Orchestrated Uncertainty
A look into the troublesome issue of match and spot-fixing in cricket
Cricket is small-scale war. Two teams sent to battle on a 22-yard strip of turf. One destined to be drenched by success, the other struck by despair. They are battles filled with unscripted acts of brilliance, bravery and comradery that can create national heroes and villains, and transform average Australians into fingernail-eating, flag-bearing, umpire-berating fanatics. However, after a recent string of betting scandals surrounding Pakistan, fanatics have to ask: “Is this real or scripted drama?”.
Match and spot-fixing – The Issue
Match or spot-fixing, known as the process of eliminating the uncertainty of an event or result – such as an Australian victory or a batsman scoring less than 20 – first cast a shadow over cricket in 1981. There, on the morning of the fifth day of the third Ashes test at Headingly, Australian paceman Denis Lilley placed 20 pounds on England to beat Australia at 500-1 odds. Australia, who were leading by 250 runs with seven wickets in hand, went on to lose the test. Denis Lilley admitted his bet was placed ‘as a bit of a joke’ and received no fine or sanction.
The drama did little to change the public’s perception of match-fixing, failing to edge it from its place alongside the Loch Ness monster and Unicorn – a myth. Thus, the issue lay dormant for 25 years, surviving in the minds of the greedy; living behind hotel doors; and hidden in the file cabinets of illegal bookmakers until 2000, when South African captain Hansie Cronje was accused of fixing the result of several matches in return for sums of money in excess of $250,000US.
Revelations of Cronje‘s transgressions gripped the sporting world. South African coach, Bob Woolmer came to his captain’s defence, rubbishing the claims while labelling Cronje as “a man of integrity”. Cricketing purists followed suit, not wanting to believe that the gentleman’s game could be treated in such a way. However, months of investigation eventually lured a tearful confession from Cronje who admitted his ‘love and admiration for his sport and country was matched and overpowered by his love of money’.
They were words that changed the public’s perception of cricket forever. No longer could audiences simply check their scepticism at the turnstiles and take on trust that a victory for David over Goliath was not simply a pre-determined result. There were now other possibilities. A sporting contest’s ability to excite with uncertainty had been tainted and distorted.
As prominent South African freelance journalistic, Telford Vice put it: “We started asking ourselves why a particularly unsuccessful bowling change happened when it did. Was that batsman really guilty of nothing more than poor judgement when he drove tamely to short cover and set off on a disastrous single? That catch was easier to hold than to drop, so how come it went down?”
The impact on South Africa as a nation was even more detrimental, as the captain of their national side – a symbol of all that was good within their reformed, non-apartheid nation – was shown to be nothing more than a petty crook. In a King Commission he admitted to calling team meetings to share opportunities accorded by bookmakers; sharing pitch, weather and team information to bookmakers; and approaching coloured players with the purpose of getting them to under perform. Like the shooting of John Kennedy, it was utter theatre. A nation striving for perfection had been deceived by a man held in the same esteem as Australia’s Donald Bradman.
Ex-Australian captain and respected channel nine commentator, Richie Benaud said that if there was to be one positive to come out of such a tumultuous event for cricket, it would be that “it acts as a deterrent for anyone who considered doing the same”.
However, while reports dwindled, whispers of illegitimacy continued to haunt the game. In 2001, England wicketkeeper Alec Stewart was investigated and cleared of allegations he took money from a bookmaker in return for pitch information. Then in 2004 Sri Lankan batsman Marvin Attapatu was investigated during England’s tour of Sri Lanka for having $11,500US in his hotel room. Again no charges were laid.
It was not until 2008, when West Indian all-rounder Marlon Samuels was banned for two years for passing on pitch information to an Indian bookie during his sides tour of India in 2007, that a second instance of illegitimacy was proven. The International Cricket Council downplayed the incident, labelling it a one-off and not a clear reflection of the prominence of match-fixing within the game.
Like George Foreman swinging aimlessly at a rope-hugging Muhammad Ali, the ICC’s naivety was punished when, during Pakistan’s tour of England in August this year, a sting operation by News Of The World uncovered a spot-fixing scandal between a bookmaker and Pakistan opening bowlers.
The bookmaker, who was filmed discussing terms with News Of The World investigators, claimed he had bribed Pakistan opening bowlers Muhammad Asif and Muhammad Amir to bowl deliberate no-balls throughout the following day’s test match. Hours later his claims were substantiated, as the discussed no-balls were delivered at agreed points – including one from Amir that brought special mention from the commentary box.
Both Pakistan bowlers and their captain Salman Butt – accused of being the orchestrated of the event – are yet to be charged, but ex-Australian opening batsman Matthew Hayden believes their actions have effectively “shattered” a wall of sincerity he and his team-mates tried to rebuild.
“We were doing everything we could as cricketers to uphold the value and integrity of the content that gets played out there. But it only takes one…” he told The Sydney Morning Herald.
In the time it took to re-bowl the illegal deliveries, cricket’s underworld had been exposed, casting shudders down the spine of cricket purists worldwide. Purists now forced to accept bleakly that cricket may not only be a game of talent, skill and honest chance, but a series of suspicious events which are not as haphazard as we are led to believe.
As former Australian wicketkeeper Ian Healy put it: “We’d be stupid to think this is new,” he said. “How long has this lurk been going on? It’s a long time I’m sure.”
Match and spot-fixing – The Cause
The introduction and rapid growth of Twenty/20 cricket has provided players the opportunity to make previously un-thought of sums of money in less than half the time of a traditional 50-over fixture and 1/20 of the time of a test match. Logic suggests this would sour the lure of pocket-full, illegal bookmakers, but the Pakistan incident proves this isn’t the case.
