The Second Test match between Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka has just ended, with Zimbabwe losing but regaining much of their fighting spirit and self-respect over the last two days.

The match was memorable for several events. The most remarkable of these was the hat-trick by Nuwan Zoysa in only the second over of the match. It was the earliest a hat-trick has ever been taken in any Test match, and the first occasion in Test cricket when it was also a bowler's first three deliveries in a match. Zimbabwe were three wickets down without a run on the board, not quite the worst start in Test history, as India in their second innings at Leeds in 1952 lost their first four wickets before scoring a run against Alec Bedser and Fred Trueman of England.

Then there was the superb fighting batsmanship of Andy Flower, who scored 74 and 129 and was in the field for almost all the match; when he wasn't batting he was keeping wicket and also captaining the side. Seldom if ever can one individual have got through more work during the five days of a Test match. And for Sri Lanka Tillakaratne Dilshan played a big innings of great application and determination that made his team's victory virtually inevitable. Barring rain, it was virtually impossible for Zimbabwe to avoid defeat, and all the more credit to Andy Flower and his acolytes for unexpectedly taking the match well into the fifth day.

Unfortunately there was also controversy, notably in the dismissal of Murray Goodwin, who was standing firm with Flower when he absent-mindedly wandered down the pitch at the end of an over forgetting to check that the umpire had actually called over, and was promptly run out by the Sri Lankans.

The Sri Lankan position seems to be that it was within the laws of the game and therefore that was all there is to it; that makes it acceptable. The spirit of the game does not come into it. Clearly on such issues as this the cricket world is divided into two parts. Zimbabwe belongs to the part that still believes that some things, although not specifically against the laws of the game, are just not done by cricketers to each other, that they contravene the spirit of the game. Sri Lanka is obviously on the other side. Two differing sets of standards, and the problem is that when these standards clash it is the team with the higher standards that come off second-best.

Is this really how we want Test cricket to be played? Is it really worth causing such offence to take a wicket? Would the Sri Lankans be happy, then, if one of their batsmen, backing up marginally early, was run out by a Zimbabwean bowler who stopped in his delivery stride to remove the bails without warning? That too is legal but has traditionally been considered against the spirit of the game and has caused much offence when it has been done. Is this the sort of cricket we want?

We do not want or intend this to be an anti-Sri Lankan diatribe. It is disappointing and alarming to hear how they are being spoken of in Zimbabwe at present in some quarters and we certainly do not wish to add fuel to the fire. But when two opposing teams are so much in dispute over how the game should be played, the matter needs resolving.

The laws of cricket are getting progressively longer and more complex due mainly to the increasing number of players and teams who consider the traditions of the game are no longer good enough for them. Legislation has had to be made to deal with such practices as obstruction, excessive bowling of bumpers, especially to tail-enders, beamers, time-wasting, deliberately damaging the ball and the pitch, and so on. But it is more difficult to legislate for aberrations such as Goodwin's, or for carelessly backing up too far, or for taking overthrows should a throw-in rebound off a batsman, for example.

But when one side puts its desire to win above all other considerations and unapologetically causes great offence by its actions, then steps must be taken to resolve the impasse. Otherwise the side that feels victimised may well look for retaliation, and the problem will escalate and spill over off the field as well, as it already has done to an extent.

Every year the nine captains of the Test-playing countries hold a meeting. Perhaps it would be a good idea next time they meet for them to sit down together and come to an agreement about exactly how they want the game to be played. Are they prepared to accept dismissals similar to that of Goodwin as part of the game? If the majority of countries are in favour, then we in Zimbabwe may disagree, but at least we will know where we stand and will have no grounds for complaint when a similar situation occurs - as it will sooner or later.

There are other controversial issues which the Test captains perhaps should address among themselves, so that everybody knows where they stand. Do they really want sledging to be an integral part of the game, for one example? From what the players say, the Australians and South Africans do much more sledging than the Sri Lankans. The Australians were friendly and willing to mix off the field, though, while the South Africans remained aloof. Andy Flower reports elsewhere in this issue that he has also found the Sri Lankans very friendly off the field, and it is sad when certain incidents on the field may have a detrimental effect on their off-field relationships. The Zimbabweans have learnt to fight back with regard to sledging, but they are still novices and there are many in this country who feel it is contrary to the spirit of the game. The Test captains perhaps need to give a lead and find common ground on such issues.

And what about such issues as bumpers, batsmen 'walking' when they know they are out, and several other problem areas? Not everything can easily be legislated for. But if there is a definite policy on controversial issues that everybody understands, then they will cease to be so controversial and everybody from the start will know where they stand.

© ZCO