Rather an apology than nothing, but it seems to me that the apology is irrelevant. The damage could have been severe. A batsman is conditioned to look for the ball on a downward trajectory out of the bowler's hand, and therefore will not necessarily pick it up. (The only other time I've seen one bowled in a Test match, by Glenn McGrath, it stuck straight in Mark Ramprakash's grille without the batsman flinching).

Moreover, an apology doesn't necessarily mean it is sincere. With match referees on the prowl, any bowler with an ounce of survival instinct is bound to apologise, deliberately bowled or not. And the batsman/batting side has no option but to accept it, for if it is not accepted then the moral high ground shifts in favour of the bowler, whose integrity is suddenly in question.

Only Sreesanth knows his own mind, but there was a glaring absence of extenuating circumstances: the ball wasn't new and the lacquer had worn off, making it less likely to slip out of his hand; it wasn't wet; he had directional problems but hardly of the 'yips' variety. We do know that, since the ball landed at the wicket-keeper's feet, he missed his length by a good 30 yards, an extraordinary failing for an international bowler. If it did slip, it slipped with remarkable accuracy, honing in on Pietersen's skull. Shortly afterwards he overstepped the front mark by two feet to bowl a rapid bouncer at Collingwood. Sreesanth was hardly in control of his emotions during that particular spell.

If bowled deliberately there cannot be a more cowardly action on a cricket field; if bowled accidentally it is still potentially lethal. Either way it should incur an immediate one-match ban.

And this is what Atherton had to say about Brett Lee and beamers in the Sunday Telegraph just over two years ago (July 9, 2005) when the Australians were touring England.

Controversy, though, has always followed the world's quickest bowlers and Lee is no exception.

Five years ago, Indian umpire Venkat submitted a report which tabled doubts about the legitimacy of Lee's action. Although he was subsequently cleared by the International Cricket Council's expert panel, the suspicions of a kink in Lee's action, especially when he bowls the bouncer, have always remained.

It is precisely the kind of case that forced the ICC to amend their laws on throwing, so allowing bowlers a greater degree of flexion when releasing the ball. Clearly, Lee and others like him are assets to the game even though, occasionally, their actions might break the purest interpretation of the law. The new 15 degree allowance should allow Lee the freedom to bowl at his fastest safe in the knowledge that no umpire will take offence.

The furore that has followed his rather too frequent use of the beamer is easier to justify. The beamer is the hardest ball for a batsman to pick up precisely because it pitches (or doesn't pitch) so far from where the batsman expects. If it is bowled on target, as Lee's invariably is, then it can be lethal. Lee was visibly sheepish after his latest beamer at Marcus Trescothick during the NatWest Series final. After taking Andrew Strauss's wicket shortly afterwards he remained head bowed rather than celebrating in his usual fist-pumping fashion.

His visible embarrassment and immediate fulsome apology convinces me that Lee's beamers are unintentional, although other international bowlers doubt that such a quality performer can be so far out of kilter. The other reason for giving Lee the benefit of the doubt is that he is such a demonstrably decent fellow. His popularity among team-mates, current and former, is legend. Michael Slater, one of the few Australian pundits prepared to speak frankly about former team-mates, says "he's just a champion".

I know exactly what Atherton’s trying to say. He likes the way Lee says sorry. Lee’s faster than Sreesanth, he bowls more beamers than Sreesanth and he says sorry better, more feelingly, than Sreesanth does. There's no inconsistency in Atherton (now) trying to get Sreesanth banned for a match for bowling a beamer and Atherton (then) trying to persuade Australia's selectors to play Lee so he could frighten England in the Ashes series. Once the Indian tour management gets Sreesanth a coach who can teach him to do ‘visibly sheepish’ as well as Lee does, Atherton, being a consistent and principled man, will be content.

Cheap Sarcasm dude! Very Cheap. How can you even try to compare Lee's and Sreesanth's characters. Its obvious to any bloke that Sreesanth is immature. His acknowledgement of his embarrasment after that test match proved it.
Lee on the other hand has more control over his character. I agree with Atherton, because needless to say, a person who can't control his character is dangerous on the cricket field.
So its just a matter of maturity.

What's new? We face it all the time. Non verbal communication is culture specific. It can be difficult to read body language from other cultures.

Well done, Mukul. One of your best posts yet. Kudos to you for framing the argument in the most succinct and yet most complete terms. Shows that you actually have been reading the comments on your blog.

Great stuff, Mukul. I like your research and the way you present your point. Keep it up!

Does Atherton read cricinfo? If yes, Atherton, will you please respond?

Atherton is absolutely right. what's the matter with you? Did Lee bowl a two feet no-ball? Has Lee ever shoulder barged? Sreesanth needs to be more mature. See what Dhoni has to say about this.

What's new? We face it all the time. Non verbal communication is culture specific. It can be difficult to read body language from other cultures.

Yeah, I agree with Suj, very poor one-eyed lazy tabloid journalism. No mention of the deliberate over-stepping, shoulder-barging or constant hostility Sreesanth was indulging in, which led one to believe his beamer was intentional.

Maaaaaan that was good comparison!!! I am totally against Artherton's logic n am with u Mr. Author, dunno what Mr. Suj the guy whos written comment was thinking when he wrote abt cheap sarcasm n stuff like that. Bowling beamer was not intentional n he did apologise, do u expect Sreesaanth to fall to Peitersen's legs just to prove that he is innocent!!! c'mon his aggression on field is different than his behavious of the field, he is very quiet off the field n with family n friends, did Artherton take the pains to go through Sree's background like he did for Lee? Nope I dun think so!!! :) Sree maybe immature n yes any bowler who did not bowl a beamer on purpose would be embarassed, which was the case with Sree.
Mr.Suj, what would u call for Flintoff's antics on field in Mumbai when he took off his shirt n did a dance on the field was it pretty for u to watch!!! :D hahaha
u get ur act right first dude!!! :) tata

Yet more pompous rubbish from you Mukul?

You like to portray yourself as being above all and sundry so one would like to think that you are able to spot the difference between the on field demeanour of Brett Lee and Sreesanth; Lee, as a general rule, comes across as a decent human being enjoying his sport, the other repeatedly acts like a spoilt brat, hence it is far more believable that a beamer from the former is accidental. I don't recall Lee ever running 2 yards through the crease to bounce a batsman either.

So congratulations to you Mr Kesavan, after a rather witty and insightful (albeit totally out of character for you) piece following India's win at Trent Bridge you have reverted to type with the usual lame "poor old subcontinent sides, everyone is against us" tripe.

Well spotted! an interesting observation. though you might argue he proposes latterly of a ban whether intentionally done or not, presumablby because it is something the bowler will always deny was intentional and it is nigh impossible to prove one way or the other. I guess Atherton is expressing in both cases his gut feeling as to whether it was intentional or not, and to do that you have to look at other aspects of the players character and behaviour off and especially on the pitch. Consequently looking at other incidents by Sreesanth in the recent game people will inevitably question the intention behind the beamer.

Spot on Mukul,
Amazing piece of "detective" work there!!
The moment i read Atherton's piece i was amused.
Intentionally or otherwise the beamer has been bowled in international cricket time and again.Shoaib Akhtar and Brett Lee and even Kumble(!!!) come to mind in more recent years.
Now the only thing seperating Sreesanth is his break dancing. Surely you don't stop a man playing cricket for that!

And Suj: Lee has more control over his character?? I dont think anyone can control his character for that matter.Actions surely, but character??

Oh yes, and Michael Vaughun's reaction at the non-striker's end was very controlled. "Oh for f***s sake!" Let's not forget how he shouted at all of the fielders. Pietersen, who had to actually avoid the beamer, wasn't angry; why was Vaughun? Pietersen, who had to actually avoid the beamer, accepted the apology; why couldn't Atherton?

What does Atherton have to say about the beamer Shoaib Akhtar bowled to MS Dhoni on India's last tour? Shoaib did not even apogologize for that not did the umpire say anything to him.

not surprising..mukul. when was this not seen?dual standards,partiality of views,selective amnesia ,and verbal diarrohea and occasioanl cliches to substatntiate the views so that one is glorified and the other villanised for the same crime(ah!only one is crime the other is either sign of agression or "shock and awe" or accident..yes but never acrime and unsporty....

Atherton is such a hypocrite! Although I don't disagree with the basic premise that beamers should be punished.

Suj,
"His acknowledgement of his embarrasment after that test match proved it."
Then how about Lee's reaction on a slipped beamer? Is it not an acknowledgement enough?
Ravindra

white man does it, it sure is an accident..Brown man does it he deserves time in guatanamo

Point well made, Mukul - such double standards do exist in media and general public. Inconsistent press treatment of such events is not difficult to find, even among respected ex-cricketers turned commentators. But by highlighting specific reports filed by Atherton on the same subject you have brought out the discrepancy in sharp focus.

Suj - It is not simply a question of maturity. A batsman faced with the prospect of being hit by a beamer will only be worried about his safety, not the bowler's maturity. A beamer is a beamer and its punishment or condemnation must be consistent. The advise given to batsmen - 'Play the ball, not the bolwer' - is equally applicable to the press and fans.

All fast bowlers are to an extent hot-headed, the umpires/referees just have to ensure that the behaviour does not cross from being aggressively competetive to maliciously dangerous.

Good one mukul, Atherton tried to play the whole puritan game, he failed miserably again and kudios for finding the article on brett lee's beamer.

Good point Mukul !! If such an experienced bowler like Lee can be excused for bowling beamers ,why not our inexperienced Sree. Atherton needs to stop making a fool of himself & think before he makes such comments.

On the issue of whether beamers are deliberate, a parallel has been drawn to a professional darts player missing the board entirely. But a professional dart player is not trying to hurl the dart as fast as possible. A better analogy is a professional soccer player missing a PK by 10 feet, which does happen quite frequently.

I do enjoy your posts Mukul but you seem to get carried away at times. Taken in the context of Sreesanth's overall behaviour during the Test, Athers was quite right in his claims. Apart from that beamer, Sreesanth also bowled a two foot no-ball.

Instead of dredging up long-forgotten articles to prove a non-existent point, why dont you write something original?

Hey Mukul for once I agree with you. Arthurton needs to get his head examined. Phew! His piece on the Telegraph was exasperating to say the least.

Mukul,
Atherton's views between Lee and Sreesanth is intriguing with the exception that Sreesanth is immauture and looks smug. So he is hardly endearing to the general fan. He should look up to Zaheer as a role model. Atherton though is controversial and maybe the damning views should have come from a respected pundit instead of Atherton. I still remember Atherton's comments on Jayasuriya after England was trounced in the World Cup in 1996.

I don't know about a sheepish face, but Atherton seems to have boyish face despite his age. Maybe when he finally 'grows up' he will have a proper face for his age!

Beside, in the recent Ashes, Warne threw a ball at KP's face while supposedly aiming for the stumps - that should've easily been near 90mph. Neither KP nor Athers seemed to mind though.

What Sree santh did was BAD. No doubts. Indian team management should take care of it.

Now to Mr. Atherton

Mike Atherton always looked liked an 'apology' to bowlers from Australia. I guess this has something to do with the way he was 'dominated' by aussy team through out his career. It is said that some people become submissive to the abuse after getting used to it and some people even start liking it. He liking Lee's 'sorry' is clear example of such afinity. It is advisable for such people to see a shrink regularly to get out of that 'spell'.

For a batsman, no BEAMER is good, 'proper' apology or no apology.
And I still like Lee and Sree Santh!

Nicely said towards the end, Mr Keshavan. Time for certain sections / members of the media to move on. Enough of whining. We've had Jelly Beans thrown on the wicket which is equally dangerous even if done by accident. Let's ban the player who did that and then we can talk about banning Sreesanth.

I was waiting for somebody to comment on that... its just sad that none of the cricketing people in India reacted to Atherton comments..... I believe for a bowler a Beamer is the hardest ball to bowl..... and please Mike Atherton is just scared that Sree can come up with a better bowling figure on next test and he's playing the Psych game here nothing else and following the cheap Australian path I guess. Aain we miss somebody like "Sree" here.... anyways hope India will win next test.....

Well spotted Mukul. If being sheepish is the purest form of showing repentance, many a crime on and off the cricket field would go unpunished. The Indian captain has said that Sreesanth would be spoken to and that should be good enough for Mr.Atherton.

Good work Mukul...It seems Mr Atherton (Mind reader: read Sree's mind that he didn't mean the apology) got all the publicity he wanted.
And Suz dude...what can I say about you. Here is a joke for you....One mature Aussie fast bowler bowling a beamer..You can laugh now.

While I think the oxbridge educated Atherton is as phony as they come, I think a man is allowed to change his opinion.

Atherton's view that Sreesanth should be banned for the alleged intentional beamer is ridiculous for a variety of reasons.
When an batsman obviously edges a ball and dosent walk off ,Atherton sings the "umpire-is-on-the-field-let-him-do-his-job" tune.
And now he tells us that although Sree might not have been penalized by the umpires/refree Rahul Dravid should make him sit out!!

And Atherton goes on to claim that a beamer is the most cowardly act on the cricket field. More cowardly that Ashley Giles bowling round the wicket outside legstump perhaps?? More cowardly than Pietersen not walking off twice in this series already??

I cannot believe the audacity of Atherton to call for Dravid to drop Sree "even if he doesnt want to". What absolute nonesense!!! And i can think of many actions on a cricket field that are more cowardily, cheating being one!

Michael Atherton might well find himself kicking himself if Sreesanth produces one of those outstanding spells he bowls from time to time . What will Atherton say then ?

I am not contesting that Sree is not inconsistent. Immature ? Maybe even that . But he is hardly in the category of ppl to be banned . Maybe Atherton hates to see the guts of this chap standing upto any batsman unlike Mr Atherton who has more than happy to meekly take in all the verbal abuse he was barraged with during his career ...

haa. suddenly mukul kesavan has turned all patriotic. 60th anniversary of independence i guess. there is no point trying to point bring out a post about Lee when talking about the immature, playing-to-the gallery guy that is sreesanth. mukul, pls go back to teaching history.

Mukul, there are more interesting and more important current issues that you can discuss on this blog, instead you are stuck with this whining, winging, brooding, lamenting and sulking about the past. The more you write on this issue the more people would think and even say that you guys are bad whiners or should I say great whiners? Better than Aussies. ;-)

In my first post, I mentioned that people are going to talk about that Beamer and, if you try to cover up the dirt by shoving it under the carpet its not gonna work, 'coz people will still talk about it. Let them talk, let them dig it out from under the carpet because you have buried the ugly beamer there, which you shouldn't have. And now if you go about rummaging for more dirt in Atherton's pocket its not gonna be the same. Why don't you write something more positive like, celebrating the victory and focusing on the next game and in sealing the series with 2-0. Let them brood, let them sulk, and let them whine. Or you may create more ripples on the issue of captaincy that Dhoni has been blessed with for whatever reasons best known to the BCCI. And, for "Piet's" sake stop this whining biz.

Good point! , I would like to add that Atherton didnt comment anything when Simon Jones bowled a beamer to Mathew Hayden during the Ashes series which ENG won in ENG. I didnt see any comments from him then why does he needs to comment on this one. I agree with one of the comments if KP accepted the apology then who is Atherton to suggest a ban. As commented by few english players few things are best left on the field for the players to sort out.

