The Sydney Test could have been remembered as one of the best and most exciting in recent memory - the fluctuating fortunes, the individual brilliance, the exciting finish. Instead the on-field performance has been all but forgotten, and the game will be remembered for all the wrong reasons.

Firstly, the official complaint over the quality of umpiring has left the ICC with a large amount of egg on their collective faces. Few fans begrudge India laying the complaint - there will always be debatable or incorrect decisions in the game of cricket - but the level of incompetence on show in Sydney was unacceptable.

ICC chief executive Malcolm Speed put it down to “a bad day at the office” by the umpires (conveniently forgetting Steve Bucknor was also in charge of the World Cup final debacle) and publicly backed Messrs Bucknor and Benson. But 24 hours later Bucknor was removed from his appointment to the third Test and replaced by New Zealand’s Billy Bowden. The ICC’s handling of this matter could easily give other cricket administrators the impression that if you dislike a particular umpire, you just need to throw a big enough tantrum to get him removed.

'The Indian tail needed to bat out just seven minutes against part-time spinner Michael Clarke, but were unable to do so'


What should have happened is that the ICC should have said they were reviewing the performance of both umpires in the Sydney test before announcing that Bucknor had been replaced and would be undergoing a video review process to improve his skills. Quite why sporting bodies are unwilling to demand accountability from their officials continually baffles me, and let’s not forget that Bucknor pocketed a cool US$120,000 for just 61 days work in 2007.

The issue that caused the most distress for India was the suspension of Harbhajan Singh for calling Andrew Symonds a “monkey”. Match referee Mike Proctor said after the hearing: “I’m South African, I know racism,” and that he believed the hearing was a fair and balanced one, but Proctor is yet to actually produce the evidence that he used to convict Harbhajan, leading many to conclude he took the word of the Australians over the word of the Indians. Until actual evidence is produced, it will be impossible to refute this conclusion, but the appointment of a High Court judge to hear the appeal is a step in the right direction.

India’s complaints over the umpiring, suspensions and perceived poor sportsmanship of the Australians has wound up with them being labelled sore losers. The Indian tail needed to bat out just seven minutes against part-time spinner Michael Clarke, but were unable to do so.

Finally, Ricky Ponting, the Australian captain, is still saying that there was nothing wrong with the manner in which his team played the game and how he wants the team to be loved by all Australians. “I don’t think anyone wants the way Australia plays cricket to change,” he said. “Everyone likes to see a tough, uncompromising brand of cricket.”

If that were the case, Ricky, then why are respected cricket writers, past greats and general cricket fans critical of your team’s attitude? How can you claim to be a man of integrity in a press conference, but on the field claim two dubious catches, accept an incorrect umpiring decision in your favour, and show dissent at one against you? Does the fact that you did not claim a third dubious catch somehow excuse all this?

As the fall out continues, all those involved in the game, from the Australians to the Indians, from the umpires to the ICC, to Cricket Australia, need to take a good look at themselves and ask one simple question: Why is nobody talking about the five days of brilliant cricket they just witnessed?