From Bidwan Baruah, India

Many say cricket needs to be played hard with the bat and ball. Only. But there is a big question here: If two teams are playing hard and trying to outplay each other, won't there be any frustrations creeping inside them which might lead to an explosion of emotions?

Imagine you are competing with your co-worker and you are failing to outclass him, somewhere down the line you will be frustrated and will pass on a comment. 9 out of 10 times he will have something to say in return. It's the same with cricket. There is no way you can curb it and if you are trying to do so, it might result in lowering the intensity of the game.

Now, the other thing people say is "A bit of chit chat is okay until the players cross the line." Where is this line drawn? Let me take the latest on-field incident in the ongoing Delhi Test. Shane Watson tried to block Gambhir's way with his hand when he was taking the single. In return, while going back for the next run, Gambhir shoved his elbow into Watson's midriff. Who crossed the line?

The ICC needs to draw this imaginary line more clearly. There is no doubt that the on-field incidents add to the excitement and spice up the newspaper headlines, but it will surely have a negative impact on the kids taking up the game. Nobody wants to see players shouting at each other, but an occasional exchange of words is very welcome.

Admittedly, it's a difficult line. But it needs to be drawn.

From S. Giridhar, India

There is something extremely seedy about the way the inexorable finish to the glittering careers of India’s finest ever quartet of middle order batsmen is being dissected with complete insensitivity. Compare this to the times when we peacefully bid adieu to the other 'Fab four' nearly 30 years ago, the incomparable and finest ever quartet of spinners.

Ah but those were different times! The mind goes back to the 60s and 70s - the era of this unmatchable spin quartet. No live TV coverage for almost the entire part of their career, those were the days when the fruity voice of Pearson Surita and the nasal drone of Ananda Rao in India, and the vivid description of John Arlott in England and Alan McGilvray in Australia brought them into our lives. Remember Arlott in the summer of 1971 describe Venkat and Chandra....”Here comes Venkat, tall, slightly flat-footed, 5 languid steps, left hand reaching for the sky…” and “Chandra, shirt tail flapping in the breeze, sleeves buttoned down, turns, begins his run, 1,2, 3….11, 12 past Umpire Eliot…”

From Antony Chettupuzha, India

Everybody knows that the Twenty20 format builds on the bias of what was already a batsman-oriented format in ODIs. Well, I'm going to make perhaps the most ludicrous proposal for what is currently a batsman's game: A bowler's power-play. Before you scorn and pepper me with rotten eggs and tomatoes, just hear me out. First all I'm asking for is four overs. Next, the bowler gets to choose the kind of ball he wishes to use in these four overs that will give him the best chances of taking a wicket. This could be a ball deliberately scuffed up to encourage swing bowling, or a new ball or even an old ball for spinners. Finally the field can be set in any possible manner ignoring traditional restrictions. Perhaps even penalize the loss of a wicket with runs (for example take away 15 runs and the wicket, so that the score changes from 100/0 to 85/1).

Now just imagine the excitement, the bowler has everything in his favour and the batting side can choose to either play out these overs safely or, as is more likely, will be forced to try overcome the odds when everything is stacked against them. And that can only make the game more exciting. It probably makes sense to put this right after the batsman's powerplay, so as to set the stage for some sort of fightback while preserving blazing starts and finishes. To me this would be more exciting than a slogfest where sides score and chase over 200 in twenty overs. If anybody has any suggestions on improving this idea of a bowler's power-play or indeed any ideas about evening the contest between bat and ball while maintaining the same level of excitement, I'd love to hear them.

From Brendan Layton, Australia

Considered by some as cricket for those with ADD (Apologies to those who do have that disorder though). Now with the advent of the IPL, ICL, Champion's League and Stanford 20/20 for 20, the newest form of cricket is beginning to dominate the game, slowly eliminating 50 over cricket from the landscape and now encroaching on the popularity of Test cricket as the number one form of the game.

