Okay, now listen up -- what follows is not to be interpreted as Ganguly-bashing, and taken as cue for a flood of diatribes.

Not saying I have a problem with those -- actually, at one level it is all becoming quite amusing -- but in this instance, can we stick to the point, not the personality?

The comment relates to the Indian captain's statements on the eve of the Test match -- and the comments are fine, as far as they go.

It is just that when I see teams like the Aussies, and now the Kiwis, indulge in such trash-talking in the name of psychological warfare, I find myself wishing we learnt to give back as good as we get.

For instance, since Fleming opted to cast doubt on the ability of Indian batsmen such as Dravid, Tendulkar and Ganguly himself, I wish our captain had in his reply turned around and suggested that Sir Richard Hadlee -- now the chairman of selectors, no less -- was not the bowler he is made out to be, vide his record (and record of finding excuses to duck tours) in India, and innocently wondered whether he was the right guy to be chairing a selection committee that, in a few months from now, had to pick a team to tour India.

Too far below the belt, given that Hadlee is a non-combatant? Well, how about wondering why, even on a pitch that was not made for spin, the Kiwis made such heavy weather against Harbhajan Singh when he was finally given the ball, and suggesting that maybe, come Hamilton, it won't be just the Kiwi lower order that is going to be tested by turn; that maybe a Bajji, or a Karthik, will be going up against the Richardsons and Flemings?

How about suggesting that maybe it has something to do with that part of the world -- the Aussies can't play off spin for nuts, and apparently the Kiwis can't, either?

We generally tend, as a team and a nation, to remain above such things -- but maybe it is time we revised that. Apparently, while we were asleep, someone went and redefined how cricket should be played. Well, it is not our definition, but it seems to be the definition -- so what's wrong with us playing it the same way, only harder?

How about an Indian player, or its captain, innocently wondering why Fleming, for instance, seems unable to get decent scores against India, home or away? I mean, his top score of 92 was made in 1994; and in 16 innings since then (in three of which he did not have to bat), he has made two half centuries.

Would the Kiwi skipper, you reckon, like to have had his opponents point all this out? Had this been Australia, you can bet your life some such comment would have been forthcoming, after Fleming's statements hit the headlines -- the Aussies believe in targetting the opposition's leader and main players.

Is it time for us to learn?

Earlier Comment