I have just returned from spending four largely wasted days in Mutare for the match between the Zimbabwe Board XI and Northerns B. Just under a full day's play was possible, the second day of the three-day match; the other three were completely lost.

It was all quite unnecessary, as there was not much rain during the day. Nigel Fleming gives his views on this fiasco in his Manicaland report. The Board XI are determined to win the UCBSA Bowl competition to persuade the apparently most unwilling South African authorities to promote them to the SuperSport Series next season, and they were dealt a savage blow not so much by the weather as by the ground conditions. The ancient covers were about as much use as a popgun in an air raid when the rain fell, mainly during the night. This greatly adds to the pressure on the Board XI in their quest for promotion.

It was dry enough during the day for the players to depart for the famous Leopard Rock Hotel to play golf, which meant that they were unavailable for interviews. The only one I was able to conduct was during play on the second day, when the only player available, with the Board XI in the field, was fortunately enough left-arm spinner Ian Engelbrecht, the only one I had not previously interviewed. He proved a very interesting speaker, and his biography is included in this issue. The washout of the one-day game meant that he was robbed of a chance to make his debut for the Board XI.

IN BANGLADESH

Abroad, Zimbabwe finally managed to win, albeit against Bangladesh, who as I mentioned last week are still grossly underprepared for Test cricket. With no television coverage available, one has to rely on CricInfo reports, which suggest that Zimbabwe played well on a very good batting pitch, although to lose two wickets without a run on the board when chasing 11 to win suggests carelessness.

Any win helps, so this will be a boost for the team, and all being well this will be boosted still further in the three-match one-day series about to start. Whatever Zimbabwe's morale is like, they still believe they can beat Bangladesh, and it will take a major performance by the home side or a very poor one by Zimbabwe if Bangladesh are to win a match. But it will not always be like this, with Bangladesh's huge resources, and one day soon they will beat us, and quite possibly continue to do so regularly. So we had better make hay while the sun shines! We cannot afford overconfidence.

MIKE DENNESS AND THE INDIANS

Readers will obviously be aware of the furore in South Africa over match referee Mike Denness's actions against Sachin Tendulkar for alleged ball-tampering and against several Indian players for excessive appealing, including the suspension of Virender Sehwag for one match. I cannot resist adding my comments.

First of all, having watched several times the replay of Tendulkar's actions with the ball, there is no doubt in my mind that he was simply cleaning the seam, which is legal. I cannot understand how it could be interpreted as interfering with the ball, as interpreted by the rules. As I see it, Tendulkar's only error was his failure to do so under the supervision of the umpires, as required in the laws.

If the match referee did have any doubt, Tendulkar's past record should have worked in his favour. As far as I am aware, he has never been involved in anything to bring the game into disrepute in any way, unlike a number of other top players I could mention, many of whom have not been punished as he has been. Despite being the idol of many millions, he remains a pleasant, humble man, a sportsman in every sense of the word. He must be deeply hurt by this slur on his reputation. I am sure all that was needed was a gentle reminder from the match referee that he should consult the umpires first next time.

Regarding the Indian players and their excessive appealing, I agree with that, except on two counts. Firstly, my feeling is that it was excessive to suspend Sehwag for a Test - and he was not the first player to be banned for a Test match, as the television commentators said more than once. Ridley Jacobs was the first, when he allowed a batsman to be given out stumped when the ball was in his wrong glove when West Indies toured Zimbabwe recently.

I am in favour of a more hands-on approach by match referees. With a young player like Sehwag, who has no history of misbehaviour behind him, would it not have been sufficient for the match referee to call him at the next interval to tell him in effect, "Your behaviour was unacceptable; you had better keep your nose clean for the rest of the series, because if there is one sniff of a recurrence I will suspend you"? In most cases, that should do the trick. A quiet word of warning with certain players at the next interval when necessary might do wonders and forestall resentment.

My other reservation is that, although I feel glad that positive action was taken against excessive appealing, another aspect of misbehaviour was apparently ignored. Jacques Kallis, for example, was apparently allowed to spit abuse at an Indian batsman after he evaded a bouncer without any action being taken at all.

Obviously every now and then players will let slip a few words through frustration, but when it becomes personal and insulting it is unacceptable. Yet Mike Denness appeared prepared to overlook it. The preamble to the laws of cricket states that the spirit of the game involves respect for your opponents, and that it is against the spirit of the game to direct abusive language towards an opponent. - in exactly the same section where it says it is against the spirit of the game to advance towards an umpire in an aggressive manner when appealing.

No wonder the Indians feel they are discriminated against by match referees. Their players, or some of them - I cannot remember seeing the great Sachin do so - are rightly penalized when they go over the top in their appealing. Yet the opposition are allowed to get away with sledging, and too often commentators support them with comments such as, "It's good to see a bit of needle out in the middle," and so on.

Cricket is traditionally a gentleman's game. Obviously that is no longer the case in practice, but is it still even an ideal? Is it gentlemanly behaviour to abuse an opponent, even when frustrated? Match referees need to start demanding more self-control from the players. It is a rare virtue these days.

Zimbabwe are one of the better international teams when it comes to on-field behaviour, but in domestic cricket the situation is not the same. It has come into Logan Cup cricket, with the Mashonaland side, disliked throughout the rest of the country for their attitude, leading the way. Others have followed. Certain clubs have earned notoriety for their verbals on the field, and it has apparently come into schools cricket as well.

Umpires, managers and captains at all levels need to be made aware of their responsibilities. Umpires need to be urged to take a stand against any verbal abuse that goes beyond the occasional frustrated comment; they need to be supported and to know that they are supported. The authorities, I feel, should adopt a `name them and shame them' policy of disciplining the culprits and publicizing the fact that they have done so.

Many umpires at club and provincial level, I am told, tend to ignore sledging because they don't feel they get support from the authorities. In fact, the authorities do deal with their reports and follow them up, but it is done so privately that the umpires concerned do not even get to know about it, and so feel they are ignored. Let's get Zimbabwe cricket clean and keep it clean. It would help if the rest of the world took a stand against bad on-field behaviour as well.

By the way, it was good to see Zimbabwean umpire Russell Tiffin have such a good game in the Port Elizabeth Test match. He had some very tricky decisions to make and, according to the television camera, they were mostly, if not all, correct.

© Cricinfo