Roy Vs Sreesanth

Reading reports on the ongoing scuffle between Andrew Symonds and Sreesanth, you'd be amazed at the extreme hyperbole being indulged in. Peter Lalor of Australian says with typical aussie aggro that, "Sreesanth's lucky that Symonds hasn't plastered his nose all over his face". Lalor goes on to describe Symonds as a man of "peace and tranquility". Not to be left behind, Chandresh Narayanan of that high altar of print media, The Times of India, says that the "new aggressive India is not fake".

It’s not Symond's “docile” nature that saved Sreesanth (though I wish he’d giving him a roughing up), but the very nature of the game that saved him. Cricket has always been a non contact sport with little or no history of physical altercation on the field. It doesn't matter if Idi Amin's playing cricket, he still wouldnt have beat up opposition players. What I mean to say is, in a game like Ice Hockey, its almost acceptable practice to have a good ol' brawl on the ice. Surely there are "peaceful and tranquil" guys in hockey too but that hasn't stopped them from joining in the fun has it?

Another thing I just don’t get is this obsession with "new" India. I've almost forgotten the number of times a "new" Indian team has emerged on to the cricket field. No wait, I think I do know. First there was Ganguly's new India, then Dravid's and Guru Greg's newer India and now Mahi's newest India. I often wonder how TOI lets such appalling journalism get through its editorial scrutiny, assuming there is such a thing in the first place.