Taskin Ahmed, conspiracy theories, and the charms of cricket

Ian Meckiff was a left-arm fast bowler. Real fast. How fast? I don't know. Speed guns didn't exist in his playing days. He played 18 Tests for Australia from 1957 to 1963.

He was in the Richie Benaud-led Australian team's twin tour to Pakistan and India in 1959-60. I had seen him then. In a team with Benaud, Harvey, Lindwall and the like, it's tough to remember others. Only the purists would have noticed Meckiff. Rather, his action. He starts the run-up with a stiff left arm. Was that a run-up or a stroll? Not too many strides. During delivery stride, you could notice the bent elbow. A flick with the wrist to boot. "Boom" comes out the ball at fierce speed. Of course, Indian pitches were as dead as a dodo to pacers even then. But, as is the case now, nice to spinners like Benaud. But in the Kanpur Test, India's Jasu Patel out-bowled Beanud with a 14-wicket haul. That was India's first victory against Australia in a Test match. Meckiff went back.

Meckiff became a hero in 1958-59. An Ashes hero. In the second Test in Melbourne, his 6 for 38 in England's second innings included Peter May, Colin Cowdrey and Tom Graveney.

Hero to zero took just four years. In 1963, in the first Test against South Africa at home, his career sensationally ended when he was called for throwing by Australian umpire Colin Egar.

The 'pioneer' in getting called in a Test match wasn't Meckiff, but Geoff Griffin of South Africa. To quote Wisden, "Geoff Griffin made two indelible marks on Test history. During the Second Test of the 1960 tour of England, he took the first (and so far only) Test hat-trick at Lord's, and for South Africa anywhere. Far less happily, he also became the first bowler to be no-balled for throwing in a Test there."

Was Tony Lock of England called for his action, even before Griffin? He made his England debut in the third Test against India in 1952. He wasn't called then. He was a left-arm spinner with an awkward action. I can't recall him being called. One story is that he saw his action in a film. Disgusted with what he saw, he remodelled it. But he was never the same after the change and faded away.

Why remember Meckiff, Griffin and Lock now?

An old professor-colleague of mine returned from Bangladesh, after finishing his World Bank assignment there. Knowing my interest, he narrated to me the animated discussions on Taskin Ahmed, even among the academia there. He says their comments ranged from, "Why now?", "Conspiracy ?" to "Fast bowlers don't bend elbow; spinners do." Hmm… so on and so forth.

Exploring conspiracy theories among close circles and exploding media frenzy in public? It's nothing new. They've existed for as long as cricket has.

My first exposure to that is from the late 1950s. There had been a media blizzard about the prevalence of illegal bowling actions in world cricket, mostly reported from Sheffield Shield and English counties. I'm sure it existed elsewhere too. Perhaps, they didn't get enough attention from the eagle eyes of the media. When media doesn't catch it, gossip mills don't get their grit.

It is in that milieu of that media madness that the stories of Griffin and Meckiff come into sharp focus. Among them, Meckiff was the big fish. Since it happened in a Test match, called by an Australian umpire, in an Australian ground, against an Australian bowler! To me, the ultimate in neutrality. Not for everyone.

A section of the cricket community believed that he had been made a scapegoat by Australian cricket bosses to prove their intense intent to stamp out throwing. Fans exchanged barbs through Letters to the Editor. Unfortunately for the 'cricketing masses', ESPNcricinfo didn't exist then. Why Cricinfo? Even social media didn't exist!

Social media gives a chance to even those who are perceived to be intruders. For example, when Indians post their comments in an Australia v South Africa match, some may ask (and did ask), "Why are you here? Your India is not playing!" That's again nothing new. Perceived intruding? And enquiring? Yes; both existed even in the 'good old' days. Cricket is 'global', no? That is, if you define 'globe' as consisting of just Commonwealth countries, at least in the 1950s and early '60s, when Griffins and Meckiffs were called unceremoniously by the guardians of cricket - the umpires.

There were exchanges on Meckiff's inglorious exit from cricket, even in the Indian press, mostly through Letters to the Editor. Some pro-Egar, and an almost-equal number that were anti-Egar. One anti-Egar letter was even titled "Holier than Thou", instead of applauding the neutrality of Colin Egar.

Suspect actions always existed. Tough calls by the umpires and intemperate exchanges among fans also existed. All along. It's nothing new.

Now, has the 'global' cricket gone beyond the boundaries of the Commonwealth? This World T20 gives us a chance to ask, yet again. Ask the Afghans. Ask the Dutch. And ask a few more. Yet, it is not far enough. Should it push the boundaries further? Yes! Will it? I don't know.

Cricket will exist. Controversies will exist. Never-ending arguments will also exist. One nice thing which will remain abidingly dear is our love for the beautiful game.

20 overs? 50 overs? 450 overs? That is secondary. May be she - the cricket, the enchantress, comes out decked in different garbs to suit the different tastes of different types of connoisseurs. Even the definition of connoisseur is not one-dimensional anymore.

This new, young one, in the mini-est of the mini, just 20, is dancing down to the grounds and pitches in different parts of India. She may not be the purest, but is certainly the most exciting one - a seductress to those who are addicted to her wild charms.

Mis-hits for the maximum and delectable shots for the purists will co-exist; the same way, we argumentative fans co-exist in these ESPNcricinfo columns.

She will be with us only for a while. Keep the boxing gloves aside. Join your palms. Clap, clap! And enjoy the game. Enjoy her charms, though fleetingly short. Every night, till it lasts.