Sri Lanka get tough

"Where's the attitude now? Where's the arrogance and the attitude now, huh? Are you guys rattled now? Eh? Doubting yourself, man? Self-doubt, man, eh?"

A quote from one of the Australian close-in fielders, perhaps? Think again. The above is in fact the text of Sri Lankan wicketkeeper Kumar Sangakkara's barbs directed at South African batsman Andrew Hall, on the electric last day of an extraordinarily ill-tempered - and appallingly umpired - second Test.

Ye olde art of verbal intimidation is often the subject of much speculation. Normally, certainly in the days before stump microphones and close-up camera shots, nobody can be sure of the extent of the practice. Most players are loath to talk about it. Most players don't have the brazenness to sledge from up at the stumps, directly into said microphones. Most players aren't Kumar Chokshanada Sangakkara.

The 25-year-old keeper-batsman, who carried a reputation as a loquacious wicketkeeper (though aren't they all?) from the controversial 2001 series against England, enhanced that status exponentially on the last day of Sri Lanka's tense 3-wicket loss in Centurion. In an extraordinarily open display of 'chirping', as the South Africans are wont to call it, Sangakkara gave back quite a deal of what the Sri Lankans had evidently been receiving. They lost the series, dismally, for the same old reasons as before - difficulty against the rising ball, lack of application, inability to maintain pressure with the ball - to remain mired on just three Test wins outside the subcontinent, but in the verbal stakes at least finally showed some fighting spirit. Frankly, it was a delight to see.

South Africa, with their skill and discipline, are accustomed to pushing weaker sides around from positions of strength. Against Australia in 1996/' 97 and '97/'98, they met a side which played the same way they did, only better, and lost. Then, last season, Australia's relentlessly attacking cricket exposed them. While it's obviously true that all teams will display less composure when under pressure, Australia's aggression had them at a loss. Without control over the tempo of game, they were confounded. The Australian example of how to play the Proteas is yet to be replicated - their sledging, on the other hand, isn't.

The skirmishes started on day four, when Pollock reportedly patted Jayawardene on the head, a gesture which wasn't appreciated. It continued with Mark Boucher's mouthiness and reached its fiery denouement on the last day.

After much niggle throughout a tense run chase ("Ashwell's become the scapegoat of the side, man. Why don't they like you Ashwell, huh? What did you do?") Sangakkara, a law student, let Pollock have a piece of his mind.

With the scores level, Sangakkara shrugged off Sri Lanka's imminent defeat to address the South African captain. "We don't complain when we lose away, man. We don't cry like in Morocco (ODI tournament in August, when Sri Lanka beat South Africa in the final) and say (whingy voice) 'this not our conditions, this is not our conditions' and go to the press conference and say the same. Fucking joke. If you win, be gracious in both, man. Otherwise it's (inaudible) shit. Graceful, man, graceful Shaun. Learn it."

Pollock, with Boucher urging him to look at the scoreboard, took the impromptu lecture coolly, telling Sangakkara "you've been superb". One kind of wishes India had displayed a similarly belligerent attitude when they clashed with Kallis and Pollock in South Africa last year, though admittedly under the circumstances they would only have had half a side for the next Test.

There are two schools of thought on Sri Lanka, which this Test will likely bring to the fore. One holds that they have often been the innocent victims of verbal intimidation, while the other is that they are also sneaky antagonists quite capable of holding their own. The reality is probably somewhere in between. Clearly, though, what is good for one team is good for another. If they have been sledged, then why not respond in kind at the appropriate time? Normally, it would not be done so openly, but that should be of no consequence.

For the umpires, it is a question of determining and enforcing acceptable limits. Daryl Harper and Russell Tiffin, while in control, showed little inclination to rein in the barbs. Harper only intervened when McKenzie and Gamage wilfully brushed shoulders, and the behaviour of both teams was as close to the edge as you can get without falling off the precipice. When Kallis was bowled in the second innings, he delivered a stream of comments to the celebrating huddle as he walked off. Apparently, the series did have a match referee (Gundappa Viswanath), though what that actually means is impossible to say. He saw fit to take no action against anyone, so presumably what occurred is considered an acceptable precedent.

Which side of the line of tolerable behaviour all this should fall on is difficult to say. International cricket has a professional panel of eight match referees who are supposed to stringently and consistently enforce the code of conduct. Just recently, Clive Lloyd let Shoaib Akhtar off with a "severe reprimand" after he was found guilty of ball tampering in the first Test against Zimbabwe, Darren Lehmann was seen running his nails around the seam of the ball against England, and Sri Lanka and South Africa have engaged in physical and verbal stoushes. If ball tampering, sledging, and bumping shoulders is worth a reprimand or less, then we are surely in for some interesting scenes.

Regardless of whether the behaviour is officially sanctioned or not, it did make for riveting viewing. Given his feistiness, it is all but certain Kumar Sangakkara will be involved in a conflagration with the Aussies when Sri Lanka begin their one-day campaign in Australia next month. Can there be any doubt he will succeed Sanath Jayasuriya as Sri Lanka's next captain? It seems the Arjuna Ranatunga legacy is alive and well.

More Columns

Mail Daniel Laidlaw