Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[Libran]

ROHIT BRIJNATH

Sunil Gavaskar must be grinning from one clever ear to the other. Columnists look to provoke discussion, for their words to be quoted and argued over `chai' before every column eventually becomes a shopping bag.

Occasionally, this satisfaction of being read is replaced by glee when one of the column's subjects unthinkingly decides to respond. Ricky Ponting's reaction to Gavaskar's comment about the Australians' behaviour qualifies.

Gavaskar's greatest, and only, serious indiscretion came during his walk-out in Australia; mostly he has been a staunch sentinel of cricket's spirit. For him the game is precious, a pursuit of skill, and honour. Still, his comment about ugly Australians was scarcely new. Even he has said it before. It is like flair and Brazil, and wrists and Indians.

Ponting, whose manner occasionally lacks the sophistication of his batting, should have let Gavaskar's observation pass unmolested like a ball outside off. However, once committed to a shot, his response should have been considered. Instead he flailed.

Factually incorrect


He said Sunny was a selector. This is factually incorrect. He suggested only "perfect" people should comment on the behaviour of others. But who is? He pointed to India's unhealthy Test record in recent times. Except the subject was not performance. When he said, "We all know the way he (Sunny) played his cricket, don't we?", we are confused. How did Sunny play? With immaculate technique? Still, some blows, inadvertently, hit home. His comment "If he (Sunny) is talking about us, what about the way India have played their cricket over the last few years" may have not addressed the argument, but it revealed what the Australian thinks of the Indian team. Not much apparently.

When he says of the two teams "I know who I would rather be going to watch", it is not a low blow but certainly as painful. Well, we could say if there was a World Cup for conduct, or style, we might win. Alas, these sound like consolation prizes.

Not that good behaviour can ever be over-rated, for the charming champion is a lovely image and one worth aspiring to. Occasionally fellows from Switzerland, speaking many languages with mouth and racquet, even fit that definition. Certainly sport has its share of popular winners, emphasising that men can uphold a game's spirit and play spiritedly at the same time.

Ponting hit one chord sweetly when he noted "If you are really dominating teams for a long period of time, I don't think you end up having too many supporters." Manchester United would agree and the New York Yankees concur. Teams on the rise are delicious, once dominant they are easy to be sniffy about. Emasculated rivals tend to bleat. Fans crave new blood and fresh adventure, and sometimes even a humbling of arrogant teams.

But not all dominant athletes turn tedious. Brazil in football has long been loved, Federer's streaks are hardly dismaying, and no one ever had enough of Seve Ballesteros. Still, these seem the exceptions.

It is all very confusing. For instance, at this cup, Indians will hope their players show a bit of, yes, Australianness. For all our art, we envy their unblinking competitiveness. We lack their sandpaper toughness, but don't desire their discourteousness. We haven't got our equation quite right, but neither have they.

It is possible the Australians have improved and that cricket's sinners are hardly limited to their team; it is also possible the Australians are unable to see their own unattractiveness. The hurling of balls at opponents, the mocking of rivals passed off as mental disintegration. What is acceptable to them is plain rude to others. Defenders of Sreesanth will do well to remember that.

Unfair labels

Labels, Ponting must know, once tattooed cannot be easily erased. The South Africans, despite their chase down of Australia's 434 last year, are considered chokers. It may be unfair stereotyping, but it's there. Only hard-earned victory, at a World Cup, will obliterate it.

Similarly, only a year or more of cricket played with grace, absent of disrespect, will tell us Ponting's team has forged its own identity, has broken completely with the recent past. Till then they have to grin and bear the words of men like Gavaskar.

http://www.hindu.com/2007/03/14/stories/2007031407752200.htm

[Cernunnos]

......
Still, some blows, inadvertently, hit home. His comment "If he (Sunny) is talking about us, what about the way India have played their cricket over the last few years" may have not addressed the argument, but it revealed what the Australian thinks of the Indian team. Not much apparently.

So at least there is another guy who made the same observation. Hope atticus is reading this.