Well....I guess most of what can be said has been said by all you nice folks but you know as much as anyone else we are all biased one way or the other...

And our biases change as we grow older...just remember Zaheer was once the same bowler as shreesant today and the way he behaved in front of the world in the first over in the 2003 finals...man was that embarassing!

Be aggressive but let the ball do the talking...Zaheer showed it and shreesant should have learned it from that...rest as shreesant proved is just buffoonery...

Finally what if he had thrown that ball intentionally? and what if he had really hurt Pieterson to the point of ending his career?

Its Sports let it not become a war...Beat every team worth beating like Australia and that should be an answer no one will forget anytime soon from us...14 victories while chasing...start something new...

Gavaskar and Atherton have taken it upon themselves to clean cricket of the great evil sledging. I am quite concerned by this. At the outset I wonder if they are the right persons. Does playing a certain amount of international cricket alone make you the sole authority on the moral aspects of the game, maybe it does. However for some of us whose exploits have been limited to the village green or maidan the spirit of the game is no less. You walk when you think you have nicked the ball.

I believe that we plebeians could give these patricians a run for their money. While I was in school we used to play cricket regularly. The matches were very competitive and the results where known in the whole community. Standing ovations and cyclostat (a forerunner of the Photostat) copies of scorecard where plastered in the classroom for all the girls to see. For us at that time it was as big as it got.

On occasions when we did not have the required 11 each like instanes when one person was grounded for not doing his homework or was late we had a fielding position called as CF or common fielder. This means that you fielded for both sides. I cannot recall a single instant when a CF dropped a catch or returned the throw in slowly. This was partly because you never knew when the shoe would be on the other foot and partly because ewe believed that it was just not cricket to do so.

So it begs to question what is cricket? Maybe in that sense sledging is not cricket but then contrary to what Sunil Gavaskar and the likes are trying to tell us sledging is not a modern thing it has been there for ages…Well in fact I believe even the cave man might have indulged in a bit of chest thumping and finger wagging and as long as it is all in the spirit of competitiveness I guess it is all right. Even if it is not cricket I think it is human like the extra salt you add to a perfectly cooked meal. Not really necessary but essential if you want to add that hint of spice and so let us accept that it is a necessary evil and move on.

I guess and I am guessing big time when I say Sunny was probably never articulate at times of stress though the man could bat coolly enough at times of stress. Being a great batsman is one thing being a moralist is an entirely different ball game. Even if Sunny has forgotten viewers remember when he tried to walk out along with his batting partner when given out LBW to Dennis Lillie. Whatever happened to spirit of cricket then? Was it not against the spirit of the game to show dissent against an umpire’s decision. In the current age he would have automatically be given a match ban for something like that.

A couple of bible lessons will not be amiss for M Atherton as well. Here is one man who had was it dirt or something else when he was the England captain…. shame…. and did he fall on the sword and take a match ban I do not think so. He who has not sinned let him cast the first stone is the lesson that Atherton should be made to learn or rather get Dolores Umbridge to make him write it hundred times.

Now I agree that it is wrong to say that you should be forever be stopped from saying your mind because of your past behaviour but then you should at least express a sense of contriteness when you argue for the guillotine after supping with Marie Antoinette. Something which I feel that Atherton has not done in his recent article.

Donot get me wrong I do not condone or offer no apology for the beamer bowled by Sreesanth for I believe in the old adage, innocent until proven guilty and the same goes for the jelly beans I agree that no one single English player should be singled out as guilty for the same. However as the bean had no rhyme or reason to be on length Vaughan’s apology was apt just like Sreesanth’s was. Let us leave it at that and just remember a few things.

The English lost a home test because of poor first innings batting on a seaming pitch.

They were lucky that they did not lose by an innings because of a couple of decisions that went their way.

Grace is not just a past English cricketer it is a characteristic. It is, to borrow the words of Kiplingsomething which makes you a Man. Sadly the English press should learn not to complain about beamers and jelly beans being the cause of the English defeat as firstly it is just not cricket and secondly is a disaster for English cricket.

People that talk about how Atherton looked at the others aspects of Sreesanth's behaviour in making his assessment should consider the following things:

1. Atherton did not spell it out as such - your observations are only conjecture then,
2. Even if Atherton did, how come he did not consider the fact that Sreeasanth had trouble all match with his run-up,
3. Lee has bowled beamers to lot more batsmen and apologized again and again
4. Atherton has taken into consideration the fact that Lee is a very good bloke off the field while never considered the fact that so is Sreesanth.

I mean you could go on and on about this. The fact of the matter is that Atherton has passed his opinion which seems diametrically opposite to his pronouncements from 2 years back and has not given us a reason why...

But then Atherton, Lee, McGrath et al, are virtuos kindly intelligent occidentals with truly honorable intentions and Sreesanth is merely a treacherous perfidious oriental. 'White men' dont chuck, and yeah send the miscreant Sreesanth who obviously knows nothing about the true spirit of cricket, a la Grace (who invented not walking by the way), to Guantanamo.

Atherton's unexamined piffle reeks of an almost automatic reactive hostility

excellent article.

Anyone playing Cricket (or tennis, for that matter), at the international level, should not only be a sportsman, but appear to be so? Does Sreesant pass this simple test?

A great article indeed. One suggestion to the author - please send this to the hypocrite that Atherton is! Yes, the same guy who set an example of sportsmanship by roughening the ball with stuff in his pockets.

Oh no, not more ‘brown versus white’ drivel by numerous commenters. Let’s not go out of our way to use race as a divisive tool.

Atherton’s comments do seem odd, though it’s hardly outlandish to suggest someone should be asked to skip a match after a shoulder barge, probable deliberate no-ball bouncer (I didn’t see it), and a suspicious beamer (which I did see).

Personally, I think any fast-bowled beamer should be enough to remove that bowler for that innings (accidental or not, since at the very least their control is questionable), that the England team should have been (internally) punished for Jelly-gate (say, half of player fees), and that Pietersen’s inability to differentiate between sledging and outright abuse should have been heavily penalized. But hey, white-man Atherton said something silly so let’s just bring race into the mix to make ourselves feel better…

It seems to me that while Atherton has given Lee the "benefit of the doubt" based on his character and popularity, from his article on Sreesanth he MUST now agree that even if Lee bowls the beamer unintentionally, he should also be subject to a one match ban. Atherton's logic is simple at best and should be dismissed with a royal wave, for it really is only a whining former cricketer trying to address a problem from a batsman's perspective. I'm pretty certain that if Nel bowled a beamer, Atherton might have written exactly the same article about him as he did for Sreesanth, don't think this is really about race, so lets not make try and imply that it is.

Atherton's reasoning for banning something, whether or not it is deliberate, because it is potentially lethal is ludicrous. A batsman can smash a ball hard at any fielder and potentially kill him, and it will be hard for anyone to question whether the act was deliberate. Does this mean the batsman should be banned for a match later?

Isn't there already a law about a bowler not being able to bowl for the rest of a match if he bowls two beamers? Why would you want to extend that law, unless you're saying that it allows the bowler one legal beamer in the match?

Atherton caught with dirt in his pocket.Once again!

Hey Mukul,
Just wanted to add this: while the Indian team management is getting a coach for Sreesanth to say sorry better, how about asking the same coach to work on Rahul Dravid to get him to wave batsmen back in when there's a controversial decision in a way that does not appear like dissent?
As regards to the Brett Lee apologists here: the same "erudite" commentators and columnists who have trashed Sreesanth's beamer as intentional have also said this : "How is it that an international bowler lose his grip so badly that the beamer is not only accurately directed but also 30 feet over the mark?" If this is what the "pundits" have to say about a "one off" beamer then the several beamers of Brett Lee are what? All "unintentional and accidental" especially the one that hit a West Indian batsman squarely on the grille?
The fact is, if you've played even school cricket and have tried to slip in a "quick" yorker, you will see how easy it is to end up bowling a full toss, not unlike Mike Hendriks to Viv Richards in the 1979 world cup final or Chetan Sharma in the 1986 Australasia cup final. And, if your release point is higher, then that same full toss can become a vicious beamer. As regards the beamer being "accurate", here's how it works: a yorker is generally directed at a batsman's toes, if you err on length but did okay on line, where do you think your "yorker" is going to go? Yes, the batsman's head. Nothing "intentional" about it. And given how few bowlers have actually been an exponent at bowling yorkers consistently over the last couple of decades and how few Indians since Kapil Dev have actually attempted to bowl one on a regualr basis would tell you that it is far more exhausting and difficult to bowl yorkers than bouncers. And a misdirected yorker as Sreesanth claimed, can, very easily turn into a well directed beamer.

Undiluted gibberish.

Atherton's point is three-fold.

1) Brett Lee does not make a habit of shoulder-charging opposition players, making it more difficult to credit that his overall on-field demeanour is malicious.

2) Lee does not deliberately overstep by a yard to deliver bouncers, again making it seem less likely that he deliberately trying to harm the batsman.

3) His beamers come with the new ball, in one day games where he is trying to bowl full and where dew may be a factor. Further, his action is among the quickest in the world and minor errors are therefore magnified.

Atherton might have given Sreesanth the same benefit of the doubt had he not been obviously trying to physically intimidate and unsettle the batsman in other ways. Or to put it another way, if Lee had been behaving as thuggishly as Sreesanth Atherton would have condemned him as roundly.

Brilliant!! Absoluteley brilliant! Ian Chappell was of the opinion that he was OK with the Sreesanth beamer as he apologised immediately, and Pieterson accepted it, but was very critical of his other antics. He also felt that the jelly-bean incident should be made more of and the ICC should actually take it very seriously, as it might have "accidently" got onto the pitch and even affected the ball when it lands, and the "inane chatter" by Matt Prior is not sportive at all, and should be banned for interfernce to the batsmens' concentration whilst taking strike. I entirely agree. Athers is totally biased and lopsided in his logic as shown clearly by you. He seems in awe of anything Australian, probably after year of hammering by them!

Considering good traits being an inherent part of being English, you are right Mukul, Artherton is indeed an honorable man. I wonder how he may have reacted to Glenn McGrath's beamer that 'stuck straight in Mark Ramprakash's grille without the batsman flinching'. Despite using all my memory resources, I do not recall any call to ban Glenn by this honorable pair of eyes, which are gifted with the rare quality of adjudging genuineness in apologies. I am more than sure, Glenn's apology (and he must have provided one to Mark) must have been genuine and from the heart. Therefore that event must have passed the scanning eyes of Mr. Artherton without being glorified. Can you respond, dear Mr. Artherton?

Great - I was reminded about Lee's beamers after reading Atherton;s article and had actually been wondering what the "venerable gentleman" might have said on that ocasion. Brilliant post - blows him to bits now (athers that is).

Itsnot about Sree's character - its about making a noise about beamers - looks like color matters heh?

Yeew..too many issues to discuss on this blog..Chucking issues, biased umpiring, what not..

first of all, i think Atherton's call to ban Sreesanth was way overboard. True, Sreesanth displayed immense lack of control for a Test match fast bowler. But there have been worst beamers bowled (Lee for an instance with his still questionable action).

my guess is Atherton has vented his frustrations out seeing England lose in an uncharacteristic manner. It remains to be seen whether Sreesanth is picked for Oval just to prove a point.

There are blatant double standards when it comes to match refereeing,umpiring,sledging, racism what not. Pietersen's recall after a bad decision has given rise to murmurs as to why Sachin and Sourav weren't recalled etc.

On top of all, England has always been a sissy team citing out of the world excuses when they lose and grumble to no end when they are on tour. It is nothing new. They tried to emulate Australia but ended up being sheepish and sorry just like Atherton would have liked it!

Atherton is taking a leaf out of Australian media where they target visiting teams in the press and try to rattle them. They see Sreesanth as a weak link in the Indian attack and are trying to take advantage of it by making him insecure ahead of the third test which they have to win. Did anyone say Mental Disintegration? Granted Sreesanth was boorish in his behavior, but he is not alone among fast bowlers nor would he have been an exception among the previous generations of fast bowlers. Dennis Lilee and Larwood were lionized by their ability to physically threaten and in some cases hurt batsmen. Beamers have been used by Shoaib Akhtar, Brett Lee and McGrath in the recent past when the opposing batsman has been well settled and things haven't been going too well for their own teams. Beamers are wrong, but they cannot be selectively wrong.

Atherton is a good commentator who understands the subtleties of the game and I enjoy his commentary over other nimcompoops like Arun Lal. Maybe Atherton doesn't realize his inconsistency when judging Brett Lee and Sreesanth like so many of us who do it unknowingly. It probably stems from the fact that Indian bowlers were invariably meek and goody two shoes who wanted to be liked by everyone. But the sight of a young fast bowler, snarling and giving as good as he got must be very hard to digest for Atherton and others of his ilk like Botham who was itching to ruin him in Sky's commentary box. The only person who has come out of this with his impartial reputation intact is David Gower who was very careful not to raise suspicions about the bowler like an impartial commentator should. The evidence is there for everyone to see. People should be allowed to form their own opinions. But commentators like to mould public opinion based on their prejudices.

Apart from individual behavior, I am a little confused about this fuss over the beamer as being dreadfully dangerous. Why can't it be played as a full toss ? If Brett Lee or Shoaib Akhtar bowl it, I can see why playing it as a full toss would be tough and the batsman ought to be scared. But Sreesanth's not nearly as fast as either of those two, is he ? And Pietersen has a very quick eye - I recall him smacking VRV Singh by coming half way down the pitch for 25 runs in one over.

I don't recall the beamer being such an issue back in the seventies or the eighties when it would have surely been far more dangerous. Batsman did not wear helmets then. Also, they had to face bowlers like Thomson, Lillee, Holding and, later on, Marshall.

Topaz, (Suj and Mr C also),
Wake up and smell the roses guys, the people from
the subcontinent no longer think "poor old subcontinent sides" anymore. We now have a heck of a lot of self-confidence now and will throw the same agrression in your face that the pompous colonists and self righteous guys throw at us. We will point out the duplicity in the attitude of people that come with a holier than though attitude. Deal with it !!!
You talk about Sreensanth being a brat and Lee being a thorough gentleman as if you are pals with both and as if you've shared many a drink with each. How do you know that? I do not profess to know either of them, or attempt to judge either of them as individuals based on incidents in ONE session of play. Moreover, how MANY times has Lee bowled potentially lethal beemers? Sreesanth has only done it once. Going by Artherto's logic, there is more reason to ban Lee. If all his beemers are intentional, he is a monster (and you would have him charged criminally for attempted man slaughter if he was from the sub continent). If his beemers were all unintentional, he is dangerous because he obviously has NO control over his bowling. If the actions of Flintoff, Hayden, Ponting, Lee, Pollock and Ntini can be brushed off with a "biys will be boys" attitude, so can the antics of Sreesanth, Zaheer, Shoaib and others. Or maybe you want to have Flintoff et all grow up and start acting like men first...

Oh dear! It's an odd sort of mind that thinks an Englishman would excuse an Australian for bowling a beamer, but not an Indian. Please understand that the rivalry between Australia and England is deeply felt.

Poor Atherton was commenting that Lee's generally sunny on-pitch personality made him think the Aussie had not intended to bowl a potentially lethal ball. On the other hand, Sreesanth was almost hysterical during his beamer spell, and Atherton thought he might have let the dislikeable Pietersen have a potential hospital injury. That was his judgement and had nothing to do with race.