To compare the two, one way to look at it is when rock music came into circulation. Test cricket can be considered the classical music where all forms of music branched off from and still to this day give inspiration. 50 over cricket is the Blues of the form. It was raw and new and exciting when it first came out, but after many years and too much exposure to pop music, R'n'B formed from what was originally a great product, something tarnished by increasing commercialisation. 20/20 is Rock'n'Roll. The new, dangerous, raucous cricket formed from Blues that becomes what the Blues used to be, raw, different and energetic. Rock became the centrepiece of music and in some ways still is. And that is the possibility that 20/20 may head towards.

Strictly in marketing terms, 20/20 is a brilliant concept. It is short, furious, and full of spectacular stroke play that spectators love to see. It is the perfect format for countries across the world to be introduced to the game, and therefore make it more international. However, this may come at the cost of Test cricket, viewed by the majority of diehard fans as the most important version of the game.

Test cricket got its name due to it being the true test of one's cricketing abilities. The truly great players of this age, the Tendulkars, Pontings, Warnes, and Laras of this world forged their names in the longest form of the game. But 20/20's popularity with the marketing gurus and media may lead to Test cricket's role being downgraded. By all that is good about cricket, I hope this doesn't happen. Long may Test cricket remain.

From Bidwan Baruah, India

The "Monkeygate" affair is back in the news again. Of course now the media has some food on their plate till the next match begins. But what is the bigger picture? Why now? I know Gilchrist had written this quite some time back and his book is yet to be released, but why has this come to the press now?

Australia 1-0 down in the series, Sachin reaching the 12000 run mark, Indians booming with confidence, how about some mind games? And that too from the player regarded as the 'most honest', Gilly 'The Walker' to the one regarded as the 'most respected'. The mind games are not working for the Aussies this time whether it be Ponting telling that Zaheer that he had a 'rare' good match or insisting their so called spinners are bowling better then the Indian counterparts only to be contradicted by their camp later on with the coach Neilsen acknowledging Zaheer's awesome mastery over reverse swing and the performance of all the Indian bowlers.

Now, the million dollar question: Will Sachin respond like he did when 'Guru Greg' questioned his integrity? If he does, the war of words will escalate. And if he doesn't, the Aussies might say Sachin is guilty and so has not responded. In either case there is just one team that gains from of all this: No, not Australia or India. It's the Media.

From Anshul, Singapore

Often the most rebellious students turn out to be discipline masters. Kevin Pietersen could be one of them. Sample this: "This game has obviously come at a very difficult time in terms of what's happening in the world and I want 100% respect for that, so there won't be any nonsense happening in and around and after the game and I will be really angry if it does happen," Pietersen said. The man has decent intentions, but whats with the chiding?

On evidence of his yet-short captaincy, KP comes across as a man who can get his pack to follow him. Against the 'Saffers' they did as he bid. But this sort of stuff - it reminds me of my 6th grade teacher (I'm sorry Mrs. Luke!) who was a regular at sending jitters down my spine.

Is KP, the unabashed rockstar, trying to doctor his team's reaction? Does he expect a Swann or a Sidebottom to play it cool when they win the only million-dollar lottery they ever had any odds at? And what if Strauss goes ballistic should Middlesex win? Will Pietersen drop him into the Bermuda triangle on the flight to India because he was really angry? I exaggerate but it helps make me my point. I hope Pietersen was doing the same.

From Brendan Layton, Australia

Australia has been blessed with plenty of determined and classy captains. From the original skipper Dave Gregory, to the classy all-rounder and now legendary commentator Richie Benaud, and on to the strong-willed and canny Ian Chappell. In arguably Australia's greatest cricketing age, there have been four that have taken on the challenge: Allan Border, Mark Taylor, Steve Waugh and Ricky Ponting. All had unique skills and abilities, and all were determine individuals.

