Gentleman's game or over-sensitive nonsense? Impassioned Mohammed Siraj an alien among eggshells
The world is weirder than ever, and that is oddly reflected in the cricketing cosmos as well. An outburst by Mohammad Siraj managed to share (even steal in some instances) the headlines in a contest where India scored below 200 twice, lost by 10 wickets, and where Rohit and Virat scored less than 50 runs combined. Siraj would not have expected to be in the spotlight alongside such aspects that did matter, but he might have wished for it to be on merit rather than scandal.
The Indian pacer was branded as the villain after Australians, and a large number of Indians too, were irked by his celebrappeals (when Broad did it, it's branded iconic, by the way), his throw at Labuschagne (when Mitchell Johnson threw the ball at Kohli, it was a legitimate 'run out' attempt), and send-off to Travis Head (when Warner does it, it's part of Aussie DNA and passion). All of the bracketed instances, or similar ones, might have led to a reprimand by the ICC, but none have been subjected to such intense scrutiny as Siraj.
Siraj's acts after delivering the ball were dissected more than his bowling itself. Lines, lengths, pace, and angles were forgotten as multiple viewings from different angles were played on a loop, along with desperate lip-reading attempts to transcribe the altercation.
What was Siraj's crime - the act itself or just its timing?
One major claim made against Siraj was that his outburst came after he dismissed Head for 140, instead of a low score. So does that mean his aggression and send-off would have been justified in the majority's eyes had he dismissed Head much earlier? Knowing pundits and fans, and how they use hindsight as a tool, probably not.
Siraj would have copped blame, perhaps a touch less, had the latter situation transpired. What should matter here is Siraj's conscience, rather than the third party's point of view. If the pacer had no qualms over celebrating the wicket and issuing the send-off after the damage was done, then that is his choice. A wicket is a wicket after all, and lest we forget, it was a brilliant yorker too. A brilliant delivery was needed to get rid of a red-hot Head, and Siraj managed to do what the others had failed to execute.
A bowler's degree of celebration is not tied to the batter's score. There is no direct or inverse proportion in place here; only the bowler's state of mind. Had Jasprit Bumrah bowled the same delivery to send Head back, he might not have batted an eyelid. But Siraj, with emotions always right on the surface, is a different case.
The hypocrisy of the 'Express yourself' mantra
'Go out and express yourself' is arguably one of the most over-used phrases in the intent and freedom-driven era, bordering on jargon at this point. In a nutshell, it means using your own judgment, assessing the situation, and finding a solution for it in a manner that floats your boat.
So far, it has been brought up whenever batters take on the bowlers or if a left-field decision pays off. However, since it is emphasized so much by the management, it has to be a philosophy that applies to all facets of the game. Players are hailed by fans and pundits for expressing themselves when they take risks or do something unconventional, so why do Siraj's actions not belong in the same category?
The antics to rile up the opposition or vent his frustration are part of his process, where he is expressing himself. Curbing or holding it in would be in violation of the very same principle that has been propagated for such a long time.
India would be preaching against the manifesto they themselves wrote if Siraj was asked to tone it down. The hypothetical hypocrisy would have another layer if Gautam Gambhir was the one who advocated it, for no one understands the importance of it more than him.
If a docile version of Siraj turns up, not only would it seem weak, but it might also affect his confidence, which is not sky-high at the minute. He recently admitted that he needs to enjoy his bowling for it to be potent, and his aggression is part of the core fundamentals that bring out the best in him.
The pacer already has a hostile crowd waiting for him in Brisbane and Melbourne, apart from the ones behind the keyboard.
Acts of aggression have been a double-edged sword for Team India anyway. There are instances where they have ended well, like Yuvraj against Flintoff in the 2007 T20 World Cup, and Bumrah against James Anderson at Lord's in 2021. However, there have been occasions where they have backfired too.
For instance, when Vitat Kohli riled up Jonny Bairstow, the latter went on to score a hundred and help England chase down 387 in 2022.
But just because there is a chance it might backfire, does not mean you refrain from the act altogether. When Siraj's outburst can be categorized as an act that could rile up Australia, why can't it be a moment of inspiration for his teammates? Or a potential momentum generator?
Rishabh Pant has been constantly chirping 'mahuaal banana padega' behind the stumps. The 'mahuaal' does not spawn randomly; it has to be created. And one often needs a starting point, a Big Bang-esque moment, to create momentum.
If such acts are discouraged, then we might as well have robots playing on the ground against each other. Emotion is certainly not a free card that can be wielded when things go awry in heated moments, but players, especially modern-day players who are bonded more strongly than ever with franchise cricket being the glue, know where the line is.
Siraj needs to shut out the outside noise
Both players have come out and said that it was a misunderstanding, so it should have been treated as such. But instead, it has been stretched into an elaborate circus that might dominate the build-up to the third Test.
Even though it was lost in translation a touch, what Siraj did was nothing unique nor earth-shattering, and certainly not worthy of a column in a newspaper or a slew of questions in press conferences. It does not take much in cricket for a snowball effect to arise, and that is exactly what has happened in this instance.
A lot of opinions by people desperate to make their voice heard, the never-ending TRP greed, and the desperation for a controversy, have resulted in adrenaline being chastised and weaved into a hatred-filled chronicle.
This is why Siraj must remember that what he is running on is not a lush, pristine outfield, but a field of eggshells that cracks at the slightest provocation, through no fault of his own. In this eggshell era, no one knows what might offend someone, and that is a dangerous place to be.
His act of aggression was the sole evidence that Team India were alive on the field. To be lambasted for that by a world that is losing tolerance with each passing day, was perhaps a win for the 'spirit' of cricket, but a loss for cricket's spirit. It's not as if he was not disciplined for his actions; he copped a fine and a demerit point. But while the question of the punishment being fair or extreme is a whole other debate, the relentless criticism is certainly not justified.
The last time Siraj was irked in Australia (subjected to racial abuse in Sydney in 2021 tour), he responded with a fifer in the iconic Gabba Test a week later. For his sake and Team India's, the hope is for lightning to strike twice.