I'm English, but happy to have been born and brought up in India. if they are not playing England, I support India, and there are many like me: we love that long line of famous batsmen who have been known to stick it to the Aussies.

The spite shown by some Indian bloggers does them no credit.

I think the point is clear. When Brett Lee bowled a beamer bowled a beamer to Marcus Trescothick there was no talk of banning Brett Lee even though he apologized. But when Sreesanth bowled a beamer there is all of sudden talk about banning him for a test as a punishment. After all a beamer is a beamer. Irrespective of how convincing the apology is; it is just as dangerous if Lee bowls it or Sreesanth.

And lets not forget - Lee bowled more than one beamers - and he was in his 8th or 9th season. Now tell me which bowler is more apt to lose control - a seasoned operator or a novice. I reckon Athers should shutup.

It would have been nice if Atherton demands all english cricketers to wear half pants and play the third test as they degraded cricket by throwing jelly beans on the cricket field...

Awesome... not at all cheap as the previous comments suggest, but rather bringing out the hypocrisy in Atherton's comments. Atherton is arrogant to suggest that the Sreesanth beamer is unforgivable, whereas the childish jelly bean incident can be comfortably ignored... moreover, Sreesanth apart from apologizing on the pitch, was sufficiently apologetic off the field as well, whereas all Collingwood had to say was: "I think he preferred the Blue ones"!!!!!

Good point, Mukul. And I think Brett Lee's beamers would be way more dangerous than Sreesanth's beamers, intentional or not. In any case, I have great respect for Atherton as a commentator and I don't think he's biased or anything. Maybe he just needs a drink, does Athers.

Guys,

Stop wasting time on Artherton's article. He has put ICC's entire attitude in black & white -
Take the money that Indians are giving us like fools & re-distribute to non-Indian cricketers.
Brand Indian / Pakistani cricketers as unsportsmanly on the smallest technical excuse.
Ignore major violations from cricketers originating from England / Australia / SA / WI.
The whole problem is our BCCI's correct full form should be Beggars Cheating Cricket-lovers in India.
If BCCI stood up to ICC's blatant racial discrimination the way the Sri Lankans stood up to Darrel Hair misusing his authority against Murali, the Indian Cricket team would also find the guts & will to beat Australian bullies on the field of play, without the unfair & unethical advantage of Graphite bats / squash balls / "human errors" from allegedly neutral umpires.

I think this kind of comparison is an attempt to gloss over the rubbish the Sreesanth dished out. I dont care what Atherton said; the fact is that Sreesanth deserves a severe reprimand. And
we need to get over this mentality that every unfairness, percieved or real, has a racist bend to it. And dont tell me Mukul you didnt say that. Its pretty clear.

Great comments Mukul. I think you have nailed it write on the head. Artherton clealry shows double standards in his approach to the beamer issue. I think part of the reason why he wanted to ban sreesanth and make a big deal out of the beamer was to take focus away from the childish acts of jelly beans and inane chatting by the english players. Note how he writes "Forget the jellybeans and inane chatter"....Why forget it Mr. Artherton, just because it was done by English players???

... How can he conclude that Lee is such a great guy and not Sreesanth - ... Maybe Lee is just a better actor, you never know.

I think a mandatory one match ban is a good idea for all beamers, intentional or otherwise.

Nice wry observation Sir, I still feel that sree got carried away and lee is a nice guy - but surely that is missing the point. The English veneer of fair play is an illusion that they cling to. Atherton won't be the first whose hypocrisy is exposed. In fact nothing thrills an englishman more than exposing hypocrisy in one of his own. He can then feel well superior.

"Only Sreesanth knows his own mind." Period. Atherton has no right to ask for a ban. That's the umpire's and match referee's job.
"If bowled deliberately there cannot be a more cowardly action on a cricket field; if bowled accidentally it is still potentially lethal. Either way it should incur an immediate one-match ban." Let us ban Lee first - one match for each beamer he has bowled until now. He has probably bowled the maximum number of beamers deliberately and is hence a detestable coward!
"Once the Indian tour management gets Sreesanth a coach who can teach him to do ‘visibly sheepish’ as well as Lee does" yeah I recommend an 'acting' coach!;)

Well spotted, Mukul.

And for those of you who are trying to compare Lee's character with Sreesanth's, look at what Atherton says in the first article:

"If bowled deliberately there cannot be a more cowardly action on a cricket field; if bowled accidentally it is still potentially lethal. Either way it should incur an immediate one-match ban.”

So if Atherton is genuine, he needs to call for a ban on Lee for his beamers - accidental or not, good character or not.

Sreesanth is an embarrassment to Indian cricket.

Taken in context of the match and his behaviour it seems doubtful that the beamer was an accident or the apology was genuine. Sadly the writer of the article seems to be infering something else in Atherton's comments yet lacks the courage to say oitright what he hints at in his text.

"I agree with Atherton, because needless to say, a person who can't control his character is dangerous on the cricket field.
So its just a matter of maturity."

Unfortunately for Atherton, a "journalist" who can't control his character in his columns is also a danger to the public. And did Atherton lose control of his character when he admitted (under pressure) that he had dirt in his pocket?

As for those who point to Sreesanth's shoulder push and no-ball as proof that the beamer was intentional, that wouldn't stand up as evidence. It's just as likely a person could be all smiles and bowl a pre-meditated beamer. NZ claims Lee, a very experienced bowler, more experienced than Sreesanth, bowled not one, not two, not three, but four beamers against them in one season. Kind of high for such a talented bowler don't you think?

Wonderful stuff, Mukul. It was pretty obvious that Atherton was starting to lose the plot, but I'm impressed that you tracked down the relevant quotes. I'd blogged on the forensic nature of Atherton's piece and on how intense a spotlight can be generated on a particular incident (in contrast to others) here: http://eye-on-cricket.blogspot.com/2007/08/off-with-his-head.html

Let us not resort to the "us-poor-Indians-getting-the-short-end-of-the-shrift-again" wishwash.
Sreesanth does come across as someone who better get his act together fast or he will continue to face situations where he is disciplined. Is it only me or does he seem to have an in your face jingoistic streak? Can we get on with the cricket, please? It also seems to me that Mr.Kesavan certainly doesn't attempt to stop pandering to the bellicose Indian 'fans'. How many (including those that comment here) of these people truly appreciate the nuances of the game itself is a moot question.

Mukul,
I would love to congratulate you on a well-written article.....except the majority of it is a reproduction of Athertons article/s. But certainly no better way to illustrate the point u were trying to make....Also, You can count on the other teams having taken note of "Srees" form of inflicting mental disintegration, just in case........!!

Sreesanth needs to grow up. To some extent, his slide can be attributed to once again Indian media and public's tendency to make overnight heros and villains. His break dance fiasco at the Wanderers got more publicity than it deserved. Sreesanth needs to know that if he is not in control of his own emotions, he cannot influence the batsman's emotions at all. If he is emotionally weak, he should be the last person trying all these stunts. Not every one can be a steve waugh or a viv richards to get under the skin of the opponent. Waugh was called the ice man and we all know what richards is capable of doing with his willow!

Atherton must feel very embarrased now. There are different shades of prejudices and biases. I don't think Atherton is conscious of his biases but he was surely stripped naked by Mukul!

Excellent post, Mukul!
I was in agreement with Atherton that Sreesanth should be banned from the Oval Test for his beamer. This was before I read this article and was able to see how blatantly hypocritical he is for berating Sreesanth and supporting Lee for his multiple 'unintentional' beamers!
And then he goes on to say what a thoroughly 'great chap' Lee is off the field. The reason for this mentality is obvious: while Lee is 'one of the lads' with whom Atherton wouldn't mind having a drink with, Sreesanth is not. May be Atherton could try having a curry with loony teetotaller Sree and discover what a nice guy he actually is!
I hope Sreesanth plays tomorrow and routs the English. I also hope that he conducts himself as an absolute gentleman on the field while taking all those wickets. And Atherton could then share some of his humble pie with Sreesanth!

I wouldn't listed to what Atherton, who:

1.Put dirt in his pocket to scuff the ball when he ws captain.
2. Refused to walk when he was clearly out.

has to say about Sreesanth because he has no moral authority to do so. Aterton is forcing his own Western-centric views on how people should express contrition on everyone else. If Sreesanth raising his hand wasn't enough apology in Atherton's view, how about what Sreesanth said in the days after the match? Wasn't that contrite enough? And yes, he is being held accountable, as the numerous comments made by the team management and Dravid, and his being left out of the World Cup 20/20 side, show. Methinks Mr. Atheron doth protest too much.

Important point is when Arthurton said, "accident or intentioanl a one match ban should be immediate" and it seems it applies only to Sree. Great catch man, this is what we call, eating your own .... words

Sumit Sahai - "It is not simply a question of maturity. A batsman faced with the prospect of being hit by a beamer will only be worried about his safety, not the bowler's maturity."

Sorry mate, having been hit (and narrowly missed) by a couple of beamers I respectfully disagree with you. Accidents happen and when you see genuine apology you're much more inclined to forgive and get on with it.

But, when you're clattered by a cheapshot from an unhinged, undisciplined kid being ruled by his emotions, your first reaction is to wonder...

The beamer on its own would've been open to interpretation. A beamer, a deliberate no-ball to better his chances of surprising and hurting an opponent and a petulant shoulder barge in the same spell would make any rational person wonder about his character.

As Vaughan put it so succinctly at the time: "for f@*!s sake!"

Good reference!!! Dear Suj the point is that character doesn't even come into picture, because according to holier than thou Mr. Atherton anyone who intentionally/unintentionally bowls beamer should be banned for one match. Anyone means anyone, no matter Lee or Sree.
Atherton definitely have problem of selective amnesia because he focuses on "particular" instance only, like he remembers that Sachin played "frightened" but never realized that he scored such a brave 90.

A point well made. There are many people here who are pointing to the difference in Lee's and Sreesanth's character and consistency, to say Lee is ok.

I say, it is that very difference that says Lee is guilty while Sreesanth is NOT! Sreesanth is a volatile bowler, who sometimes bowls a stunner in the middle of five bad balls. He is erratic and so if he has accidentally bowled a beamer, it is believable. For such an aggressive person on field , saying sorry on the field will also not be natural. The very fact that he apologized immediately shows that his beamer was a genuine accident.

Lee on the other hand is someone with a lot more control over his bowling. And when someone like that bowls a beamer, it is very suspicious. When he does it multiple times, it smacks of absolute disregard! And please give me a break about the profuseness of his apology!

Regarding atherton, he's an englishman, how can a brown-skinned fellow be considered honest??!!

Atherton is absolutely right.shreeshanth repeatedly acts like a spoilt brat .Did Lee bowl a two feet no-ball? Has Lee ever shoulder barged? Sreesanth needs to learn how to behave on the feild. ICC should slap a ban of some soRt on him, SO HE SHOULD STOP EMBARESSING INDIA AND ASIA ON THE CRICKET FEILD.

Don't be an ass Mukul. Sreesanth is an immature tantrum throwing wannabee. If he had not barged Vaughan and not bowled the no-ball from 2 feet out, I would have given him the benefit and believed that he had erred with the beamer. But now I don't know and a lot of people including some of his teammates aren't sure: Dhoni, Dravid for example. The boy will simply throw away his chances and his career if he continues in the way he does.

This is not about what others did rather about what sree did in the test.After seeing all his antics its difficult to beleive he did it unintentionally.
And Manish:
Peitersen was too shocked to be angry.He said that he eas so afraid on the feild for the first time in his life

Brett Lee's Link -which is considered by many as amazing research work - i suppose is picked up from many of the readers comment posted in Telegraph to Atherton's article(They made better sense than this drivel).Hey Mukul is it enough for you if our bowling coach satifies Michael Atherton or does he have to satisfy other consistent and principled men such as Boycott ,Nicholas,Willis,....... Please don't try to be sarcastic hereafter because you are very poor at it.

Yes, Atherton has some explaining to do there; but at the end of the day, if Sreesanth had been a model citizen on the field, no one would've even questioned whether the beamer was accidental or not. His nutty behavior before and after doesn't give him much credibility in claiming it was an accident, I'm afraid.

Look who's talking! Atherton, who was caught red-handed with saw dust in his pocket and rubbing it nicely on the seam, asking Sreesanth to be banned. There seem to be different standards for Asian and non-Asian players. Yeah, English have to be nice to Lee and his friends, otherwise their collective balls will be stringed together in the next Ashes. Good try Aths.

Double Standards and Mind games are not new!!I hope the Indian players and the team do not read all these nonsense(about their condemnation of the Beamer and Support towards the on field misbehaviour by England players) by English Supporters
What they do is always right..What the oppenents do is always wrong(especially if they are beaten by the oppenents)
I would not support Beamer.Let that be banned first. Take action on the players who bowl beamers after the banning is imposed.

tht it comes from a dude who rubbed a what in the cricket ball .i say Guffaw Guffaw...

What does the law state? Can he or can't he be banned? If so, under what circumstances? Shouldn't it be a question of whether this type of behaviour occurs over the course of several matches before there is the consideration of a ban? Clearly the young man tries really hard and gets upset when he doesn't get the results...he will learn from the experience. I only regret that we didn't get to see him here in Trinidad during the World Cup, except to carry drinks on the boundary.

Good one Mukul. Does Mr.Atherton read Cricinfo? If yes please respond and clarify yourself.

This is an excellent article on how the same incident can be viewed from completely different lights. As a case in point, I remember how Marquesse in his book "Anyone but England" pointed out that when English/SA players (think the example was Robin Jackman)vocieferously appealed, it was all a part of the game, and being passionate and combative. When the Indians/ Pakistanis did the same, it was a case of being bad sports. Interesting to see reactions calling the author "pompous", "cheap" et al, specially when Lee "comes across as a decent human being" - something which is completely subjective. Re: "poor subcontinent side" and other such tripe, frankly, we should accept such visible double standards as given - why waste time on pointing out the obvious ?

The irony of Atherton questioning Sree's integrity! This after all is the dirt-in-pocket-and-dusting-the-red-cherry by accident Atherton, isn't it?

its total immaturity on arthertons part to call for ban on sreesanth for bowling a beamer.its like a child crying ohh he bowled a ball which could have hurt me badly.mr artherton have u not seen a beamer being bowled before in international cricket and do u want to ban everyone of them.where was ur judgement when lee and other were spraying them all over.who gives u the authority to judge whether the apology by sreesanth was genuine or not....

athertons credibility is shot. he always seems to have a bone to pick with indians. I think this is another lame silly attempt to act like aussies, their media is notorious for sledging touring teams. also, there are people who like suj and prashant who are missing the point. this is not about sreesanths behaviour but about athertons double standards. brett lee has bowled i think about six beamers some of them at tailend batsmen, however since he knows how to play the cameras atherton has no problem with him!! regards, sreesanths behaviour too much is being made out of it. the shoulder "charge" was the daintiest i have ever seen compare it to with what john snow did to SMG. in same over as he bowled the two foot no ball he had bowled one ball from two feet behind the stumps, his run up and rhythm were completely shot for that over. the team management should spend more time trying to get his line right and not trying to "tame" him, that would playing right into people like athertons hands!!
wonder if no bowler ever bowled a beamer under atherton. dhonis comments on sreesanth are also pretty airheaded, just shows that he is not much of a team man or captaincy material if he cannot understand the big picture, zaks made a much better statement about all this

Ummm.... sree bowls a beamer at Pietersen and he should be banned! Pakistanis question the umpires and they should all be banned! Whilst the Aussies swear, push and intimidate umpires, opposition and anyone else that gets in their way and its unintentional. Typical colonial baggage! India humiliated the English in their back yard and considering what happened at Lords I am sure the poor English are hurting. So the wimpering little Atherton cries about Sree! Booo HOOO ..MAybe Sree should have picked up little ol Kevin and rocked him back to South Africa! What a joke! Asian Sides need to come hard against any side they play. If an occassional beamer slips out than..oopss there it is!!!!!!!!!

