It is not an unknown fact that Australian cricketers have at most of the times been given a special treatment be it on the field or off the same. The most recent one being the mongoose bat that the former Australian batsman and the present Chennai Superkings opener Mathew Hayden is found to use in the current edition of the IPL. One has to wonder as to how come Hayden is allowed to use a bat of his choice when the ICC has issued certain rules regarding the size and shape of the bat which involves its width, length and also the material used to manufacture the same?
Of course, there has been a situation in one of the earlier matches when Mathew Hayden was run out when obviously he failed to make it to the crease before the ball made it to the stumps. Had Hayden used the conventional bat that every other non - special cricketers use, he could have made his ground with the long handle aiding him make it to the crease. But, this is not so important here. The point is in what way is Hayden's actions justified regarding the bat what he uses? This is not a problem with Hayden alone but with the entire Australian cricketers.
No one needs to be specially cited regarding Ponting raising his fingers to declare Ganguly out in the famous Sydney test. More than questioning Ponting's ethics on the field, one has to think how come the ICC never intended in taking any sort of action on Ponting when players are fined for excessive appealing and maintaining a slow over rate. Ponting's deed was no way less when compared to these offenses. So has been the case with recently, Johnson being fined for his spat with Scott Styris with the latter having to bear 15% of the match fees as fine with no fault of his.
Is it because the IPL is not a part of the ICC that Mathew Hayden is allowed or is it because that Hayden has retired from international cricket that the issue is not blown up? If today, Hayden is allowed to use a mongoose bat with a short handle, what if Brett Lee comes out bowling with a rubber ball citing the extraordinary bounce that it has? Of course, every ball that makes contact with the bat would have to be replaced with every ball getting broken upon the same which is secondary. In case anyone else uses the mongoose bat, it would be termed as Hayden's bat from then onwards still giving due credit to Hayden for his cleverness.
It was the Aussies who blew the issue of Murali's bowling until Warne had an upperhand when the ICC had given Murali a clean chit. But, no one dares to give it a thought regarding the deeds of Aussie players. Reason?