On pure ability, Punter is miles ahead of the other three, while Tubby was the least gifted. AB and Tugga were decent all-rounders in their prime, but Punter and Tubby were highly gifted fieldsmen. Their respective terms of leadership were also highly unique and reflective of their character.

From Ashok Sridharan, India

With the second Test between India and Australia running to half empty stands, I find that the talk of loss of the primacy of Test cricket and the dominance of T20 cricket is once again all over the press. While limited overs cricket has long been a lot more popular than Test cricket in the Subcontinent, that does not mean Test cricket is losing its popularity or charm. Those who cry from the rooftops about the declining appeal of Test cricket ignore the simple fact that limited overs cricket draws in several 'casual' viewers with little knowledge or understanding of the game. Take them out and you still have millions who watch Test matches transfixed to their television screens.

As for dwindling number of spectators, let those in the media crying out loud about it experience a single day of Test cricket in an Indian ground with poor sanitary arrangements, dismal seating and lack of proper drinking water (and you're seldom allowed to take in water with you by the way). Add to that cricket being played in the smaller centres with even fewer facilities and you have the perfect recipe for keeping people away from the ground - a fact I.S. Bindra has thankfully acknowledged. Spending three hours in such dismal conditions to watch a T20 game is a lot less demanding, isn't it?

From Onkar Walavalkar, USA

I always get excited when a youngster does well. Particularly if he is some Indian youth throwing himself around on the field and pulling off a few electric saves, it's more reason for a toast. But somehow since some of the consistently breathtaking acts of Mohammed Kaif, no one seems to be in the league. And that brings me to the greatest fielder of all time: Jonty Rhodes

The special thing about Jonty was that I never remember him botching up what we can call a 'regulation act' in the field. We have seen Herschelle Gibbs drop the World Cup and Yuvraj Singh hold his knee and let go a few runs. But somehow that never happened with Jonty. Before being a spectacular fielder, he was a very, very safe fielder. He got all the basics right before going for the flamboyant. And unlike Yuvraj Singh, who at 26 is beginning to resemble a typical 30+ Indian veteran, Jonty's standards never dipped. Probably he sensed his moment and retired before the reflexes got slow. All this for a man who suffered from epilepsy and the effort becomes even more commendable.

From Soumya Kanti Bera, India

The day was supposed to be a big day for Indian cricket. The world knew that Sachin was just 15 runs away from becoming the highest run getter in Tests. And moreover, the wait seemed to be over after India had won the toss and decided to bat. In short, the script was ready for the event to unfold. But what we got to see was shocking, to say the least. The crowd for the D-day was so sparse that it was unbelievable.

The mere definition of cricket in India cannot be separated from the man we call 'Master blaster'. The man who had carried the hopes of the entire nation for the past 18 years was on the verge of the greatest milestone of his career. In return, what did he get? He certainly deserved more than an empty and echoing PCA stadium, Mohali. This humiliating act by the people of Mohali needs to be condemned. It is difficult for me to convey the emotions that I went through while watching this act unfold. It was more than an eyesore for me.

This leads us to a serious issue regarding the allotting of matches to Test venues. Having excellent infrastructure and facilities would lead to nothing if you don't have the crowd to cheer the players on. Stadium facilities should not be the sole criterion for allotting matches. The BCCI should take this matter seriously and look into its 'rotation policy'. Why should the players be forced to play in front of empty stadiums when you have other options? Clearly, venues like the Eden Gardens and Chepauk have been neglected. Series as important as the Ind-Aus needs supporting venues like these. How else would you get the essential ingredient for a good Test match: atmosphere?

Crowds are an integral part of any cricket match. In fact, they are the soul of epic battles. Imagine Ashes 2005 or Eden 2001 minus the crowd. There is a unique charm is watching matches in front of huge crowds, even when following a match on TV. The greatest cricketing battles are fought in jam-packed stadiums, not in front of bare concrete structures.