It would be easy to use Mukul's excellent research and conclude that Atherton's janus-faced comments are the yet another manifestation of good old English racism. Or is Mukul's reaction more of the Lagaan syndrome?

Probably neither.

Going in either direction would be to ignore the changing face of global cricket over the last few decades. Behind Atherton's disgust of Sreesanth's beamer lies that very emotion which makes the founding fathers hate the successful immigrants, which makes people expect the new king to keep very high standards,and which forces tourists to obey every obscure law in the country's rule book. Untill....the old world gets used to India winning and its style of winning, its actions will get micronanalyed and its successes will be gauged not only for their effect but also for things like grace, manner and historical backdrop.

Well said, Sir!!!!!
Kudos

Who is Michael Atherton to claim a high moral ground? A captain who was caught with dirt in his pockets tampering the ball. Imagine the furore if an Asian captain had been caught in the act like Atherton. All hell would have broken loose.

As he himself has admitted, most of the commentators(including Sunny and Boycott) except him and that Mike Selvey have reason to believe that Sree's beamer was unitentional.

One needs to look no further than the 2 overs Sree bowled at the end of Day 3 to understand that he had lost his rhthym and was all over the place.

Bravo! That was amazing. Could you please do me a small favor. If you know Atherton personally, and I am sure you do, could you please send the link to him. Puhleeeze, pretty please.

What ana amazing piece of work.
Well done. Good one indeed.

Agression doesnt suit everybody even though they try to give that impression, and in Sreesanth's case he just looks stupid. And Cricket is not BOLLYWOOD. He(Sreesanth) is a clown for God's sake he is just looking for trouble and he will get it soon in the final test. THERE IS NO ESCAPE.

Ok... what catches me completely off-balance is how sheepish Indian media has been about the jelly bean incident. Atherton is making a fuss out of a fairly common incident in test cricket while Indian media has completely missed the point with jelly beans. It's not just playful fun, it's a deliberate attempt to alter playing conditions! That's why a batsmen wants the jelly beans removed from the playing area because if a ball lands on one, its behavior can be altered drastically. Deliberate tempering of playing conditions is the biggest sin in cricket and the entire english team should be punished for doing that but nobody's bringing that up. Why not? Racism in cricket management and media is an ugly and undeniable reality, but some of the burden for the discrimination falls flatly on the stupidity and general mediocrity of asian journalists and managers of the game. They completely missed the point with the jelly beans incident.

Bravo Mukul!!!

Atherton probably didn't realise it himself, but now he knows what he is.

Mukul, I'm sure you searched Telegraph's archives for the words Atherton and beamer. Good one. Exposes the sorry... hypocrite. By the way, who better than Mike dirt-in-the-pocket Atherton to speak about intentions on the cricket field?

Suj and Mister C,
Why is this lazy journalism? Atherton clearly has double standards about who can bowl a beamer? Suj - to rephrase your comments, the more experienced, faster and accurate bowler (Lee) is allowed to bowl more beamers because he is more mature? What kind of idiocy is that? A beamer is a beamer, regardless of who bowls it. It is meant to intimidate. Either you forgive a beamer / shortpitched stuff once an over when bowled to specialist batsmen, or not at all - which approximates the rules in place. An umpire has the power to take action - why the heck should the authorities step in further?

If the authorities should step in, let them completely ban cheats from the game. Anyone caught cheating (e.g., ball-tampering) should have all their records expunged, retroactively if necessary, and it should not matter if you were an English captain who just "had a bit of dirt in [his] pocket" and lied about it. Moreover, anyone with a racist streak (mocking subcontinental accents as buffoons) should forever be banned from all co-related activities - be it commentary or opinion columns written from press boxes in cricket stadiums. Hey Suj, where was the maturity back then? Let's face it folks, the reality is that there is bias. Scratch any surface, black brown or white and you are sure to find some bigotry underneath - the extent varies with the particular individual. It seems that Mike Atherton is prone to more of this than average.

This was fun! Good sleuthing Mukul.

And look who is preaching about bringing the game to disrepute. A man worth the dirt he was carrying in his pocket.

Hilarious stuff atherton! Keep it up.

Mukul, you have to remember that in the 2005 series, Australia did quite pathetically in the one dayers and this carried on to the test series. So the English media did not have to resort to their usual whinging. But didn't you see this coming? They've lost a test match, and they've only complained about Sreesanth, losing the toss, the pitch, the weather, the absence of their key quartet, Trescothick's 'illness',... That's not half as much as the usually whinge about, so don't you think they're doing well? I think Murali put it quite succintly when he complained about Hussain's sledging and England called him a sissy. He said,"Usually they're the once who whinge, no?"

Right said Mukul. But what about Harmison s beamer ?Selective bias ?

Jesus Mukul...what exactly you or your supporters here want to prove? None of Lee's beamer are aimed at batsman with whom his team has a quarrel the day before. Lee never shoulder barged anybody. Lee is far better sportsman too. Remember Ashes 2005....and finally please stop finding racism in everything.

As has been pointed out before, the inconsistency of Artherton has already been pointed out in the comments section of his column in the telegraph, and in several other forums. Be a little original man.
Also, please spare us all from thinly veiled accusations of racism every time somebody white has something harsh to say on one of our players. Why do you forget that there have been other English commentators and Pieterson himself who have accepted Sreeshant's apology and believe the beamer to be unintentional.
Having said that Artherton's hypocricy is comical, he of all people should be aware of his earlier comments on Lee. I personally like both Sreeshant and Lee, and I don't believe either of them bowls beamers intentionally.

Lee has bowled more beamers at NZ's McCullum.Two times. Or was it three? But ofcourse all those three cases are unintentional because he was embarassed and sheepish.
Sreesanth raised his left hand to apologise,which is definitely not how a sheepish would behave.

ALL THOSE GUYS IN THIS BLOG>>>GO SEE UR BUSINESS FIRST RATHER THAN WASTING TIME TALKING ABOUT A WASTE FELLOW

Nothing has changed after all these years. Atherton belongs to the creed of stiff upper lipped English Sahib's , who are patronising when the Aussies show them cheek; but cringe with horror when an Indian plays with passion.

There is nothing wrong with Sreesanth, I don't think you need to control your emotions so much that you resemble a Zombie. Cricket is a game played by men with Flesh and Blood and not by robotic caricatures. If Sreesanth had overstepped the line why was Michael Vaughan pretending to be furious. All this is an act , Michael Vaughan looked cartoonish trying to exude fake menance whereas Sreesanth got all the brickbats due to his act sounding and looking genuine.Yes! Sreesanth too is a lovely fellow of the field , better to talk to and gregarious. It is only on the field that he puts his acting skills on display and that is all there is to this beamer controversy. I am Appalled and people like Michael Atherton who accept plum commentating assignments in India and then make backstabbing statements that they were asked not to make any controversial statements. This man, whose own integrity is suspect should refrain from creating controversy himself.

I have a great amount of respect for Michael Atherton. I think he is a very good commentor and a very good writer.

However this is a brilliant piece by Mukul and shows how fickle mined some ex players can be. Lee is much quicker than Sreesanth, Lee bowled far more beamers than Sreesanth. Yet Atherton is convinced that Lee's beamers were unintentional and Sreesanth's were intentional.

This is the same Atherton who called India ' the Giant Beast of World Cricket' a year ago. Also this is the same Atherton who never played a test match in India and who had the cheek to call a Pakistani journalist 'a bufoon'.

I think it is clear that Atherton does not have much fondness for the subcontinent and has never cared to understand its cultures. The English scribes anyways do not have much fondness for Indians. Malcom Speed is a great administrator, Jaggu Dalmiya is not, Waugh is a great captain, Ganguly is a wasted brat, etc etc.

I think we should ignore comments from them.

Having said this , i would like to give Atherton the benefit of doubt. As mentioned earlier he is one of the more reasonable commentators around.

I frankly missed the point of this article. Is it to justify Sreesanth's behaviour or just try to attack Atherton for his inconsistent views?

I think it is the latter which in my view misses the basic issue of Sreeshanth's terrible behaviour. A beamer is against the spirit of the game and should be punished in some way. The way you react after bowling a beamer goes a long way in demonstrating whether it was intentional though it may not be conclusive. Sreeshanth's apology was far from convincing. The 2 feet no ball is something I have never seen outside local gully cricket in Mumbai and I will never get convinced that it was not intentional. It can only happen if someting goes horribly wrong in the bowler's run up but all international bowlers will know it when they start running up to the crease and often they pull up short.

I also believe that Sreeshath should be dropped as a deisciplinary measure and I had not read Atherton's article earlier. To me it is still a gentlemen's game and should be played like that. Giving examples of Lee and Shoaib getting away with beamers is irreleveant. Two or three wrongs don't make one right.

Nice views : esp the way both the scenarios are highlighted - just because Lee can speak English the way Artherton wants, Sreesanth has to bear the consequences? Funny isnt it? Every player has his or her own + and -'s.. and just because Artherton has been on the field for more number of years (wat was his contribution by the way) - he cannot judge what Sree's intention was.. and as far as banning him from a game goes, the match referee has already punished him appropriately.. so keep talking dear Mike - after all, thats what you expert commentators are paid for, but for God's or the games' sake, please leave the players alone - to do what they can do the best.

one time sreenaths ball hit pontings helmet. he goes to aplogise to ponting and is told to go and... the ball. I guess sreesanth would have thought of that and decided just waving the hand is enough. better safe than sorry :)

I totally agree with Mukul on the double standards of Atherton and his ilk.....

Why is it that the Asian (and sometimes Caribbean ) cricketers get the rough end of the stick in decisions/observations regarding 'fair play' and the 'spirit of the game'?

When our players supposedly 'go over the top' , the critics react in unseemly haste. Whereas the habitual offenders get away scot free.

And before I am accused of being xenophobic, touchy, defensive, over-sensitive....
please reserve judgment till you :

Face these facts !

When the Umpires, Match Referees and Critics - turn a blind eye:-

* A Ricky Ponting can glower and shake his head and fists, and mouth profanities at the umpire all the way back to the pavilion.
That's called "letting off frustration" - not "letting the side down".....

* The same "Punter" can launch a frontal attack on the umpire - questioning the decisions...arguing and gesticulating wildly –
That's called "leading from the front".....

* A Flintoff can swirl his shirt around -
That's called "all-round" ability....

* A McGrath can hurl both abuse and the ball at the batsmen -
That's called being an aggressive fast bowler.

* An Andre Nel can sledge all too well - but that's just seen as a good opening spell !!

* A Gibbs can 'send off' the 'Prince of Kolkata' - but it is a Sreesanth who gets noticed.

* A Chris Gayle gets more than a 'talking to' for 'chatting' with the opponent, while the McGraths, Allan Donalds, and the Andre Nels of the world have a licence to be as 'verbal' as they like....

* When the Pakistanis are accused of 'swinging' things, while for the English it's the 'art of reverse swing'....

* An Adam Gilchrist can show considerable dissent, going 'over the edge' - but he is not caught behind.....

* Again - a Marvan Attapattu takes the Umpire's
decision with grace (Umpire Peter Emanuel recalled Andrew Symonds).
But a Ricky Ponting, in a similar situation (Sachin Tendulkar recalled ), storms up to the umpire calling the decision - "a disgrace".
That's called 'asserting your rights'......

* A Shaun Pollock or a Shane Warne get away with a prolonged screaming appeal -
That's called appealing with nip and bounce.....

To sum up :
Notwithstanding any Laws of Cricket in force, or any other Code of Behaviour… the bad boys of cricket have a right to offensive behaviour; and the Umpires and the Match Referees shall take no notice of such flouting of the laws.

I rest my case !

PS: I am a long-time cricket follower, a final year law student, a seventeen-year
old’s ‘cricketing mum’, and a staunch supporter of the Indian Cricket Team – specially of the ‘Seniors’ !

... If he has any sense of what he is saying,a beamer is a beamer is a beamer. No matter whose hand it slips out of, or whose mind it is thought of. How can Lee be pardoned and a ban be asked for Sreesanth, when both of them have bowled the same ball. The beamer. And what sense does a former cricketer like Artherton make, when he pardons Lee just because of the way he apologised? If Lee's beamer hurt someone, will his being "visibly sheepish" remove the hurt?...

This article has re-affirmed my theory that Mukul Kesavan suffers from an inferiority complex. This is evident in the way he gets so childishly defensive when any white journalist (in this case Michael Atherton) rightly attacks Indian cricket.

Another instance where his insecurities were clearly on display was when Andrew Miller wrote a very balanced (and in no way condescending) article on the influence the BCCI has on world cricket. Kesavan's knee-jerk reaction was to take an absurd offence to the article and rally to the support of Indian Cricket by writing a scathing piece which implied that the white cricketing community was predominantly racist. He embarrassed himself even further by making justifications for the BCCI's tyrannical-influence on world cricket.

And now, he's humiliated himself by alleging that Michael Atherton is also racist because he feels that Lee's beamers are unintentional while Sreesanth's are! Mukul, word of advice, Lee is a much more respectful bowler than Sreesanth could ever be.

To prove my point you can look at the his Adelaide test against India where he got flayed for 200-odd runs with 1 wicket. If he wanted, he could've bowled a beamer at Rahul Dravid to unsettle his rhythm but he did no such thing. Sreesanth, on the other hand, bowled a beamer (intentional or unintentional) at KP which DID unsettle him. He followed this up by a ridiculous no-ball at Paul Collingwood.

Mukul, you need to become aware of the fact that India is independent and the West isn't that big-bad-conspiring-against-the-3rd-world monster you believe it to be….

Mukul, well done you seem to have missed the point further than I thought anyone could. Ive seen several of Lee's beamers and I'm still not sure whether they are intential or not - in the case of the one you have quoted it was fairly clear it was an accident given it was an almost brand new slippery ball. In any case, Sreesanth didn't need to appear "visibly sheepish", but you would think bowling a very deliberate no ball bouncer afterwards would probably be an indication that he wasnt trying to be.

Come on, this is an absolute joke of an article. Any one who has the slightest understanding of cricket knows that there is a difference between Sreesanth's and Brett Lee's beamers. Brett Lee is a fast bowler whereas Sreesanth is a fast-medium bowler.

Lee relies on speed and is therefore more likely to sacrifice control- his beamer was at 91 mph and he followed it with a wide delivery in the low 80's. Sreesanth bowled his "beamer" at a controlled 79 mph and followed up with an 87 mph delivery which was right on target. Now who seemed more shaken up, Lee or Sreesanth?

