Prem Panicker's "In anonymity, veritas"

[sachin_fan]

He is quite like that, naturally aggressive as was amply clear when he sledged Sachin and Sehwag in Challengers last year. If it is wrong to fake aggression then surely it is equally wrong to curb it too. The problem is that the aggression of SS comes as a shift from the behavioral skills of the geriatric brigade, as also by a vast majority of Indians who are more than happy to bend over backwards. All these talk of "perform first and then talk" holds little water simply because if you go by performance SS is heads and shoulders above others in this series(checks stats above). A SR of 24 and an economy of 6.77 means(hypothetically) that SS can by himself dismiss Aussie team in 240 deliveries for a score of 270. Thats Aussies 270/10 in 40 overs. I would take that anyday over all these sulky "we minding our own business" that are routinely leaving Aussies with 300 plus off 50 for 6 wickets. xxx

One problem lurker, with or without Sreesanth, Aussies have been piling up scores of 300 and above (except for 2 matches i think) in this series. Sreesanth's presence in 4 of these games didnt make a difference. One thought though, i think sreesanth is a better 1st change bowler . We should try it out

[Anakin]

Let him take some wkts and win some matches, without it all the so called aggression is nothing but stupidity.

[Chandan]

Now Harsha Bhogle gives his two cents on the topic: Raving, ranting don’t portray effective aggressiveness [h2]Harsha Bhogle[/h2] Posted online: Monday , October 29, 2007 at 1340 hrs IST Print EmailTo Editor At some point the fork in the path appears before every sportsman. Does he play to the gallery? Or does he play to his strength? In the movies and in slapstick, and occasionally in politics, the two paths might seem to merge. In the more real world of sport, the competitor must choose. It might seem an easy choice on the face of it, surely to win you must play to your strength, but the more you look around the more you realise that there are takers for either path. I think some of India’s players chose the gallery to their strength in the games against Australia. They were seen to be aggressive but that isn’t the same thing as being aggressive. I think the drama descended to being churlish sometimes but worse still, in trying to create the illusion of aggression, a couple of young men didn’t quite play to their strengths. They gave television channels a lot of footage and used up a lot of newsprint. Instead, they could have given their side a better chance of winning. Sport is best played when the mind is calm and the intent is aggressive. It is a very rare sportsman that can rave and rant and focus on the job at hand. John McEnroe might come to mind and for all his genius there is a school of thought that believes he underperformed. And Glenn McGrath’s mind was calm more often than when the whirlwind blew through it. The most aggressive Indian cricketers I have known are Kapil Dev, Sachin Tendulkar and Anil Kumble and between the three of them I cannot remember one instance where the opponent had to be taunted, where the finger had to be wagged, for a result. They could play and they won matches for India. And so it worries me that some wonderfully gifted young men believe that being rude and demonstrative is the path, or indeed the essential ingredient, to success. Zaheer Khan learnt it the hard way and when we were in England the most noticeable aspect of his cricket was how relaxed he seemed in his delivery stride. There was a calm about him that allowed him to send the ball where he wanted it to go. When you beat the bat or get the batsman out you don’t have to tell him you have won. He knows. But Zaheer needed time in the wilderness to understand himself. He realised that the ball speaks a thousand words and it is something that a Sreesanth or a Harbhajan must understand. Cricket is unlike other reality shows where singers must know how to dance to win and judges must learn to be rude. That is scripted mayhem, it produces a fleeting acquaintance with fame and success; even those two qualities, as we now learn from the glamour pages, aren’t always related. Sreesanth must learn to bowl five great outswingers in an over, Harbhajan must tease and tempt and torment. And they must ask themselves if the best way to do that is to be in the face of the opponent. The answer might just be yes though evidence from the deeds of most great men suggests it might be no. Far too many young players are displaying distracted minds. It doesn’t help that far too many rewards are being thrown at them, far too many microphones thrust in their faces, far too many cameras focussed on them. And far too many of them, Zaheer Khan, Yuvraj Singh, Irfan Pathan, Virender Sehwag, Harbhajan Singh are learning that they need to be dropped to become better cricketers. It is not wrong to be dropped if a better player shows up but that is not always the case with a lot of younger players who give the impression that it is unfashionable to just get on with it. Does the quote and the close-up get more important than the scoreboard sometimes? And to think it didn’t with Tendulkar, with Kumble, with Laxman, with Ganguly even and certainly with Dravid. Those are fine role models with fine records. India must play aggressively against Australia and Pakistan. They must, as Kumble told me many years ago, seek to take a wicket everytime the ball is in their hands, for that is the best definition of aggression you will ever get. They must take bold decisions and bat bravely and run hard and stop every ball that must be stopped. Otherwise they will let their team down. To be silent is not to be soft. Assassins don’t scream from the rooftop before they press the trigger. Tendulkar’s smile and Kumble’s piercing look have made many barbed comments innocuous. India must play to their strength. Raving and ranting and gesturing isn’t a strength. A calm, calculating mind is. ---------------------------------------------------- But read the comments from the readers and you'll know that their view are not too different from the view of many of the forummers at ICF who prefer players gesturing at and abusing the opposition.

[King]

I'm privy to couple of players saying a lot of good things about aggressive Indian players of late. Simply put you don't have everyone behaving like Sreesanth in the Indian team. Pakistan has contributed fantastic share of aggressive cricketers prior to this century and they were lauded for that quality. I don't think there is good or bad behaviour. Every player worth his salt knows just going over the top is not going to help him further his career. I don't see anything wrong if a player is fiery and also is able to chip in with runs or wickets. If you line up 10 X-Indian players and ask them if the current crop of players are over the top you will have half of them saying the current bunch is aggressive and that exactly is the way to play competitive cricket.

[gs]

Its amazing how the media hype can impact behavior. We have seen in the recent past examples of how performance is the best answer to chatter - a) Yuvraj's 6 sizes after being goaded by Flintoff b) Zaheer in the second test which actually led to an English media backlash against Prior. This is the way to shut people up - perform and put the pressure back on them.

Completely agree, but one cant just stand and take it if being abused with maa-behen gaalis or if one's religion/country is being abused!! Any man worth his salt shouldn't take it lying down!! :hatsoff: