Mervyn Westfield. Its a name many people have probably never heard before. Its a name most who know and love cricket wish they'd never heard before.
Today, Friday February 17th 2012, Westfield became the first English cricketer to be jailed for corruptly accepting cash to under perform during a match in England. He was sentenced to serve four months at Her Majesty's pleasure (and not just her pleasure). Hats off to those on the front line in crickets war against match fixing, this is a notable victory. But there are some (including the author) who worry that not enough has been done to send a message to others who would contemplate accepting the brown envelope.
Westfield will probably serve two months of his sentence, so straight away that punishment has been watered down. The ECB will decide on how much of a cricket punishment he should receive. I would hope the common sense of the professional circuit would mean that he never gets a chance to play the king of games again. How could you trust him? Every bad ball he bowled, every slip in the field, every bad shot played, questions would be asked. I know this, because I'd ask them. Once a cheat, always a cheat.
A worrying factor is the seemingly lax attitude Essex CCC took to the behaviour of Westfield, and also of his "handler", former Pakistan leg spinner Danish Kaniera. According to the Telegraph, Essex coach Paul Grayson "admitted he had heard Kaneria ask players if they wanted to meet bookies". OK, first alarm. Former Essex skipper Mark Pettini also claimed that this attitude was not taken seriously, and when challenged Kaneria claimed it was a joke. Are you kidding me? Surely Essex, a fine old county boasting many former (and probably future) England captains, had a responsibility to push Kaneria further and, if possible, report the matter just to be sure?
The simplistic view of match fixing (or spot betting, as it seems to be more popularly known, due to the seeming difficulty in securing the overall result in a match involving 22 players and at least two officials) is that it is the influx of T20 matches, which are shorter sharper and more likely to hinge on one bad over, that has seen the re imagining of corruption in cricket. This may be true, given the huge popularity of the format in the subcontinent (the hotbed of crickets Mr Fixes) and the large amount of this type of matches being played. However, it should be noted that the most notable "fixed" matches were a Test match at Lords (the home of cricket, for shame) and a 40 over one day match between Essex and Durham. Those who love the game, and particularly those with power within it, must remain vigilant at all levels.
About ten years ago, Richie Benaud, in an interview with a tabloid newspaper, spoke of his disgust that some people are now earning more money playing to lose one match than he ever earned in a whole career of playing to win. Can cricket ever be free of the dark disease of corruption? Doubtful, but if this war is ever to be won, we will need stronger weapons than four month prison sentences and fixed term bans to win it.
No comments:
Post a Comment