Atherton also brings up a solid point about the state of the ball, an old ball is less likely to slip than a new one, Lee had a 2 over old ball, Sreesanth had a 50+ over old ball.

The point being made here is that out of the two scenarios for a beamer to occur, Lee's seems more realistic. I'm not trying to say it was okay for him to bowl it, but given the situation and the pace at which he bowls, there is a greater chance. Sreesanth's story just doesnt seem to fit together given his transgressions throughout the match, his bowling style, and the state of the ball.

He was also right to point out that Sreesanth's attitude was the worst of what occurred in this test match.

I don't believe a bowler should be banned for a beamer but the two cases are drastically different. Its apparent that Sreesanth's amateur behavior has cost him the benefit of the doubt and Lee has earned the benefit of the doubt due to his sporting behavior. I do however feel that Sreesanth should have been banned for his collective problems in the match.

I also do agree that this was extremely lazy journalism, you wrote a one paragraph "analysis" to two seperate articles. You failed to detail the situations in which each of the articles were written and thus presented a skewed view of what Atherton was really trying to say.

Also, to all those who comment please understand that Atherton's playing career has nothing to do with his journalistic one, and by doing so you are making an irresponsible comparison. People do stupid things but to drag it on for the rest of their lives is absolutely ridiculous. And even if you were to make that comparison, Atherton's antics did not present a physical danger to the opposing players.

It's great, just wonderful, being an Australian and knowing our cricket team is by far the World's best!! Many of your bloggers seethe with envy and can only resort to racist name calling and drivel about "but an Australian did ........" So far on this blog Ponting's a cheat, Lee's a cheat, Lillee,Thompson,Warne, McGrath are all white colonist cheats! Even Adam Gilchrist's a cheat, and this is the man who famously GAVE HIMSELF OUT in a World Cup Semi-Final!!!
If the only defence you have for YOUR feelings of inadequacy is name calling and racist garbage, then that says far more about you than it does about us! Hair, another Australian cheat, was the first umpire to question Murali's action, not because he's "brown" but because he believed he was a chucker. It's his duty or would you want umpires not to do their duty because of colour??
We notoriously had to accept farcical sub continental umpiring decisions for decades, and remember that's what led to neutral umpires but we never beliebved it was to do with colour, just nationalism and fear! Some of your blogger's ignorance about Australia, who we are and what we stand for, what cultures we have embraced here and live in peace with is amazing. Yes we play it hard, but the thought that we have "cheated" our way to the top and stayed there is childish and ignorant and I'm damn sure your Indian Test cricketers would be embarrassed by such comments!! I love everyone to beat the English so well done India, after all we love beating them more than you can imagine, but you don't have a monopoly on self righteousness and if one of your players does the wrong thing, acknowledge it, and don't resort to childish counter claims as children do!

C'mon all those folks who say this is a gentleman's game. What or who is a gentleman after all? Do you know of the people who coined this word?

Guys.. is there any way to let this post be shown to Atherton.. can soemone do this..?
Would be great fun..

Seriously Mukul, you come across as a 12 year old kid and you're probably the worst journalist I've ever had the misfortune to read. I wonder what you had to do to get a blog on cricinfo.

I'm an Asian and I'm sad to see some of my fellow Asians are still carrying a chip on their shoulders. Not too many seems to be able to argue a case against Atherton without bringing out the racism card.

Why do people react this way to what Micheal Atherton has said. Atherton has no right to talk about fair play. He is the one who had dirt in his pocket. He is the one who should have been banned from cricket.

Atherton is an attention seeking columnist.

He says things in his columns to grab attention on a Sunday.

This would be good if he was insightful but I read his articles exactly for the headline value but am often left to conclude he is very well spoken but not one of the better analysts of the game. His captaincy compared to Hussain and Vaughan bears this out.

If some one has made this point before, apologies.

Despite Lee bowling beamers at
a) Trescothick
b) McCullum
c) a 11 year old kid at a sponsors event
and any more that he will do in the future..all are to be condoned just because Slats thinks he is a champion and Athers thinks he is a genuine nice guy reminds me of Tim Webster on channel 10 who said that Aussie swim star Sam Riley (if memory serves) could never have taken perf enhancing drugs because he had met her and she was a nice kid!

Tim Webster was laughed at and thoroughly lost his cred after that.

What does Sree have to do to show remorse? Clasp his hands on bent knees and say 'eNde Bhagavathi! KshamikkaNum Saare!'(Malayalam for those not in the know)

Grow up mukul. That is just plain cheap and about as low as you can go.

Atherton just can't drop this, can he? Does he think by repeating enough times people will actual start listening to his boring commentary? Bring back Sidhu, I say.

Atherton just can't drop this, can he? Does he think by repeating enough times people will actual start listening to his boring commentary? Bring back Sidhu, I say.

All said and done what Sreeshant did was irresponsible and he deserves some kick in the ass for sure for his own benefit. Also please stop playing the racist card.

Mukul, first of all, congrats on this excellent article. What this describes is Atherton's sorry analysis of right and wrong. Clearly he feels Brett Lee is entitled to bowl a beamer just because he aplogizes well (might not be a sincere apology, but maybe he is an excellent actor). Now all Sreesanth needs to do is work on his acting skills, and he will be entitled to bowl a beamer at batsmen just as much as Atherton believes Bertt Lee is.

I am also curious as to why Atherton is taking Lee's side here. Being an Englishman, I would have thought Ashes rivalry might prompt Atherton to really crucify Lee. Well, so much for Ashes rivalry.

I also wonder if Atherton would have been as mangnanimous if Brett Lee (any bowler for that matter) had bowled him a beamer and apologized sweetly!

Mukul, I only hope this article somehow comes to the notice of Atherton.

To the poster known as REXT,

REXT, you might be the best team in the whole world, but that does not take away the fact that your team is as nasty as they come. Ugly Aussies was the name that was coined during the Packer era, and it was coined for good reason as well.

This piece written by Mukul is not even hinting at racism, yet you assume that we are all trying to defend Sree's beamer behind the facade of racism.

Racism has no place in sport, and maybe you should remember that next time before you allegedly point a finger at someone.

REXT, before you comment or suggest anything as stupid as this, be sure to do your homework. Do me a favour and find out how many beamers Brett Lee has bowled since his debut and compare that to the number of beamers bowled by any non Aussie since the time Lee made his debut.

Sreesanth bowled a beamer, he apologized and Pieterson accepted.....The End.

Paranoia is rife amongst many Asian bloggers.

When Darren Gough's beamer hit Curtly Ambrose's hand (yes, hit Ambrose) in June 2001, Atherton was there on field. Later, when Caddick bowled a beamer to Youhana in an England-Pakistan ODI, Atherton was there on field. Strange that he didnt feel like calling for bans on these bowlers, especially Gough, since he hit Ambrose. And hell of yeah, Atherton is supposed to be a consistent, principled bloke eh?

Athertons exact comments about Lee "The furore that has followed his (Lee’s) rather too frequent use of the beamer is easier to justify. The beamer is the hardest ball for a batsman to pick up precisely because it pitches (or doesn't pitch) so far from where the batsman expects. If it is bowled on target, as Lee's invariably is, then it can be lethal".

They are both fast bowlers one may be slightly faster than the other but the above explanation of Mr. dirt about the lethality of this type of ball pretty much renders it at par for both the bowler. Yet, Mr. Lee is regarded in such a warm, chummy and our boy kind of way and Mr Sreesanth is on the receiving end of this scathing criticism? What has Mr. Sreesanth done to ruffle the feathers of Mr. dirt or his team? Give them a taste of their own medicine! OK! No wonder Mr. dirt is so tasty. And he has every right to be, don’t you people know who he is. How dare this boy did what he did. Let's rake him on the coals.

That's all there is to it. Folks!

Just saw Khartik's dismissal and it is quite obvious now that England have been catching up with Australia. I mentioned going for the appeal together in the last thread and here we go. Asians need to get good at the art to neutralize the disadvantage. It will take quite a bit of practice.
It is not a small thing, I have seen the Australians getting 2,3 wickets in a single innings against Pakistan by going together. The impact is very significant.

To Omar Masood
Omar, You clearly miss the point of what Mukul has written. By quoting one situation where lee didnt bowl a beamer , you are trying to cover the many occasions where he bowled them.
Now the question of intention is purely subjective and can be argued endlessly with one group saying it was unintentional and the other saying it wasnt.

Same with the jelly bean incident.

But it is a clear case of contradicting opinions that mukul has quoted which shows athertons bias.

how would you feel being on the russian side and supporting ivan drago against rocky, on slytherin's side supporting malfoy against potter. Or realistically, on aamir sohail's side when he leered at prasad and later made a bufoon of himself. It sucks to support the bad guy right. Well, i felt the same way when sreesanth bowled that ugly beamer. Inconsistency is a trait of mukul's essays, not atherton's comments. C'mon comparing brett lee with sree santh is like comparing Tom cruise with a Brazilian street performer!

Ab mein aap ka manoranjan ke liye aur ek quatrain pesh karoonga:

Some men of sinew try to bounce and swing
While others less mighty make spin their thing
Some snarl and sledge, and some jellybeans fling
But when the fray is done, Zaheer's the king!

I totally agree with kingpele. I am an asian too, and a big fan of Indian cricket. However, there is no point arguing with most of these people as their minds are more focused on racism. People should not be attacking Atherton's reputation, instead they should focus on his arguement. Atherton believes that a fast bowler who cannot control his actions (not limited to his bowling action), is dangerous in the cricket field. And if you look at Sreesanth's behavior in the last test match and in previous test matches you could see why Atherton makes such a claim. On the other hand , Atherton claims that Lee's actions onfield give him the benefit of the doubt when he bowls beamers.
Also, I dont like how the photo of Atherton is titled " Atherton "likes the way Lee says sorry". Somehow I feel that is a misinterpretation of Athertons argument because it focuses on just one sentence and not the back up arguments before and afterwards.

Atherton went a little overboard in asking a ban..
However I think this article is a pointlessly lengthy one with no head and tail.
I think mukesh needs some training in creative writing .. get urself a coach bro

Well pointed out Mukul. This is a known discrimination in cricket against the South Asian teams. Atherton was a failed captain, winning 13 of his 54 Tests against lowly playing nations and his comments insinuate the same feeling.

The jellybean saga continuum! In my previous post I have asked Mukul and a few of the bloggers to stop whining about a few jelly beans on the ground when Zaheer Khan was batting. I still cannot figure out how it could be dangerous for a batsman if a couple of jellybeans are lying on the ground? First of all they are not explosives, secondly the bowler must be a real marksman or a sharp shooter to spot and target a jellybean from 22 yards and land his ball on it, if he is that good at aiming at the jellybeans from 22 yards, then he doesn't need them, all he needs is to aim at the wicket and keep aiming at it, c'est ca.

However, the interesting aspect of jellybeans were highlighted in today's game i.e., on the first day of the third test match just before the tea break when Robin Jackman, Nasser Hussain and Michael Holding were commentating. Just before Dinesh Karthik was given out, (once again a poor umpiring decision) reportedly all of a sudden the ball started to swing, bounce and move in the air. Jackman came up with his "Beanie Theory" by saying: "The English players are working furiously on the ball to bring back the shine and its possible that they have rubbed some sugary saliva on the ball by sucking the jellybeans!" He continued, reportedly, the ball gets more hard and shinier when you rub the sugary saliva on it, and it swings more. There is no doubt the ball was swinging and moving away and very soon after the break Dravid was clean bowled and a few overs later Karthik was given out. IMO he was not out. Otherwise ALL DAY long there was no movement or swing. Hence, the singing sparrow Robin posed a question at his colleagues, whether it is legal to do that? And whether the jellybeans be allowed to be eaten on the ground?

Michael Holding tongue in his cheek and in his usual amusing (curry-bean) Caribbean accent responded: "Of course it is illegal, tomorrow if you say I love to drink oil and you drink oil, then you put your finger in your mouth and stick out some oil and rub it on the ball to make it shine, you cannot do that." Probably Michael did not use his head in making that retort, you don't need to drink oil, it can be applied on your hair. Never mind that, but he went on to say something even more funnier. "These kinda unnatural things" he said, "are illegal and you cannot use them, you are allowed to use only natural things like, the old fashioned spit." That made Nasser Hussain burst into laughter and he asked, "does the guy has to be old as well?"

About Karthik's decision, neither the snicker graph nor the slow motion replay confirmed the snick. The way dejected Dinesh Karthik walked back throwing his bat in the air did not confirm whether he was angry with himself or with the umpire's decision which was definitely not a good one. And one can understand how he must be feeling for getting out, rather given out in the nineties. This was Karthik's sixth consecutive 50+ score in six consecutive test matches which includes a hundred and this 91, he is such a good player with a lot of courage, determination and excellent temperament and I hope this bad decision is not going to hamper his determination.

Finally something for Rima Mohammad. There is no law to ban a player for bowling beamers. However, in ODI matches only one beamer is acceptable and if you bowl a second beamer you are taken off and you cannot bowl in that match. And why do you regret not seeing him play? You must have gotten a close-up view of him when he was carrying drinks or when he was sitting on the sidelines...

Spot on, Mukul. Thanks so much for digging this one up (on Lee) from the archives and sharing. I was very amused by Artherton's piece on Sreesanth and his advice to Dravid. Totally unwarranted.

The topic at hand is not the beamer (intentional or otherwise), or the two foot no-ball or the shoulder barging or the jelly beans. Its the sometimes shocking and sometimes deplorable on-field behaviour from both teams. Once we accept that, let's look at how both teams responded to the criticisms that followed.

We have the England coach saying that if his boys distract the batsman and swear, could we please turn the microphone off. Vaughan had some equally superficial things to say about the chatter, Collingwood said something as well, we had theories on how the jellybeans actually came to be near the stumps etc.

Indian reaction to jellybeans was left to the man affected by it. Zaheer performed and spoke out. End of story. On Sreesanth, Dravid offered no explanations or excuses, said the matter will be dealth with internally, and that Sreesanth has a lot to learn and everyone will have to help him learn. No excuses. Dignified silence followed.

Seems to me that the Indian team has been quick in responding to the behaviour issue and has not unnecessarily issued statements, explanations or theories. The England team have done less. And Atherton chooses Dravid to lecture to? Pathetic, pitiful.

Atherton surely has a point - he actually says beamers should be punished full stop, regardless of the quality of contrition. He goes on to say that he believes Lee (for various reasons) protestations, whilst he doubts that Sreesanth was in control at Trent Bridge. Like all of us, Atherton is entitled to his gut feelings as to a player's motivation. The fact that Sreesanth ran through the crease to bowl a bouncer is, to me, clear evidence that he had lost control and makes it all the more likely that he bowled the beamer deliberately too.
For what it's worth, I'm not convinced of Lee's innocence in this field either and I think that the ICC should introduce serious sanctions for beamers, regardless of whether it's an accident or not.

Sreesanth's behaviour was most deplorable.period.
Atherton's arguments are not as bad as some here seem to think.
Why is there such persecution complex among our people?

To begin with, let us not lose perspective here. The traditional Indian response to ANY criticism is to counter it with an accusation or bemoan the fact that our brown skin invites double standards. While there may be some merit to that argument, it does not augur well for us to constantly hide behind that contention.

