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