After an extended lean period, Denesh Ramdin finally scored some runs. However, there can be no doubt that his reaction, pointed at Sir Viv Richards, was quite inappropriate when he reached the century mark. Richards' criticism of the wicketkeeper-batsman was normal for a commentator but Ramdin obviously had a premeditated response. Young players will have to mature and a little fine can be helpful in the maturing process.
But Richard's reaction to Ramdin's indiscretion should also generate serious questioning. Richards promptly announced that Ramdin's century was in a losing series and came after Ramdin had enough chances. Brian Lara scored many centuries in a losing series. Darren Bravo is presently having enough chances, so should we expect some caustic remarks from Richards when Bravo comes good?
Additionally, Richards likened Ramdin's century to a football goal scored in the final minute after five had been registered by the other side. He saw no need for Ramdin to be "jumping for joy." Any player who scores a Test century, under whatever conditions, has the right to feel victorious, and celebrate. Why not Ramdin? Why downplay his century to such an extent? I am certain that the annals of cricket commentary do not have precedence of a commentator so promptly watering down a century scored by any batsman.
What does Richards mean by, "I set my standard a little higher than that?" Is he saying that by his standards no batsman should celebrate scoring a century if it's in a losing series, and the batsman had enough chances? What a dreary game it would be.
Richards' personal achievement does not qualify him to belittle that of other players. Obviously his composure was disturbed by Ramdin's gibe. The "master blaster" should have pardoned and encouraged the youngster to rise above such emotional reaction rather that engage in a public tit for tat. There must be rules of conduct for players, so why shouldn't there be for commentators?
Ganesh Bidhesi
Chaguanas