From Nicholas Angel, Australia

Ricky Ponting has said that the disappointing form of his opposing captain Anil Kumble could turn into an issue for India at the selection table. Ricky Ponting's comments may well serve to motivate the Indian skipper. Ponting only has to cast his mind back a week or two when his fallibility in India and batting average of 12.28 were the fulcrum of the pre-series coverage. He went on to post a magnificent century.

On the eve of the second Test match in Mohali, the series is still wide open yet it is Kumble who has borne the brunt of this week's coverage both in India and abroad. He has been criticised for his captaincy and for carrying an injury into the first Test. He has been criticised for being too old. But expect him to take a bagful of wickets, if not on his 38th birthday tomorrow, then at another crucial time during the Test match. The last time Kumble played a Test at this ground he was the man of the match.

It's not too often Kumble has gone wicketless in Tests and the chances of it happening twice in a row are akin to hoping the 'All Blacks' crash to consecutive losses. India have not lost to the Australia for three tests in a row now. A solid contribution from their captain will not only galvanise his team, but given the narrow margins of recent contests, just might tip the momentum India's way decisively. All of the Indian team, and the celebrated Four in particular, recognise the pressure their captain has been under this week and expect them to celebrate extra hard with his every success. It is this unification, this drive, that Ponting has unwittingly handed to the Indians on a silver platter.

Seemingly Ponting intended to add more fuel to the fire and contribute to Kumble's disrupted preparation. But saying a third seamer might be a more penetrative substitution for Kumble betrays a more likely truth: Ponting's Australians fear Kumble. He is a proven match-winner and although he is in the twilight of his career he has publicly declared that he will graciously depart the arena on his own terms. Better then to have let the sleeping giant lie.

From Mahesh, India

As Dilip Vengsarkar made way for Srikanth, there was a fair bit of appreciation from the press, and from himself too, of his tenure. But is it all true? Today Ponting made fun of the predicament India are in at Mohali where they cant play three fast bowlers on a pacer-friendly wicket because the man ideal for dropping is none other than the team's captain himself. Pity Vengsarkar didn't foresee this when he appointed as Captain a man who was in the evening of his career.

It should have been obvious to Vengsarkar that sooner or later India would want to play three fast bowlers and in such a situation was Kumble a clear first-choice spinner, given he quit one-day cricket after being dropped for Harbhajan? The problem doesn't stop here. After Kumble, Vengsarkar's panel left the current set of selectors with little choice but to appoint Dhoni as captain. (He will have the onerous responsibility of keeping wicket, batting and leading the side in all forms of the game.)

In my view many of the good decisions from the selectors were taken only when their hand were forced. For example, the Twenty20 team when the seniors withdrew by themselves. While Vengsarkar and a section of the press may well feel he deserves unstinting praise for a job well done, it's the current selection committee that is being forced to pay for some of his mistakes.

From Ashok Sridharan, India

Let me clarify at the outset that these are no more than random reflections on the ICL. I find it strange that the Indian Cricket League (ICL) is being branded everywhere as a 'rebel' league, since it was setup with the avowed intention of locating new talent for India. It was the BCCI, quaking in its boots at the very prospect of competition, that not just outlawed the ICL, but also branded it as a 'rebel' league. One wonders why the press too has zealously toed the line.

From the little I've seen of it, the quality of cricket on display at the ICL is top class - not too often does one get to see cricket of that quality at the international level. With a host of retired players, mostly stars from the late 90s, I find frequently find myself transported back in time to my teenage years. Names like Heath Streak, Cairns, Murray Goodwin, Saqlain Mushtaq, Klusener or Bevan, to name a few, may mean little (if at all) to today's generation but these were stars in the late 90s when I grew up. ICL rocks for nostalgia buffs!

From Anonymous, United States of America

Ganguly's recent comments have angered many. Clearly he has vented his frustration taking advantage of the fact that he is playing his last series. He would have told these to the world sooner or later, but announcement of his retirement has accelerated the outburst. I think nobody should deny that it is natural for him to feel the way he feels, the only question being asked is his sense of timing.

The dressing room needs to be a tightly knit unit now against the world's best side. I am actually not so sure about the hairstyle comment referring to Dhoni - he might well have been speaking of Yuvraj in context of the ODI squad. In fact that seems more natural, since most of his anger comes from his omission from the ODI squad. On top of that, add the fact that Dhoni was ICC's best ODI batsman this year - you have to be really not thinking if you say that about him. So Ganguly was engaging in measured aggression - as Yuvraj is not part of the current dressing room.

One has to also consider that he was talking to a Bengali daily in mother tongue probably - it tends to bring out more emotions. The comments might well have been more of a soliloquy uttered in trust instead of spoken for brazen publication. His measured and dignified behavior earlier at the press conference and interviews actually suggests the above. All the critics calling for his head now probably have never gone through the cycle of emotions that he did. Let us give the guy a break. He did lose himself a bit on that occasion.

Also, what qualities do you think made him the most successful captain overseas and home? What qualities do you think helped him make the fairytale comeback? Answer is aggression. Every weapon has positive and negative sides - the same aggression that catapults him to achieve the pinnacle of glory also pushes him to be edgy, snobbish looking, and rough with words. I know the answer is proper channelization - but spotting the same qualities that helped bring a new era of belief in Indian cricket messing up a personality pushed to the edge of despair - we can only quietly and maturely wait for him to regain composure.

We can feel bad, but being the media and fans, let us not start another round of mud slinging. Tombstones always bear the best words about a person. There is a reason. Let us remember Sourav Ganguly for all his good deeds, and give him the benefit of doubt on the bad ones - as long as the bad ones are not overdone. Anyone with me on that?

From Saurav Snehvrat, United States of America

ICL is in its second season! Seems like yesterday, that the unthinkable concept of a world T20 league was conceived. The next couple of years will be an acid test for both the leagues, the ICL and the IPL, in making sure that they keep collecting the golden eggs without killing the goose. A lot has been written and talked about these leagues and a lot still remains under the scanner. One thing that caught my eye was the batting order of the Hyderabad Heroes for the season opener: It went like this 'JP Maher, Abdul Razzak, AT Rayudu, JM Kemp, STR Binny, N Boje, CZ Harris, KS Sahabuddin, et al'. I can't remember the last time I saw a more ethnically diverse group playing for a common cause! In today's crazy and divided world, this comes as a breath of fresh air. The cynic might say, these are cricketing 'mercenaries' playing for money, but the dominant thought in me says this is got to be good for the people involved (at least).

Dissociate the cricketer from the person and we see a pack of completely different people gathering under a common umbrella. Hopefully, they can come together as people and not just as cricketers. No matter what the cricketing future of these leagues, I hope this experiment brings solidarity among the team members involved and an understanding of the multi variant cultures. It reminds me of the ancient Sanskrit saying: 'Vasudhaiv Kutumbakam' (The whole world is my home) and it is resonant that India is the proving grounds where this experiment is on its way.

From DravidFan, United States of America

Someone referred to the "I" in Ganguly. Well, Ganguly is not Terrell Owens or the guy from the commercial who says "well, there is no V in team either" to the someone's comment saying "there is no I in team". However, Ganguly always felt he was royalty. I bet he still does. To me, Dravid, Laxman and Tendulkar are much more reliable than Ganguly ever was, not to mention being humble.

That said, what Ganguly brought to the table was aggression, albeit the baggage. He never gave up his lunch money and assumed the fetal position to any sledging or other nonsense from anyone. That attitude has been sadly missing for ever, with the exception of Sunil Gavaskar who once famously pushed Chetan Chauhan out of the field when he was upset with Lillee.

To me, Ganguly so far has been the best Indian left hander I have seen. Gambhir has potential, but ways to go. The point of this rambling is that Sourav has lost a bit of my respect when he spewed the lava about his teammates and I assume Dhoni when he said changing hairstyles. I gotta think that Dhoni is the reason Ganguly was dropped from the ODI team.

Lastly, we all know at some point TDLK (Tendulkar, Dravid Laxman, Kumble) will all be retiring (I sure hope so) before they get unceremoniously paraded out. I seriously think Kumble is playing his last test series, given that he is giving up runs faster than the speed of ganges.

India should follow Australia's footsteps, have the juniors ready to go (will not happen without TDLK mentoring the juniors) and ease them and have TDLK exit one at a time.

From Ravi, United States of America

Ricky Ponting announced that they can take advantage of 'Old India' with their brand of 'new-age' cricket. No one denies that the Australians are athletic on the field, but that doesn't always translate into better fielding overall.

Ganguly is truly an average fielder but looking at the other three, Laxman, Dravid, and Tendulkar, we are in for a surprise. Laxman is slow but he has rarely dropped a catch in the slips (key area in Test cricket). In fact, he has caught some blinders comfortably. His close-in fielding for the Indian spinners is also exceptional. Dravid too is one of best slip fielders in the world. Together Dravid and Laxman must surely rank alongside Mark Waugh. Tendulkar is more versatile and is a good slip fielder for fast bowlers. He is also an outstanding fielder in the deep with a surprisingly good arm, considering his serious elbow injury.

We don't often come to associate the Australians with poor fielding, but looking at the awe-inspiring Michael Clarke's brief stint at slips where he regularly dropped simple catches, it shows that nobody is infallible. Admittedly the Australians have the best ground fielding and also more of the complete packages like Ponting, but that doesn't mean the Indian seniors are the root cause of India's concerns. Not everyone needs to be flying on the boundaries ropes to be good fielders - a fine catch at slip or silly point are equally important in games.

Sure India's famous seniors have sometimes been ugly on the field, but they have been pretty awesome in their preferred positions too and left us with memories to treasure just like their gifted batting.

From Suraj, United Kingdom

When Shane Warne announced his retirement, it felt like getting shot. So I worried about how it would feel like when some of the greats of my own team, India, would leave: Dravid, Kumble, and God forbid, Tendulkar. One name I didn't worry about was Ganguly, which was surprising considering he is the reason I got into cricket in the first place. But then, after hearing of his announcement, I felt like I was shot again.

I didn't follow cricket much till the late 90's, preferring the speed and brevity of football. My dealings with cricket were limited to moaning about how often it was on, and smirking smugly when the match-fixing exposes occurred. I started watching India-Pakistan ODIs, because of the political animosity caused by Kashmir. But India were losing far too often, it wasn't a happy relationship.

From Raghu, India

The curtain is ready to fall on one of the most colourful chapters in the history of Indian - nay - world cricket. Saurav Ganguly was an often mis-understood man and so it was ironically befitting that his departure from the international cricket scene was also tinged with some controversy.

Did he retire on his own terms? Was he forced by the BCCI? And disgusting as it may sound, did a threat to kidnap his daughter have anything to do with his announcement? Nobody knows... and it's possible nobody will ever know. But what we can say for sure it that Indian cricket will never quite be the same without the mysterious, aristocratic Ganguly.

Nobody, and just nobody in the history of Indian cricket has evoked the kind of bipolar emotions that he has consistently done throughout his career. For every glorious extra-cover drive he played to every short ball he awkwardly fended; for every time he danced assuredly down the track to the spinners to every time he misfielded, for every silken boundary he hit to every single or two he refused - people either loved him or loathed him. But there was something more.

From Ganguly Fan, India

And so Ganguly's era comes to an end and for some reason I am sad. I was never the greatest of admirers of Ganguly. "He is a decent test batsman but he is the weak link among the Fab Four" I would tell my friends. "His strike rate in ODI's is only in the seventies", I would smugly remind my friends when someone said he was a great one day batsman. I would argue with friends for hours that Ganguly is past it now and should be replaced for the forthcoming Test series. But still I am sad to see him go. Is it the sentimentalist in me taking over? I don't know.

