three? Quite possible. There were several times when the commentators called this out, at one point even asking if the clock was being stopped for Novak when he seemed to take extraordinarily long between serves.

It is a tactical ploy, used but with penalties. But how many times is it applied when a player of a certain stature is on court and in what tournament depending on ticket sales and who brings the crowds from the market to the stadiums?

Even before Wimbledon got underway, there was talk at the release of the draw that Djokovic is a repeated beneficiary of an easier draw, while some of the others saw heavyweights in action early on. Eventually comeuppance and history came knocking in the form of Alcaraz showing Djokovic a glimpse into the future. But there might be a few who have had something to say about it.