Before Twenty/20 was introduced, cricketer’s such as ex-Australian batsman Damien Martyn, were complaining of burn-out and an over-crowded international schedule. Add Twenty/20 and lucrative franchise the Indian Premier League to the mix and you are presented with cricket overload. It seems that no matter what time of the year, an international team is heading to another one-day or test-match series to play for another meaningless trophy. This has mainly been due to lucrative television contracts, and India’s infatuation with Twenty/20.
Dwindling crowd numbers to the traditional one-day and test-match formats have resulted, adding an air of mediocrity to fixtures and lessening the perceived importance results. And, as Ian Healy told Sydney Morning Herald, “if the public don’t care, why will the players?”. An attitude that he believes epitomises the Pakistan team.
“If you’re into this, you haven’t got a feeling or a desire for your country, it’s simple as that,”
“It can come about for many reasons, but if a game bears no importance, then spot-fixing becomes more likely because there doesn’t appear to be any victims” Healy believes.
Matthew Hayden takes a different view, believing Pakistan’s actions reflect a difference in culture. “It’s just so disappointing and devastating for us as players to understand that even potentially can happen. But you have to have an understanding of the cultures that exist,” he told Sydney Morning Herald.
“You have a look at Pakistan which has been wiped out by the recent floods and you put yourself in the position that maybe you can try and get what’s left of your family and salvage the situation,” he said. “It puts cricket into perspective.”
Investigator and reporter Declan Hill differs again, saying that low wages are the key behind match-fixing. He says that Pakistan cricketers are involved in match-fixing because they feel like they are being exploited by the country’s highly paid cricket administrators.
”There may be an argument that the Pakistan players are paid well [relative to the general population], but some of the officials are paid as much or considerably more,” says Hill.
”The New Zealand players [for example] might not be paid well, but neither are their officials. So they don’t feel like they’re being exploited like the Pakistanis.”
PCB director-general Javed Miandad’s wage reportedly ranges between about $9000 and $12,800 a month, while Pakistan’s elite players on central contracts earn about $45,000 a year, with lower-ranked players earning $20,000 a year. Add that they have also been banned from the lucrative Indian Premier League, and they appear prime targets for criminal betting syndicates.
Throw-in a persuasive bookmaker who paints spot-fixing as a victimless crime – forgetting about the illegal gamblers – while promising instant wealth, and you uncover the cause of a problem responsible for causing cricket lovers in the eastern city of Lahore to pelt tomatoes at donkeys labelled with the names of top national players embroiled in the allegations.
Match and spot-fixing – The Solution.
Like with prominent issues such as terrorism, fuel prices climate change, intense media coverage of the Pakistan scandal has uncovered many suggestions of what needs to be done to address and eliminate the problem – some logical, others outrageous.
The International Cricket Council (ICC) has proposed the implementation of the use of undercover agents posing as illegal bookmakers to “entrap” players and weed out illegal syndicates.
ICC chief executive Haroon Lorgat is the man in charge of making it happen.
”We are thinking of setting up our own approaches to players, to see if they report it, we will think out of the box,” Lorgat told The Age.
“It is only a tentative plan at this stage, we are working on a number of measures to combat corruption”
”We are not sitting on our hands on this issue, we are being as proactive as we can in ensuring the integrity of the game is maintained.”
However, the idea has received mixed responses from the cricket world, with Australian Cricketer’s Association’s chief executive, Paul Marsh, claiming the idea of entrapping players is neither “reasonable” or “lawful”, and that it is “unclear whether the proposal is designed to focus on catching and punishing players for not reporting approaches by illegal bookmakers or catching those directly involved in match-fixing.”
Current England captain Andrew Strauss says he mirrors the beliefs of most international cricketers when he states that the ICC must ‘leave no stone unturned’ in their probe into betting corruption.
“This summer (where Pakistan toured England) has clearly demonstrated when there is a sniff of something in the air it devalues the whole game and nobody wants to play cricket in those circumstances,” Strauss told an English news conference.
Cricket Australia’s chief executive James Sutherland does not support the view of Strauss, demanding the ICC stay out of an independent commissions review of corruption and accept and implement recommendations unconditionally.
I don’t think it’s appropriate for them (the betting scandals) to be assessed by some internal person, I think a highly-credentialed expert to do a full-blown review around the world, the time is right for that,” he told the Sydney Morning Herald.
“We can’t deny it, we have to face the facts, and with that on the table, cricket administrators around the world and the ICC can take a serious look at the controls and processes and education which we have put in place over the last few years, and where we can improve.”
Independent investigator Declan Hill remains adamant that increasing player’s base wages, in Pakistan and around the world, is the only sure way to eliminate the lure of the dirty dollar.
”The only way to stop corruption is to guarantee players are getting paid properly … They shouldn’t be open to exploitation by their bosses or organised crime [which] has been around professional sport for at least the last 20 years,” Hill admits.
“Until then, you’ll never eliminate it.”
Conclusion
The cricket world, despite recent recommendations by the ICC, remains gripped by scandal. The gentleman’s game once built on integrity and competitiveness has become tainted by greed, deceit and deliberate failure.
While there are still many who contest the true impact of a deliberate no-ball if the next delivers an unplanned wicket, Declan Hill‘s question remains:
What happens if both teams are paid to lose? Will a batsman’s willingness to get out be matched by a bowlers willingness to keep him there?” And, if so, how long will it take for the cricket purist to put down his can of Carlton Draught, reach for the television remote and switch the cricket off…forever?