Yes, Mukul drew attention to an interesting contradiction vis-a-vis Atherton's views. Does that, in any way, invalidate Atherton's stature as an expert and a commentator that is entitled to his views? No. Does it, as a consequence then, call into question Mukul's right to make the observation? Of course not. To each, his own.

That said, let's not compare apples and oranges. Lee and Sreesanth? By the basic sampling theory laws, we do not have comparable data points to make this comparison. Trending patterns? Given the limited data on Sreesanth, we do know that he has a trendency to get carried away and lose focus. Don't get me wrong - I am one of those that dearly loves his aggression and bowling and desperately want him to succeed. But success is all about channelising and focus. Unless he reins in his aggression and directs it the right way, he is going to be the subject of taunts and criticism - of not backing up his verbals with ability. After all, he is in the team for his bowling, not his verbals or other theatrics.

Forget Lee and whether he intentionally bowls beamers or whether 'white' umpires turn a blind eye to him. That is not the point of this argument. One tends to make statements/judgements based on bevaioural 'patterns' and that is probably what Atherton did. It may not be entirely accurate - depending on what your viewpoint is - but that does not mean we paint everything with the same brush, do we?

Regardless of jaundiced views or not, Mukul's blogs do make for interesting reading - Keep it going.

Kingpele, Suj etc.

Are you suggesting that making a mistake (bowling a beamer deliberately or otherwise) is enough ground to ban him for one match. My friends, that's the most impractical suggestion one can ever come up with. A warning yes, but a ban - just to extend the logic to other sports like baseball, soccer and rugby, you may have lots of folks getting banned all the time.

I would like to ask (if there are any bowlers) is it easy to bowl a accurate beamer intentionally? Think about it.

Sreesanth is a 24 year kid. He should grow faster and mature quickly. Else, his days in cricket will have to be numbered.
He has got a fine attitude, superb physical attributes to excel in Fast bowling department.
Someone in a article at CricInfo, finely stated great example in Anil Kumble and Zaheer Khan who are aggressive but never lost composure and let ball do all talking rather than mouth.

SREE!!! SHUT UP AND BOWL QUIETLY!!!!!

Coming to Atherton, he just gained some publicity with his column thats all I can say!!!!
Yes, Sreesanth should have been officially reprimanded for Beamer as it was only first one from him. Fortunately, there was Ranjan Madugalle as Referee, any other Color-Sensitive Referee would have definitely acted in Atherton's way!!!!!!!

wow. 146 comments and only 3 refer to the evil racist colinial plot to keep Indians in their place or some such gibberish. Now the game has truly lost all its entertainment value. Someone PLEASE talk about colonialism :)

All said. I must confess it is quite pleasing to hear an Englanb batsman getting scared of an Indian Bowler. Frankly we need someone like Sree make it interesting. And remember he does not use obcenities like Australian or England's players. Here's wishing Sree a wonder 3rd test! Viva

Wonderful Mukul, wonderful. Never mind some of the 'lazy pampered knownothings' here who seem to have spotless conscience! Till some years back it was a subtle snub of the 'Lords of the game' towards the sub-continental players. They ruled the game from the headquarters wasn't it? Now it becomes as blatant as Atherton can get when the positions of power have shifted. Ofcourse some of us are still living in the era where we are proud to turn on the other cheek to be slapped on. Pray what 'Mr. Dirt in the Pocket' would have to say about an Andre Nel. Oh.. he always smiles a sorry, ain't it and doesn't even get docked 50% of his match fees!

I am sure Kesavan brought up this on racism or Asia vs Europe or brown vs white. And I am dont think Artherton had (has) any reputation other than the saw dust rubbing no good captain of sorts to attack. He is not Ian Botham, David Gover or Geff. This is just double standards that was exposed. Having said that, Dravid could/should have dropped Sreesanth for the oval test and retained him for the one dayers as a punishment for his behavier (not necessarily for the beamer). That is in the sprit of helping a young promising fast bowler and not to judge his attitude or sanity.

A person who is caught on camera biting into the ball to change its seam loses all right to question somebody elses character on the cricket field.

The point what johnnyg made was what I had in mind. He just put it to words...I am a bowler who has played cricket at fairly competetive levels and now I play club 2 division club in UK.
cricket in UK.

Not only myself but some fairly good county bowlers are of the same opinion. It is not that easy to bowl a beamer intentionally to hurt some one in their head

Suj:
I think at least you are consistent...in missing the point, at least.

What gives Atherton away is the line "The other reason for giving Lee the benefit of the doubt is that he is such a demonstrably decent fellow.".
Really? And Sreesanth is not? How does Atherton know? Has he spent time with him off the field? Has he spoken to his teammates (like his in-depth research on Lee's amiability)? Does he know from personal experience that Sreesanth is an arrogant prick and unlike the oh-so-likeable Aussie pacer?

Give me a break! This may not be anything about racism or bias, but it surely is about typical English whining. And Atherton should be quite an expert at it after all those years in the national side.

You and other apologists for Atherton's boorish logic keep repeating that Lee and Sreesanth should not be compared. And pray why not? Because Lee is a better bowler than Santh? But are we talking about cricketing ability here? Let's stick to the point. A beamer is a beamer is a beamer...whether from the hand of Lee or Santh. Lee 'appears' more sheepish, and hence more likeable and oozing lily-white goodness and hence should be forgiven. Santh, not possessed with the 'sheepish' grin (and probably the photogenic qualities of his Aussie counterpart) should be penalized.
And you don't find anything absurd in that line of thinking?

Santh has apologized, multiple times, and expressed his embarrasment in words, in public, in front of the press...which I would guess counts way more than a 'sheepish grin' given to a batsman during a game. However, that little fact is conveniently ignored by Atherton and you.

Sreesanth bashing has become a kind of statement by Indian fans who want to be seen as 'fair and balanced'. He goofed up big time and had the honesty, and frankly, the sense of self-preservation, because he knows nobody is indispensible, to own up to his mistake, Besides, he addressed his apology directly to Vaughan, who seemed to be the most pissed off person on the pitch during the incident.

I say enough! Let this young man continue with his career and do what he does best. I doubt if any of the whining Englishmen in the current team would have the guts to face the press and own up to their own miserable behaviour.

Does Cricinfo has the guts to run the statistics of how many times a batsman got out due to poor umpering/ I am sure Ganguly would come on tops. Wonder what his average would have been w/o the stupid umpires. It is high time umpires make use of technology to see whether lbw is really right, whether there was an edge, whether the ball carried. Stupid troglodytes. In NFL, the referee looks at replays at every opportunity if a team challenges. cricket unlike many sports is just not fair.

After Dinesh Karthik, the second victim of the day is Sourav Ganguly. What a shame, whats wrong with this umpire IL Howel? He did not wait for a second to think whether the ball was deflected from his bat on to his pads, he immediately gave him LBW as if he was waiting for an opportunity? He is definitely ILL and needs a Howler to take off his sunglasses or he should be asked to rest inside the stadium. There was a big deflection from Ganguly's bat and even in the real time it was so obvious to the naked eye and I couldn't believe when he gave him out. Of course, the replays in slow motion and hot spot confirmed the big deflection.

PS. Mukul, I was only inquiring if Rehma Mohammad was her sister and you censored the post, no biggy! :-)

So whats the problem if the beamer has been bowled. The dude has got a helmet and a bat too. I personally think KP is a very good actor. The way he reacted as if a scud missile was beig thrown at him. Sreesanth was reacting the way most of early 20 somethings would react. He was getting frustrated and it was showing. But I dot think its wrong. Its a sport and people are competing here. Not that I am condonig all of Sreesanth's action. I am just saying players playing high tension competetive sport will react in a manner compliant with their upbringing and their way of thinking. So if a bowler thinks its good to break a guys head so be it. As long as a head is not broken its good. Now, people will refute my argument by saying if thats the case the every one will start bowling beamers and bouncers. I have two things to say to them. A) They wont, as the only way to win the match is by taking 20 wickets, and that will not be possible by bowlig beamers and bouncers. and B) Even if the bowler wants to, let him. The game is too tilted towards batsman anyway!

Spare me your indignation, and enjoy the cricket!

Nice post...it's so refreshing to see such posts that takes on the hypocritical English media. Too often, comments such as Atherton's are brushed...we have to call it as we see it. Great post again. And, excellent writing.

...Well done, Mukul for highlighting what most of the cricket press seems far too cowed to point out. Personally, I don't think the sub-continental teams need to come and play in England any more - let's leave these superior individuals to play with themselves and their sweets.

Once again, a cricketing issue needs to be argued along racial lines by many small minded people.

There are differences between Lee's actions and Sreesanth's (deliberate over the mark bouncer, shoulder barge etc) but it seems that these facts are inconvenient for some people. They don't want to discern the differences, it is easier for them to put everything negative that occurs to them or their team down to racism. This is a very simple minded attitude and I feel sorry for people who live their lives with such a mentality.

Amidst all the furor over the jelly beans left on the cricket pitch, a key issue is being missed. All the experts have focused on England’s childish antics and the effect it had on Zaheer Khan. Nobody seems to be asking the pertinent question? Why would a few innocuous jelly beans offend Zaheer Khan so much? Far worse things have to been said and done to international cricketers. Abuse from the fielding team and opposing fast bowler has been part of cricket for long and it has been evident to viewer on TV - more so in the last decade. Surely Zaheer must have had his share of fielders questioning his parentage when he walks out to the middle in a crucial juncture.

My guess is Zaheer was upset with what the England teams was trying to convey with the jelly beans. In order for the story to make sense, we must take a step back and examine this new revolution in swing bowling we are seeing. For long there was conventional swing and then reverse swing was all the rage among the game’s elite fast bowlers. Recently, for the past few years, there has been consistent talk of contrast swing. Some of the old rules of how to make a ball swing have taken a back seat with contrast swing. What it means is that with essentially the seam upright, the ball can be swung both ways based on the whether the shiny side is on the inside or the outside. The movement is not as exaggerated as conventional swing but enough to trouble to top quality international batsman. Valid or not, in recent years, the England team have sworn by this. English conditions, long the Mecca for swing bowlers, is a perfect experimental lab for swingers to test and validate new ways to make the ball swing. From the home of cricket comes the latest revolution in making a cricket ball conducive to swing. Jelly beans.

Shining a cricket ball has always been a disgusting exercise. Players spit and shine forgetting all rules of hygiene. International cricketers now firmly believe that sugary saliva, of the Jelly bean variety, helps in keeping the shine on a cricket ball. As late of the morning of the 3rd test, Cricinfo has a picture of Strauss holding a packet of Jelly beans with Panesar looking on during the drinks break. This trend might not be restricted to English players alone. As far back as 4 years ago during India’s last tour of Australia, Dravid was caught with a foreign substance, resembling a candy, in his mouth trying to shine a cricket ball. Surely Zaheer Khan, with his successful stint in Worcestershire has picked up on the latest fad. In addition to that, he has been tormenting the English batsman with his impeccable swing bowling. The jelly beans left on the pitch was surely a taunt suggesting that the England players knew how Zaheer was getting his results. The fact that Zaheer was so offended over something he could have laughed off suggests that Zaheer knew what the English players were implying and didn’t like it.

What this all leads to is an interesting question? Should the powers to be clamp down on this? As Michael Holding rightly suggested on the Sky Sports broadcast, what is to prevent players from having some oil in the mouth to help shine the cricket ball? The rules of the game ban any foreign substance in aiding the maintenance of a cricket ball. Jelly beans or candy of any other ilk should be no exception.

Kudos! Rahul Dravid for not dropping Sree from the Oval test! If we need to discipline him we will do at our own convenience and not on somebody else's suggestion. Arths - your statements did help English cause since Sree was almost sure to be dropped based on his performace and specially Bose's performance against SL A. Now Dravid had to keep him just to make a point.
I hope Sree comes out good in this match!!!

Brett lee and shoaib actor bowls at the range of 70- 90 miles....so beamers were not accidently...Lee bowled 3 in one test????...So he appolgies better eh ...I guess Shree santh...needs to work on his apology skills...and yes..its ok for so called express bowlers to bowl beamers??? come on dudes..

So many weanies trying desperately to agree with Atherton. Atheron is just another British bozo who is trying to get the best Indian bowler down, in order to help his team. He has nothing to say about Collingwood's dishonesty - he got hit on the glove by a Sreesanth swinger, and was caught behind. The heat from the glove was showing on the infrared sensor long after the blow, but Collingwood did not walk. If THAT level of dishonesty is OK in this game, then I have no problem with an occasional beamer, EVEN IF it is deliberate.

Sreesanth explained that it was a yorker gone awry. Why is it so hard to believe that?...

So many Dhimmis! The British are...losers and always they are whiners.

Mukul, clearly you have a struck a chord with the blogizens who come to drink from this well. Your article has caused a large number of your readers to reflect and / or react. Doesn't matter what the issue, I think that in itself is a measure of success, keeping in mind the objectives for creating this blog.

As for the colorful subject-matter at hand, what is of greater interest here?

Is it the impact of the beamer on the batsman, and more broadly on the game? Is it a question of how intent, or lack there of, may or may not affect the culpability of a sportsman who has done something that is both unexpected and a physical threat to the opposition?

Or, is it the impact of the Atherton article on the public, the media, the players, and more broadly on reporting on the game? Is it a question of how intent, or lack there of, may or may not affect the culpability of a reporter who has done something that is both human and hypocritical?

In light of your presentation, I think the key points in Atherton's article questioning Sreesanth's intentionality, actually mirrors a parallel question about Atherton's own intentionality about writing such an article. Does he remember his somewhat different and contradictory views about Lee? In other words, is this an intentional distortion that you have exposed? A beamer in print that is intended to shake up the readership. Or is it an unintentional slip, caused by those 2005 views being overlooked, or simply forgotten? How many of us remember every single thing we said or wrote two years back...I certainly am guilty of lapses.

The issue under discussion, if you unwrap all the emotional trappings, is primarily one of integrity. That is as pertinent to Atherton's written-beamer as it is to Sreesanth's bowled-beamer. Atherton's impact on the cricket-viewing public is, in my view, quite a bit greater than the impact of Sreesanth's beamer on the batsman, this one game, or cricket itself. If this were the first and only beamer bowled in history, it would be quite a different matter altogether. In another two weeks, both the written-beamer and the bowled-beamer will cease to matter in any meaningful way.

The public discourse in the thread above seems to hone in time and again, either directly or indirectly, on Atherton's integrity. In the context of this blog, Sreesanth's beamer has simply acted as a catalyst for the more emotional outbursts and not much more.

To Andy and Johnnymg,
I have tried to address both of your questions in my second post here.
Cheers

Well said Mukul. I was not aware of Atherton's previous comments about Lee. Frankly, I did not care too much about what Atherton said. He is one of the few convicted cheats in cricket and I for one don't care too hoots about his opinions. Once a cheat, always a cheat. I am sure he has his own agenda. We should focus more on what comentators with some integrity say.

I am amazed at the "Anglo-Saxons" on this site who go on and on about the need to keep race out of any arguments. Do they just don't understand that cricket (on and off feild as well as ICC politics) has a lot to do with race? Are they being devious to win the moral high ground or just stupid? My hunch is it is the latter. In my experience living in UK for years, the elite in England are very smart and highly devious, whereas the masses are bozos. Sad! Get enlightened, folks.

