It’s a line in the ICC statement shouldered by Virat Kohli’s 19-year-old opener Sam Konstas that many will disagree with. According to the game’s governing body, Kohli “negligently bumped his shoulder inappropriately with the batsman”. It also said that a formal hearing was not necessary as Kohli had pleaded guilty and accepted a 20 per cent match fee cut. They used to get 15 lakhs, now they get 12 lakhs.
Negligence means “failure to see.” Sloth and forgetfulness are some suitable dictionary synonyms. One would have to be blind or biased to draw that conclusion even if one is aware of what Kohli was doing as he diligently walked around the side of the pitch in an attempt to shatter the young batting buccaneer’s confidence and turn cricket into a contact game.
Konstas remained undeterred. He continued to disrespect India’s famous bowling. He pulled off many of those daring shots against Jasprit Bumrah, the world’s best bowler, which riled the visitors. But when the ICC saw Kohli’s planned trek as a forgetful professor at the edge of the pitch bumping into a fellow walker on a park trail, the world body inadvertently encouraged the prospect of turning cricket, if not rugby, into football.
Australian commentators were vehement, perhaps more scathing than their criticism deserved. But an issue that should ideally have been unanimously condemned devolved into kaaboutery and outlandish debate.
Former Australian captain Ricky Ponting opined that the fielder “should not be close to the batsman at that stage … where the batsmen gather and get together”. Voices in the Indian media will remind Ponting of his own disciplinary record as an active professional. By that logic, should commentators with increasing ball problems be allowed to commentate in Perth, or should those with swing problems be allowed into the English media sector?
Kohli’s act did not go down well with the leading Indian voices. Ravi Shastri and Sunil Gavaskar pulled up the Indian star for his behavior on the field. But broadcasters had prepared their balancing act. The voiceover for the most talked about moment of the day said: “Australia’s Kishore collides with Kohli, who is not too impressed”. It’s like reporting on deforestation with the headline: “A tree walks up to an axe, falls over and cuts itself down”.
Television broadcasters love all the confrontations involving Kohli. They can’t resist taking sides in a good old match during modern cricket’s most watched rivalry. Since the start of the series, during breaks, Indian television viewers have been subjected to a documentary discussing the Monkeygate series and the R Ashwin-Tim Paine “See You at the Gabba” sledge.
It plays on loop, recalling the history of flair and confrontation. This prompts fans to stay tuned, suggesting another angry exchange could be around the corner. In this age of “reels” and “shorts”, the angry exchange of gold dust and Kohli’s shoulder-barge is priceless. The Test series promos also make two of the most likable and well-behaved cricketers – captain Rohit Sharma and Pat Cummins – into cheeky characters. The art-work has some wild strokes, they are made to look dangerous, eager to go at each other’s throats.
Despite the best efforts of the marketers, the series was mostly amicable. The Mohammad Siraj-Travis Head fight was short-lived. After an angry departure from Australian left-hander Siraj, they looked to have made up when they met at the end of the innings. This broke the hearts of television producers, as the young Constance poured cold water on the potentially incendiary issue, saying “it happens, it’s cricket”.
In the last few years, an “outrage industry” has grown up around Kohli. Any criticism of the Indian stars has been followed by social media blunders from those associated with the Virat Army. Such is the popularity of cricket superstars that their endorsements are also monetized. Not only in India, YouTubers in Pakistan also follow this business model. Mocking Babar and praising Kohli fuels the industry in the form of likes, shares and subscriptions.
But Kohli should know better. There’s nothing wrong with showing aggression, that’s what makes him a modern-day great. But he should have chosen to face someone of his stature and age. Konstas was a very wrong choice. Here was a teenager who was undaunted by the grand occasion of the Boxing Day Test. He was not aware of the bowler he was facing or the greats standing behind him in the slips, one of them being Kohli, his role model since childhood. Konstas was sure of his skills, and he played as always. He was like Kohli in his teenage years.
At the very least, Kohli should respect the quality that made him a champion batsman. At least, for once, he can try to be a hero who doesn’t disappoint his fans. Konstas deserves a pat on the back, not a shoulder, for carrying on his legacy. But why does Kohli do this? Because he has permission and that keeps the wheel moving.
sandeep.dwivedi@expressindia.com
Why should you buy our membership?
You want to be the smartest in the room.
You want access to our award-winning journalism.
You don’t want to be confused and misinformed.
Choose your subscription package