But one thing I do know is that no one divides opinion like Ganguly does. If there is a reason to celebrate Ganguly's career I think it should not be because of the runs he scored or the number of Test matches in which he led India to victory. It should be because he believed in himself when others did not, right from the time he was picked as a 17 year old to tour Australia and jettisoned after a single ODI appearance.

From Vipul Gupta, India

For long I have an unabashed admirer of the 'seniors' in the team particularly Anil and Sachin. Both these gentlemen have been the pillars of Indian Cricket for the last two decades and their contribution to the game has gone a long way in ensuring that the game flourished and prospered in India and their great deeds on the cricket field have only swelled the hearts of many Indians on countless occasions. That is the reason why I was completely surprised on reading reports appearing in certain sections of the media that the BCCI very 'magnanimously' offered the seniors an opportunity to gracefully exit from the game, a game which they served with distinction, by way of a 'voluntary retirement scheme'. I am sure that the champions that they are, they take a lot of pride in their performance and it would have been absolutely galling for them to learn that people have started considering them to be a bit of a liability for their team.

Cricket nowadays has become a very serious professional sport, where a lot is at stake for everyone concerned. It has become so cut-throat that there can be no room for any sentiment or emotion. If it is considered that a particular player's best days have gone by, then he should be immediately put to pasture rather than risk any match or series. Lest I be misconstrued , I am not even for a moment suggesting that the 'Fab 4' and Kumble should retire, as I feel that all of them still have a lot to offer to the team in Tests. They had entered the team on the sheer weight of their performance and they had backed it up by performing at the highest level quite consistently. If the Board feels that by allowing a berth for these players in the team, they are only displaying the gratitude of an entire nation than they are only being grossly unfair to the players as well as the public.

The seniors do not need the Board's charity as the youngsters who are waiting in the wings to take their places have not shown the consistency that is needed to succeed at the highest level. Their time will come but it has not come now. It would be poetic justice indeed if this team does well and goes on to win the series powered by the seniors. Let the games begin.

From venkattraman04, United States

When Australia's tour game started, who had the best chance for solid match practice? Was it Ponting and Co.? No. It was S. Badrinath. He had to go in at the fall of the first wicket and face Lee, Clark, and Johnson, all of whom would be bowling in the first Test starting in a few days. How interesting would it have been if Badri had scored a few runs instead of the 2 and 14 that he made in the two innings.

Say, he had made the 90 odd, like Jaffer, that would have left Kumble in a similar situation to the one he faced in Australia. Yuvi had blasted Pakistan only in the previous Test and finally Kumble was forced to play Yuvraj. What would have happened now? Would Ganguly the man under serious pressure, as of now, be dropped for Badrinath, or would it be Dravid, or would it be someone else (including Badri himself being excluded without paying attention to his innings)?

But what did Badri do in the game? He was lbw for 2 and caught behind for 14. Badri's bad performance with the bat has made Kumble's choice of the playing XI a lot simpler. A lot of guys may not know that Badri's first class average is only next to that of Ponting and Sachin, among contemporary players. Now thats a fantastic statistic for someone who is yet to play a test.

But all that does not count now. He failed in both innings of the tour game thereby making his already minimal chance non-existent.

From Paddy Briggs, United Kingdom

One of the Australian team's sledges during England's woeful last tour of Australia was the one directed at Paul Collingwood who had been awarded the honour of becoming a Member of the 'Most Excellent Order of the British Empire' (MBE) for his innings of 7 and 10 and his 0-17 in the 2005 Oval Test match. Lovely chap Colly but, as the Aussies suggested, was this performance really worthy of a gong?

This brings me to the subject of honours and cricket and an invitation to you to join in a discussion of the most surprising omissions from the cricketing gong list.