"There are differences between Lee's actions and Sreesanth's (deliberate over the mark bouncer, shoulder barge etc) but it seems that these facts are inconvenient for some people. They don't want to discern the differences, it is easier for them to put everything negative that occurs to them or their team down to racism. This is a very simple minded attitude and I feel sorry for people who live their lives with such a mentality."

Nath, you and others have missed the point over why many think Atherton is being hypocritical. In his article on Sreesanth's beamer, he clearly says that both deliberate AND accidental beamers (barring exception for a wet outfield or rain) should BOTH be banned. So the question is: If he thinks bowlers who bowl accidental beamers should also be banned, and he thinks Lee bowls accidental beamers, why didn't he ask for Lee to be banned? He also says in the article on Sreesanth that an apology on goes so far and shouldn't really excuse the bowler, whether they meant it or not. Yet he used Lee's "sincere" apology as grounds to excuse him. So again, why the difference?

Simple solution. Beamer or high bouncer from an exaggerated illegal runup = 5 run penalty. Every time, sorry or not.
If it connects with the batsman, another 5 runs. Whether he steps into it or not.
Record the statistic separately from wides and no-balls.
Sure its hard to gauge intent and sentiment across cultural boundaries but every one of the players out on the field but every player out on the field shares something in common - the desire to win (or perhaps, more acutely, the terror of losing) a match for their nation.

I dont see Athertons inconsistency as anything more than a case of a talking head talking. Unless the head in question is actively involved in a campaign of some sort it is rare for them to be consistent across weeks much less years. They fill the dead air of the moment with the immediate thought of the moment and even if that thought is well thought out, there is nothing stopping the thought from being different to a thought conceived during a similar thoughtful moment - especially when the one thing that can be agreed on here is that the events can be interpreted in different ways.
As for integrity I will always take hamfisted blithering over calculated cruelty and Michael Atherton is, basically, harmless.
As for certain cultural references in the comments above I think it is the nature of all societies that the "elite" are smart and use those smarts to survive and that the "masses" are generally pig ignorant and brutal. The IQ of a social group is inversely proportional to the number of people trying to do the thinking. The fact is that we are all - at some stage - the elitist individual focussed on personal gain or the face in the crowd chanting the chant. More often than not, though, we are the regular "joe" in the middle just trying to get on in life.
You wont find enlightenment holed up in the deep dark corners of your own mind, only seeing the world around you through the healthy layer of prejudice you dont even realise is there. Enlightenment is outside, in the world. Not in your head.

Thank you Mr. Kesavan. I appreciate you writing this article as I've been wondering about what Atherton had thought about Lee's beamers against England...
Another glaring thing I've noticed is that Sreesanth after 10 tests and still at under 25 is being talked about such a way. Lee has character and Sreesanth doesn't. HA! Of course a 30+ years old fella after 50+ tests should have more character than Sreesanth. It's actually quite amazing that Lee still ends up bowling these "accidental" beamers. I lost whatever respect I had for Atherton here. I guess the ... intentions of a person can crop up accidentally under these sort of circumstances.
I guess it's okay for the English to throw around a bit of jellybeans, it's just plain silly. Of course if the Indians should react to it any sort of manner "unbecoming of the game" (as defined by the English) then that's just plain odd.

It is perfectly possible that Mike Atherton feels greater kinship with Mr. Lee, a fellow caucasian. That's is natural and so please set aside the innuendos with racial overtones. It does not do any of us any credit. There is an absolute standard: I wish India beat England hook, line, and sinker. However, bowling beamer, shoulder barging, and front-foot no-balls are a distraction from the main goal and the team can live without Sreesanth's immature needs to be the focal point. His behavior is abusive and all abuse stems from the need to be the center of attention. No one need condone this childish behavior by coming to Sreesanth's defense. He struck the first blow by his boorish behavior. The axiom is simple: No bad behavior, nothing for the English to complain about, and it would have been fun to see how Atherton and the pundits from Old Blighty explained the loss at Trentbridge. Sreesanth's abusive behavior and antics gave everyone the license to indulge in punditry, so the blame rests squarely on him. I would have been truly proud had Dravid ordered Sreesanth off the ground for at least a session immediately after the beamer was hurled - err slipped! Just my $0.02.

Sreesanth and being overly aggressive? Andre Nel? McGrath? Lee? Pollock?

How can Atherton call Sree Santh immature when he hasn't (to my knowledge) used the same adjective for people like:

1) Harold Larwood, who bowled bouncers to people not having helmets
2) Dennis Lillee, who used an aluminium bat in a serious cricket match

I am sure Athers will call these as phsychological tactics rather than immaturity, but then why can't Sree Santh use such tactics like Donald, McGrath, Patterson, et al?

And talking of immaturity, why are Merv Hughes (passing wind while bowling in a serious match) and David Boon (downing 50+ beers on a single flight) and Mike Atherton (dirt in the pocket)not called immature while Sree Santh is called so?

Some people are getting caught up into little technicalities. To me the issue highlighted by this article is very clear. It is the inconsistencies in the application of the rules by ICC and perception of events by certain journalists. There is certainly a double standard in the way ICC deals with the member nations whether it is umpiring, bowling actions, over-rates or player behaviours. We have seen that over and over again. I don't care whether it is because of race or something else. Some people will go to great lengths just to try to prove that it is not because of race. So what? Whether it is race, incompetence or mental illness, the point is the problem exists.

Having watched this "beamer" incident and others live, I find extremely difficult to believe that they are intended - as much as the claim that the delivery that snakes through between bat and pad was "intended"!!

But Mukul is right - it is a question of double standards. Atherton's moralising should have addressed the poor umpiring as well. Not to mention the jelly beans - what were the English doing with them anyway. When Anderson suddenly began to make the ball swing, David Lloyd was the first to comment that chewing jelly beans and then applying sugary saliva to the ball could cause the ball to swing. Needless to say none of the other commentators took him up on it. Had it been the Indian team - heavens above - it would have been ball tampering without further ado!!

And let's not forget the famous forfeited Test of 2006 - Pakistani's getting reverse swing - has to be ball tampering. The English getting reverse swing in the Ashes - their coach trained them.

All you Anglos carrying on about the subcontinental chip on the shoulder, put a sock it - or better still, rub some mousse on your heads, run your hands through your hair and then "polish" the ball. It worked really well in in the 90s.

Posted by: Sunil 4 hours, 50 minutes ago

"Surely Zaheer Khan, with his successful stint in Worcestershire has picked up on the latest fad. In addition to that, he has been tormenting the English batsman with his impeccable swing bowling. The jelly beans left on the pitch was surely a taunt suggesting that the England players knew how Zaheer was getting his results. The fact that Zaheer was so offended over something he could have laughed off suggests that Zaheer knew what the English players were implying and didn’t like it."

Sunil, you would do well to write for the English tabloids. You appear to have forgotten that David Lloyd brought up the jelly bean sugary saliva comment when Anderson began to suddenly began to get swing and took Dravid's wicket. But hey, Sunil, don't worry about being objective - according to people like you, Zaheer Khan's a ... - should I mention the M-word - so he's quite capable of anything, including ball tampering just like the Pakis. But your honourable Englishmen - they would never stoop to such a thing now would they!

i am amazed to see how many people think atherton is right. These guys are plain stupid not to see that atherton is just using his column to sledge the indian players. Rather than sresanths integrity, it is own integrity that is supsect. This is not the first time he has taken cheap shots at indian players, and I am sure this will not be the last. All you people supporting him should learn to look at the big picture. All who have watched indian cricket over the years know the importance of a ganguly/sreesanth!! In the end the record book will not show how well behaved the team was only how games were won or lost!! Players all over the world have learnt how to play the umpires and cameras, why should indians be left behind. And people saying that race should not be brought into the equation should realise there are too many instances of non-white players being punished when white players are let off the hook (to be fair the percentages are lower now than 5 years back). athertons wants to ban sreesanth for the beamer when he himself wants lee off the hook inspite of bowling the most number of beamers in the modern game. Who gives a crap if atherton thinks lee is a nice bloke, who is atherton to judge that lee is better human being than sreesanth? And how is throwing things on a pitch to distract the batsmens attention also amounts to pitch tampering, that is much worse than bowling a beamer. If pietersen was unsettled by the beamer, he better watch out-brett lee is waiting!.

Are these 200 odd comments because of the book ? I would think so !
All you have done is written a paragraph !

by the way I read it last tuesday and quite liked the chapters on Southern Manhood, A clean breast and the description of childhood cricket :)

actually,a one match ban is a good thing.they can bring in ranadeb bose.hemight perform better than sreesanth.

Mike Atherton's comments are worthless. He is a "registered and certified" cheat when it comes to cricket. He used to rub the cricket ball with the dirt from his pocket. Ian Botham has taken a dig at him on live television.
So here is a convicted cheat who is sitting in judgement of Sreesanth.
All this smokescreen is created to undermine the fact that the English were chewing the beans to smear their saliva on the cricket ball.
Hello Mike Atherton, if you are eating any jelly beans, do you have any ball to apply your saliva to it? Hey Matey??
Learn to make honest cricket comments from the likes of Botham and David LLoyd.
You are a certified and convicted cheat man, so back off.

I seem to recall the current Pakistani coach, in his halcyon youth, bowling a highly frustrated beamer to Botham in the legendary 'one-that-got-away' Ashes test in '81.

I can't, however, recall so much of a fuss being made about it then - even by captain Willis who, like Atherton, was never recalitrant in airing his views.

All the comments along the lines of 'white man does it: OK; brown man does it: not OK' portray their authors as people who would prefer to resort to precisely the kind of lazy racial stereotyping that they accuse Atherton of. If people are not prepared to shrug off the chips they carry on their shoulders then there is little chance of the improved mutual understanding they purport to seek. Any bowler of international class who sends down a beamer ought to be ashamed of themselves. Lee apparently was, Sreesanth apparently wasn't. End of.

Just wondering whether he would have complained if england had went on to win the test match.

Excellent Work...

I can't figure out why is this being turned into an issue involving race? From what i can see, all mukul has done is point out the inconsistency in the opinion of Athers over a period of time. He could be faulted for one thing - he has allowed the readers to form their own opinion to this observation and in doing so, brought forward a racist in all of us.
Another question i have to ask everybody is -
have you seen a fast bowler that has not tried to hurl the ball to the batsman as fast as he can? When this is done in anger / frustration, he is bound to lose focus and control. Whether it is Lee or Sreesanth, the result in such a situation is the same - a beamer. and i am certain, its a show of frustration / lack of control not malicious intent. So let's not speculate on Sree's intent and just let him prove that he can indeed handle himself well under pressure.

And this (http://www.theage.com.au/news/Peter-Roebuck/Lee-must-be-bounced-for-bowling-beanballs/2005/02/27/1109439454031.html) is what Peter Roebuck had to say about Lee's beamers.

Well done, Mukul, for exposing Michael Atherton's rather – shall we say – inconsistent views on beamers bowled by two different bowlers; one of whom, Brett Lee – a repeat offender – he goes on to call a “demonstrably decent fellow”.

In my point of view Shreeshanth lost all rational thought that day. His emotions got the better of him. I can’t believe for the life of me that he would bowl that bouncer and that beamer on the same day, overs apart, and call them both accidents. But that is beside the point; malicious intent or not is pure conjecture and it has been debated to death.

What we can do is to pass a law that gives the umpire the power to outright stop an offending bowler from bowling in that match before, subsequently, the match referee hands a one match ban. None of this nonsense will need to be discussed thereafter.

I am just thankful that Pieterson wasn’t hit. After the death of Bob Woolmer and the absurdity of the World cup final, the last thing cricket needs is an injury, or possible death, after a beamer.

Honestly,even I am not sure If Sreesanth was innocent.I had initially thought that it has to be unintentional but after I saw the video I was stunned by the accuracy of it.

But the calls of banning coming from Atherton have stunned me even more.

Yeah right Sreesanth should be banned,just like Atherton should have himself been banned for ball tampering in that 95(or was it 98) series against South Africa at home.

At the moment India is 595 for 9 and still batting, let me put it this way. "The writing is on the wall, loud and clear ...... India has sealed this match, they cannot loose it and they have won the series."

So, please don't look back and whine about the bad umpiring decisions that were made or yet to be made. Enjoy the VICTORY.

First of all - a person bowling a beamer should be banned from the next game, that includes certain players who give really convincing apologies.
Second - Atherton is clearly biased; has double standards as to the way the game has to be played. he has clearly not mentioned anything about the conduct of the English players on the pitch during the test.
Third - to rext; mate you seem to have forgotten the incident where Sachin was adjudged lbw when he was hit on the shoulder while ducking. Clearly he is more than 3 feet tall. So don't complain about bad umpiring decisions from the subcontinent. Don't you think that simon Taufel who by the way I respect made a lot of bad decisions during this test match?
Fouth - The Cricketing west clearly is biased when dealing with western and non western cricketers. Reemmber venkatesh prasad being fined for celebrating after getting Slater out in Australia?
Fifth - Thats it from me.

This is all hypocritical. As one post had mentioned, what is 'greatness' for an Australian/English is 'evil' for a brown guy.

The Aussies and English have long intimidated other teams with body line bowling. Bouncers were intentional, and no appologies were followed by the guilty ones. Worse is the sledging and how the Aussies & English are trying to uphold sledging as part of the game. What part of the game does it serve especially sledging may not come naturally to all culture. And where is the line? Glen McGrath is considered great yet he may ask Sarwan how does Lara's ... tastes like. And when Sarwan retaliated he threatened to 'kill' him, yet I dont remember this being taken as a serious incident. For god sake threatening to kill is a criminal offence, let alone a violation in the cricket ground.

There are two types of haters burning Mukul for the posting: the denial one and the selfish ones. The denial ones are possibly fans of Aussies & England, who are basically playing to the tunes of the sentiments put forward by English and Aussie media and cricket circle. The others are selfish one, including Indians, who are jumping on the band wagon for selfish intent. I can't help thinking that these are the Agarkar and Pathan fans who are furious that their 'hero' is not in the bowling quartret. Sreesanth, immature he may be at times, bring the energy and emotion that motivates a fielding team to rise above opposition. Ofcourse, that is relevant to some of the critics here, it is all about how the Sachins and the Agarkars do what they do.

This is total b.......! everyone knows this Sreesanth is a loose canon and I for one cant put it past him for bowling a beamer intentionally. Further strengthened by the big no ball he bowled, agression is one thing but really this isnt good for the team.

So I am sorry your comparison falls short by distance Brett Lee is a true sportsman and this visibly sheepish theory is a load of...

Get real dude! more impotantly get a life!

Well, Mr. Atherton, let's go back in time. Maybe about three decades and jog your memory. Was the beamer as deliberate as the vaseline on the ball by John Lever? Let us learn to see things in perspective. John Snow pushing Gavaskar in 1974, was that an incident or deliberate? Ian Botham saying that subcontinent is where he would want to send his mom-in-law slip of the tongue? Sometimes, I can understand, when you get a taste of your own medicine. And if you end up on the losing side after that, it clearly hurts! Cheer up! Ask the English team to put up a brave fight and don't crib and complain, as if you will have to face Glenn McGrath again.

