Sreesanth: The perils of aggression

Shanthakumaran Sreesanth is single-handedly doing what many did not think possible. He is handing the Australian cricketers the moral high ground. Adam Gilchrist, one of cricket's finer fellows, implied on Tuesday that the Indian's behaviour is more childish than his son's.






It is becoming increasingly hard to disagree.
-------------------------------------------------------

Last week, Andrew Symonds grumbled that India had got carried away with its Twenty20 celebrations (it did, but in a land unused to cricketing victory it was understandable, and Symonds was plainly ungracious), but it was his further assertion that the Australian cricketers were humble in victory that sparked annoyance and amusement.

There was something of the ridiculous to an Australian cricketer attempting to hand out lessons in humility and decorum to an Indian.

Yet on Tuesday, so egregious was Sreesanth's behaviour (again), so bizarre his run-out of Symonds, so infantile his screaming in Symonds' face after dismissing him, that the Indians are in no position to lecture on etiquette either. Sreesanth may be a talented bowler but he is doing an ungainly break dance on cricket's spirit.

Admirable dignity
----------------------------

Sreesanth can be amusing at times, and no doubt sport needs free spirits who have a hint of the unconventional. But there is a fine line between colourful and immature, between aggression and silliness, and he appears not to know the difference. So Mahendra Singh Dhoni must tell him, for one player cannot be allowed to bruise a team's reputation.

The Indian team through the years has conducted itself with an admirable dignity at most times. Still, it has been argued in recent times that the team needed to be more aggressive in its tone, and its players more confrontational in their attitude.

An animated Sourav Ganguly goaded his team to believe it could win, but his players were not encouraged to be rude. In 2001, at home against Australia, India were tough and uncompromising but hardly obnoxious. It was a team whose most aggressive cricketers were also its quietest and most honourable: Laxman, Tendulkar and Dravid.

Admittedly not every man is a Tendulkar. All manner of personalities collide in sport and cricket has sufficient room for men to be themselves and for steam to occasionally escape. Thus glares are exchanged, the odd word thrown, intimidating fields set, bouncers hurled. It is a game within a game, a testing of nerve that the Australians enjoy most.

When Australian teams cross the line, and they have done so frequently in the past, the response from India has been scathing. To not apply the same standard to Sreesanth would be disingenuous.

'Muscular India'
--------------------------

Dhoni's so-called "new India" is seen as a muscular, dynamic India, and acceptably a young generation should be allowed to express itself. So high-five after wickets, run up to pat a bowler, display your exuberance, show off an energy that unnerves an opposition, advertise spirit through shoulders that refuse to slump, don't take a backward step in the face of intimidation.

But toughness (or "fearlessness" as this team is supposed to have) is not screaming in another man's face or pointing a bat. If this is the strategy to rattle Australia, it is feeble.

India are not going to beat, or impress, or scare Australia by behaving in an aggressive manner but by playing in an aggressive manner. Not by tough talk, but by putting six balls in the right place; not taking a step towards the opposition, but by taking singles constantly; not by a shoulder bump, but by fielding sharply.

The most fearsome and intimidating opponent is the focused, disciplined, consistent one. The most aggressive teams are the ones that do not allow the pressure to ease, who play every session with fierce concentration.

Harbhajan can point his bat all day, but it's his wicket-taking that matters. Australia's mind games worked only because their cricket was uncompromisingly tough. Australia dominated because they out-skilled, and out-worked, and out-thought opponents, not because they out-talked them.

The more Sreesanth visits the match referee, the more he becomes an issue in the media, the more it distracts the captain and team from its mission. He is young, and so people will be indulgent. But patience leaks away. Especially if he has figures of 3-67. If he feels the need to swagger, he must earn it. He must remember, too, what first earned him selection for India: a talent for bowling, not an ability to be theatrical.