Let's start with a trio of England captains, Wally Hammond, Ted Dexter and Tony Greig. When I was a kid Dexter was referred to as 'Lord Ted' but I was disappointed to learn that (like Geoffrey Boycott's knighthood) this was an honorary title. Boycs has an OBE but Ted remains not even a Member of the British Empire, let alone anything more distinguished. Greigy's involvement with Packer perhaps scuppered his chances and Hammond did have some dodgy business dealings but their cricketing achievements are surely not in dispute?

There are a fair number of batsmen in the gongless list who would be close to the top of a cricket fan's list of England batting greats. Herbert Sutcliffe, Frank Woolley and Ken Barrington to name but three, and Allan Lamb and Robin Smith wouldn't be far behind. Add all-rounder Wilfred Rhodes and you have the core of a pretty good side. Then the fast bowling would be lead by John Snow aided by Andy Caddick, Devon Malcolm, Graham Dilley and spinners Laker, Lock and Verity would be in the frame 'how can they all never have been honoured?'

But for me the biggest omission of all on the list of cricketers unhonoured in my lifetime is the man I regard as England's greatest ever wicket-keeper Alan Knott. Now it may be that the shy and elusive Knotty turned down an honour - but if not it's not too late is it? But what do you think, are there even more deserving cases than his?

From Daniel Cotton, Australia

The answer to Australia's spinning dilemma is a left-arm chinaman already with the squad. In the run up to the Australia A tour of India last month Simon Katich did not bowl in the nets. Instead, having been picked as captain he felt his role was to give every opportunity to Australia's new spinners. "It would be wrong as the captain to be bowling myself, he said. "We have picked so many bowlers on this tour as the selectors want to have a look at those guys."

In the wake of the retirements of Warne, Hogg and MacGill, Australia trialled three relatively inexperienced spin bowlers on the Australia A tour. The best of those three, Bryce McGain, is now injured and will be flying home. Additionally, the selectors saw fit not to pick Beau Casson, the West Indies debutant, in the senior squad. Again he has been overlooked; it has just been announced that Cameron White, an 'all-rounder' who on average has bowled two overs in each of his 21 ODIs to date, is to join the Squad as McGain's replacement.

From Barath, USA

I can never understand why people (particularly the selectors) take the stand with Ganguly they do. It is quite frustrating to see him go from savior (post match fixing scandals) to scapegoat (for a team whenever it's batting collectively collapses).

One comment that does the rounds is: 'We are looking to the future'. Well, why not drop Laxman, then? "What?", you yell, "The man's a mighty force against Australia". Hearing all the talk, you would think his average against Australia is in the 60's. A simple Cricinfo search tells you it is only 50.6, lower than Sachin's or Ponting's career averages! Alright, I give in. Fame counts for something. "How about Dravid?", I meekly suggest. "He's The Wall", you say. Well, he is in a rut of late. If anyone should go, it really should be Dravid, shouldn't it?

How about Tendulkar? Wait, no. Oh, don't. That hurts. Don't call me that. I promise not to suggest that again. Ever. Peace. And now you come up with "He's not a good fielder". "Ha", you say, obviously thinking you have scored a point. But it is rather foolish, you see. The man's never been a good fielder. Has fielding gained more importance now than it had 5 years ago? It's the same game, after all. "He's not fit". Err, how? Oh, those injuries that he had. Well, he is a professional sportsman, after all. And he looks more fit than, say, Viru. Who looks to be on a diet that has strictly fat and nothing else.

Well, some facts, now. Sourav has averaged 45 in the last 12 months. Not stellar, certainly not. But Dravid has averaged 34. Tendulkar 45. Oh, wait! I was not supposed to say that. Forget it. Oh, well! I guess the national selectors must know things ordinary folk don't. That or they are just looking for for an excuse to cover up their selection follies. Your guess is as good as mine.