Javed bhai

I have been reading your comments on Kamran's blog as well and have been impressed by your knowledge. Somehow you don't seem to have this magnanimous attitude there when it concerns Pak cricket.
I don't see anything wrong in people trying to dissect the views of a sports columnist. Also "whining" about the bad umpriring decision doesn't take away anything from our celebrations!
GO INDIA

Well done Mukul !! You certainly got plenty of replies. You and Kamran Abassi should form a new subgroup at cricinfo called "Populist bloggers who stir up hatred and division in the cricketing world". While your intent may initially have been simply to point out the inconsistency in Atherton's "then" and "now" positions on beamers (a good observation and a point that needed to be made) unfortunately the cynicism and vitriol which pours out in the manner of your words gives your real game away. The final paragraph was never going to say anything more than "Michael Atherton is racist" to a those whose ears were just waiting to hear it. As soon as I read your piece I knew that the responses would be predictable. First we had "white man does it, it sure is an accident. Brown man does it he deserves time in guatanamo" Oh please!!! Soon we progressed to a clutch of "terrible nasty sledging Aussies" and "Colonial conspiracy"-type responses. Captain swing nicely sums up how misguided these folk are when he suggests that "It's an odd sort of mind that thinks an Englishman would excuse an Australian for bowling a beamer, but not an Indian. Please understand that the rivalry between Australia and England is deeply felt". I agree wholeheartedly. A little later we had the obligatory response from the proud Aussie, "It's great, just wonderful, being an Australian and knowing our cricket team is by far the World's best!! Many of your bloggers seethe with envy and can only resort to racist name calling and drivel". Rext, your comments do make a point but the humility (not) and tone of the words just serves to inflame the whole "them vs us " theme of this blog. The fact is that neither Atherton, nor you Mukul nor any of the rest of us know whether Sreesanth's beamer was intentional or not. The same goes for Lee's past indescretions. I agree that there should be standard penalties for bowling beamers and intent should have nothing to do with it. Fast bowlers bowl wides all the time, get penalised for it and no-one bats an eyelid. Obviously a potentially-dangerous practice should incur a higher penalty than one that isn't but, as someone above suggested, a 10 or 15 run addition to the score for every delivery that reaches the batsman above chest height on the full would pack away intentional beamers forever. It would be a brave bowler who would risk his captains wrath and bowl one deliberately in that circumstance. In Rugby League and Union, players get penalised for dangerous high tackles and spear tackles whether they are intentional or not. Why should cricket be any different? As for you Mukul and any of the rest of you who are keen to broaden the racial divide I would suggest you consider your words more carefully. Cricket has an amazing capacity to bring divided people together, as has been proven in recent India-Pakistan series. Those whose intent is to divide the cricket world along racial or geographical lines should just shut their mouths. Racism (and that includes implying that someone is being rascist when they clearly are not) is abhorrent and has no place in our great game. There's an old saying "If you can't think of anything good to say then don't say anything at all".

Well said Neil!! I agree with every word you wrote except perhaps it wasn't clear that my comment about Australia being the best team in the universe was tongue in cheek and intended to inflame, draw out and shame the racists and narrow minded amongst this blog's participants. Yes we are having a golden era, but we know these things go in cycles and what goes up eventually comes down and we won't come down without one hell of a struggle. My further comment re envy making Australia the target for every unsavoury accusation was sincere and reflects the adage that if you can't rise to your opponents level then drag him down to yours. And I'm not directing that comment at you personally Neil, but at those the cap fits! Many bloggers here seem to think Brett Lee is to blame for the official response or lack of it to his beamers. Believe me, he was severely criticized here on every occasion and few would have felt it unjust had he been suspended whether his beamers were "accidental" or not!! In my extensive reading of "western or white or caucasian" cricket blogs I have never yet seen the disparaging use of the words "brown or Asian". Perhaps it's because we have laws prohibiting the use of such divisive and racist language or perhaps it's because we are simply less interested in a person's race, being the most multicultural Country in the World, than we are in their qualities as a person. Of course we have racist elements in Australia though as Darren Lehmann found via his ACB suspension for racial abuse, it will not be tolerated. I wish I could say the same for this blog and as with Pak Spin I have repeatedly officially objected to such racist comments as found on this blog being permitted or even encouraged by the blog owner as it only feeds and inflames the fools. I humbly believe we Australians are better cricketers than anyone else, never better human beings! I wish cricket bloggers here would practice off field what they complain so much about not receiving on field, and that's fair play!!

This is absurd.

1. Lack of maturity in writing such a post - it is one thing to write a factual report on Aterton's double standard and another to write such a judgmental article.

What's the point? Who among us does not have double standards?

By writing such a sarcastic piece it just shows the immaturity. Move on, we all have double standards, bro.

2. Ignores/shifts the gravity of the actual problem

A lot of people who have commented here are unaware of gravity of the issue and have compared to one beamer allowed per over...
What Sreesanth or Lee did can kill people and that's why there is concern. Well any delivery can kill a batsmen for argument sake but there is a reasonable boundary. Sreesanth and Lee crossed that boundary and until unless these actions are penalized, another person (third) is going to do it. I am at least satisfied to the extent this has been condemned. At least the condemnation will act as a deterrent for sometime to come but we will soon forget about it.

Hope any unfortunate event does not happen when someone does such a thing next-time.

Very well said Neil. I just read your comment.

I have been checking out the CI blog section and if this continues then these bloggers will be soon remembered as "populist bloggers" who wants attention. Well you have got my two comments :)

I wish Mukul reads this and does not make a name to be in this category or remembered as one. Well the choice his.

Great article Mukul.Now plz raise voice against the poor umpiring as well.I will glad if somebody do that coz in recent series umpires have tried thier best to save english batsmen and tried thier best to give indian batsmen OUT.

Lallu Lalla;

Am I supposed to say thank you to you for reading my posts? ;-) Yes, I have been writing on Kamran's blog since a long time. I find his blog very interesting and exciting and, over there its more fun to pull a few strings of some of the pay & do's and I do that purely for fun. Besides, Kamran Abbassi always raises some very interesting points to create a debate. Over here, I've started writing very recently and my first post was about Mukul ignoring Sreesanth's ugly beamer, which imo he shouldn't have. When I was writing that post, I wasn't very sure whether it will appear or get censored? It happened in other blogs sometime back they simply ignored. But, as Omar Admani says, here you can write anything (either in favour or against the views of the author) it doesn't get censored and, he is prolly right. Besides, the posts here are updated more frequently than Kamran's blog, which is good.

About my views or my attitude which you think is not so magnanimous. All I can say is, its your perception, May be you haven't read ALL my posts. So, obviously your judgment is impaired by your own coloured views about me. Apart from pulling the occasional strings in light humour, I do write on more serious issues about cricket in Pakistan and in general and most of the time I am very blunt and, I never do any buttering to the avatar of the blog to get my posts published. Perhaps, my bluntness has hurt your feelings too which arguably is the case and that is why you have said what you've said in your punch line. The point that you are missing out is, me being an outsider rather, not being an Indian, I have the prerogative to say or comment courageously and impartially with or without "a noble mind and heart." Whereas, if you or any Indian person do the same here then, it appears as whining and vice versa about the Pakistanis at Kamran's blog. And, that is why I was trying to highlight this point and was criticizing Mukul for ignoring the beamer and also asking him and other bloggers to be fair and stop this sulking, brooding, complaining and whining business and enjoy the victory. And, if you think I am scared of expressing my true feelings here on this blog i.e., unleashing or controlling my criticism then you are wrong. I never hesitate for a moment when it comes to speaking through my mind or in expressing my feelings. Like I said, I am very blunt and you'll see that with passage of time. Enjoy the euphoria and focus on the next 7 ODI's.

what is your basis for censorship? what did I say that disqualified my entry to your comments section?

For all those jokers who think Indians have a chip about white Vs brown - I have identified a whole series of consistencies in Umpiring errors, all against India during key instances, as also Match refereeing errors on a formal mail to Mr. Dave Richardson of ICC almost a week ago, asking him what action he intends to take against the erring officials if the alleged errors were not on ICC instructions.
I have sent him details of match-defining human errors, consistently against India from his Umpires.
Add to that, consistently inconsistent stands from ICC match referees on things like "dissent against umpiring decisions", "charging the umpire" & "bringing the game to disrepute".

After all, if ICC is paying someone - Umpire OR Match Referee they have a right to require the man to do his job correctly.
Dave Richardson has not even bothered to reply to 3 emails from me & chasers. Draw your own conclusions.
To me, these "Howlers from ICC staff" do not look like human errors, they were management orders.
I therefore appeal to all Indians who read this post to teach ICC the only lesson they understand - STOP BUYING ANY PRODUCTS / SERVICES FROM AN ENTITY THAT SPONSORS ANY ICC ACTIVITY.
Why should we Indians give our money to any corporate who sponsors ICC when ICC is blatantly discriminating against us.
I have even appealed to BCCI to resign their ICC membership unless ICC is seen taking public action against staff who blatantly discriminate against Indians.

Ali,

Your request makes no sense, not because it has no merit, but because ICC is aware of what is happening but are unwilling to offend guys who mis-use their authority to help Aussie / England / SA / WI look better than Indians/Pakistanis.

And - I do not think we should look at Umpires only. Umpires have the weapon of "Human Error" using which they will run away after doing what they want for select sides.

ICC's match referees too seem to be prone to "human error".

We have seen no action against an ICC match referee who has blatantly refused to take action against Brian Charles Lara of WI in violation of a standard clearly set by the Virender Sehwag in SA incident(Indian Virender Sehwag suffered a one-test match ban for taking 3 / 4 steps in the general direction of the umpire. The match referee's stand was upheld by an ICC review committee & the match referee in the Brian Lara case though having spotted Lara charging right upto the umpire & snatching the ball from umpires when Lara wanted Dhoni's wicket & the umpire gave India 6 has chosen not to take action).
We have seen no action against R Madugalle who has chosen to hit Indian Sree Santh for bringing the game into disrepute, but "forgotten" to look at the dissent by Kevin Peterson & the England team management, as also the consistent harrasment of Indian Batsmen by Matt Prior & his co-horts in the slip cordon.
We saw no action against a match referee who blatantly refused to take any action against "Mud in the picket" Artherton whereas Inzamam of Pakistan was blatantly called a cheat by Lord Darrel Hair & ICC / the match referee tried to support Hair though unlike in the Artherton case, Hair was unable to provide any evidence. ICC's stand was only reversed because of pressure from the Pakistani Cricket establishment.

I have petitioned Dave Richardson of ICC with a whole list of apparently discriminatory activities by ICC Umpires & match referees against cricketers of Indian / Pakistani origin, asking him what action ICC have taken / intend to take against the adjudicators at fault. I do not even have an acknowledgement to my mails from ICC over 5 calendar days.

I would like as many people as possible to support me by petitioning ICC to initiate action against those of their staff members who discriminate against Indians / Pakistanis.

Please send me your email address, I will forward the communication to you, alongwith ICC & BCCI's email addresses. My email address is asherca@hotmail.com.

Rext,

I tend to agree with you on a lot of things.

However, please note - the frustration / irritation you see on this is mostly ICC's own doing.
ICC's match referees are seen consistently hitting cricketers from India / Pakistan on the lamest excuse.
When a similar / identical in a lot of other cases worse offence is committed from an Australian / West Indian / English / SA cricketer, the same match referee decides "boys will be boys, sometimes hot-headed" & takes no action. When those match referees are questioned publicly by the media, their response is along the lines of "I do not want to take any action, end of story".
I would respect Australian Cricketers if they had won the final frontier (India in India) on cricketing merits rather than umpiring errors. Remember Australia have won a test series in India thanks to Billie Bowden's 4 human errors at Bangalore.
SA have managed to win a test against India & draw a series thanks to Rahul Dravid of India "unfortunate" to be declared out twice in the same test match.
England have escaped with a 1-0 defeat where it could easily have been a 3-0 brownwash from Indians primarily on account of an unreasonably large number of "human errors" from the umpires, all favouring England.
The strike-rate of "human errors" from ICC umpires against India is so consistently high that it is very difficult if not impossible to honestly believe it is just human error. Remember it is ICC's management primarily from these error-benefitting countries that has refused to employ technology to "retain the human element" in the game (From where I stand, this looks like - retain our ability to beat India when the cricketing merit of our team is insufficient).
In case you would like specific examples, please let me know, my email is asherca@hotmail.com

Well said Neil! Its incredibly unfortunate that cricket writers resort to accusations of racial bias and hate mongering just to get more readership and reaction for their articles. We're all reading this article but sadly the content is seriously lacking in journalistic integrity. This is the last time I am going to subject myself to such indignity (by reading Men in White) and I urge other readers to boycott this blog as well.

Its about time the blog world sent a clear message that we will not tolerate such lack of journalistic ethic and racial bias!

What can I say! Beamers you atleast have a doubt about whether it was intentional or not. But when Simon Jones threw the ball at stumps (read Mat Hayden) where was Mr.Atherton? Why did Jones continue playing Ashes and not left out by his captain. If you go back and see the replays, there was no way that ball was intended to miss Hayden. Well racial bias or inferiority complex call it whatever, the guy with the biggest voice wins.

Sreesanth bowled a beamer and so have many other fast bowlers. What's the whole point here? As of now, it is not illegal to bowl a beamer. As a matter of courtesy, he apologised..and thatz it. Get on with it guz. There is NO RACISM here, NO favoritism here, no bias here..zilch. No rule borken, wat the hell.

A nice piece of comment by NEIL...yeah add a penalty of 15 runs for the beamer and that should decide the the matter. Maybe, then the bowlers can stop apologising too he he..after all he has gifted 15 runs or better still, the batsman might thank the bowler..reverse courtesy!!!

Another point worth taking up..with the whole isssue of crucial tosses..recently read that it wud be a great idea to let captains bid a certain number of runs for the toss. Sounds perfect to me..why let spin of the coin decide a game's fate..if a captain thinks the toss is the key, let him bid for it at the expense of say 50 runs to his team. If both captains think the toss is not that critical, we can always resort to the old-fashioned spin of the coin. Watsay????

To REXT...well, yeah ur team playz hard and they are the envy of the world..everyone likes to see a new world champ. Any small deviation in true sportsmanship from ur team is sure to evoke the irk of the whole damn world.. So i guess u have to live with the hatred! Yeah, i do bliv if tendulkar resorted to gilchrist's "nick it and i walk" attitude, he wud have survived to play a lot more longer innings.
All said and done, i do hope we (india) tonks the aussies in their backyard this time around (dec 2007) he he

the fact that beamer is not allowed (it's given as a no ball 'n u 've to re bowl it - 2 beamers 'n the bowler cannot bowl rest of the innings) is good enough to say that it is wrong.
the concession of one beamer is because of the reason it can accidentally happen.(genuine slip,sweat stress )
so whether lee ,sreesanth or shoaib akthar bowl them ,they r all wrong hence they apologise .
just because one says sorry better dos'nt mean he's entitled to bowl them.
btw is'nt atherton the same guy who did not walk even though he was caught that made donald so mad that he bowled 'n cursed like a wild bull(i luv this guy) .
hey if atherton can read faces so well wonder what he thought about the look on donald's face.
(he did later present the glove to donald's charity so there is no doubt that he knew he was cheating)
well interesting that this guy talks about morals,intentions,looks 'n blah blah.