Cricket: Steve Waugh's hypocrisy and obduracy rise to new heights

By RICHARD BOOCK

There are times when Steve Waugh reminds you of one of those revisionist historians who believe the holocaust never happened and that the lunar landing was actually a propaganda stunt, played out by actors in a studio near Pinewood, in England.

The Australian captain might be one of the most successful in test history, but as his status has grown so has the thickness of his hide diminished, particularly when it comes to matters not automatically associated with his team.

Things like decorum and integrity.

The matter raised its all-too-sensitive head again during a World Series Cup media conference this week, when the obdurate Waugh lashed Australian reporters for their part in escalating a sledging controversy involving South African batsman Justin Ontong.

The 22-year-old allrounder claimed he was taken aback by the personal nature of the Australians' sledging, something Waugh has dismissed as a cheap shot from the media and another attempt to tarnish his side's image.

"I thought it was an unnecessary article," Waugh said.

"It sells papers. I'm not naive enough not to understand that's all part of the job, but I'd like those comments to be backed up and for names to be named and sledgers to be named."

Well, if it's names he wants, he should not have to delve far into the past.

After all, the Australian skipper has been at the helm during some well-publicised sledging furores, such as the Shane Warne-Stuart Carlisle exchange a couple of summers ago and last year's disgraceful episode in India involving opening batsman Michael Slater.

He was also in charge when Glenn McGrath spat in the direction of Brian Lara during the most recent series in the Caribbean; he was in the gully last month as Brett Lee farewelled Shane Bond with a verbal send-off at Perth; and he, himself, was unrepentant after being found guilty of dissent during the second test against South Africa.

Evidently, winning everything in sight has not been enough for the Australian skipper, who now wishes for his side to be remembered as a group of lily-white cricketers who always played within the bounds of common decency and never compromised the spirit of the game.

This from the man who publicly condoned the use of what he describes as "mental disintegration tactics" to unsettle batsmen, and who took hypocrisy levels to a new high last month when criticising Sachin Tendulkar for ball-tampering, and almost in the same breath, reiterating his team's policy of not walking.

Untroubled by these contradictions, he has now launched into his own media over comments made by an opposition player, although it is interesting that he has stopped short of denying the claims and has instead taken the dead-end course of demanding concrete evidence.

"From my point of view, I'm the captain," he said. "I was out on the field and I didn't hear anything that was unnecessary or untoward. I just think it was a cheap shot at the Australian side.

"I don't blame Justin at all because I saw his comments and they weren't necessarily wrong or bad - but I just know that the journalists chasing that story had the scent of blood in their nostrils and wanted to make a big deal of it."

He seems to be either missing the point or deliberately avoiding it, but the big deal was never the Ontong incident in isolation but the developing perception that Australia will stretch their win-at-all-cost attitude further than any other rivals, even if it means trampling over some well-founded values.

Faced with playing within the spirit of the game, or the rules of the game, Australian captains have often chosen the latter - as demonstrated by the underarm incident, the go-slow against the West Indies at the 1999 World Cup, and the wide bowling at the end of this summer's first test at Brisbane.

It is the main reason, whether Waugh likes it or not, his side will always be remembered for being good at winning, but little else.