G'day, all.

I must say that I'm falling in love with the electric responses we get from subscribers to this diary. So many ideas, so much information, flows in from round the world -- the speed, and volume, are quite amazing.

Reminds me of something former Esquire columnist Bob Greene wrote recently. He was talking of how, even after quitting Esquire and moving to an online publication, his antipathy towards computers ensured that he never, ever, opened his email box. Till the day a tech came up to him and said, 'Your emails are clogging up the server, please download and get rid of the damn things if you don't want them.'

So Greene downloaded his mails and since it was a slow day, began going through them. Now, he says, he can't do without his mail.

Me, too.

Yesterday, I had mailed you a verbatim copy of an item published in a newspaper, ostensibly protesting certain comments made by Steve Waugh about Muthiah Muralitharan. Among the many mails that came in by way of response, this one is worth mentioning in full (I am blacking out the identity of the sender -- not because I am reluctant to credit him, merely because I don't know if he would like his identity revealed. Suffice, for the moment, to say he is the online editor for one of the biggest cricket sites there is).

Here goes, with his mail:

--------------------------------

Gday Prem. Do you always publish third-hand hearsay and then ask your readers to do your research for you *after* you publish??

I've read "Never Satisfied" by Steve Waugh., after someone emailed me last month querying the item in The Island.

For starters, the "extract" quoted at http://www.island.lk/2000/11/13/sports03.html is not in the book.

Waugh devotes roughly a page to Muralitharan in his diary entry in the book for September 29, 1999, during the Australian tour of Sri Lanka (pages 47-48 of the edition as published in Australia). These are a few excerpts:

"Next to Warney, I would rate Murali the best spinner in the game at present - certainly, he's the most awkward slow bowler I've faced in recent times in international cricket."

"Muttiah Muralitharan is presently at the height of his powers, and it is fair to say that he has been the difference between Sri Lanka and us"

"Facing Murali is like being part of a David Copperfield show, with reality and optical illusions being so closely intertwined that it is hard to tell the difference."

"Murali bowls as if his wrist is double-jointed, and from 22 yards away, his subtlety in delivering seemingly similar balls that are in fact completely different presents the greatest of chalenges."

There's more, but it is all glowingly in favour of Muralitharan, and not a word implying anything improper about his bowling action.

Surely it's better for you to check out the facts on matters like this *before* you go into publication, and not after?

Cheers

--------------------------------------------------------

So now we know.

For starters, Waugh's encomiums addressed to a bowler who has suffered enough is heart-warming, and in keeping with the image we have of the Australian captain.

Next up, I find myself wondering just when this whole 'chucking' thingy will be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Sunil Gavaskar once said something that strikes me as eminently sensible: 'Cricket,' Sunny said, 'is a straight-arm game. So the law should be simple, really -- if you bend your arm at delivery, it is illegal.'

What then of players with physical defects that create the illusion of a bent arm -- such as Murali, Brett Lee, Akthar? Again, the answer was simple. 'It should be up to the respective boards to ensure that the bowlers representing it bowl with a straight arm. If one of its bowlers has a physical defect, the board should take the responsibility for getting the bowler medically examined, and his defect duly certified, the certificate should then be passed on to the ICC which, if it choses to, can then order its own examination and pass, or debar, the bowler once for all depending on its findings.'

Sounds so simple. And often, the knottiest of questions have simple solutions. So what is wrong with this one? Why do we need a process as elaborate as the one now in force?

And finally, I might as well address this question of whether I pass off hearsay, instead of doing my own research.

The short answer is, no. If proof of that were needed, the ongoing CBI versus BCCI series on Rediff should provide it in ample measure. And I think I can safely promise to dig out, from our archives, other examples of similarly researched and presented articles.

The point is, the Email Diary is not a Rediff Editorial Publication. It remains, in tone and content, a sharing of one individual's thoughts and opinions with others, as a spur to an ongoing dialogue.

Thus, what I was doing -- and this is all I was doing -- was sharing something that puzzled me, and asking if anyone out there knew where this was coming from. The fact that the article was quoted in full in yesterday's diary does NOT amount to an endorsement of its contents -- and I frankly thought that was made quite clear.

Speaking for myself, I'd prefer to have this diary retain its current flavour -- not as a means to engage in soliloquies, but as a catalyst for dialogues.

Speaking of dialogues, a reader suggested that through this forum, I could/should also share little anecdotes, as and when they are relevant, that might not make it to the editorial pages. Helping to put together our CBI vs BCCI series yesterday reminded me of a couple of such anecdotes, to do with our coaches.

The first relates to the 1999 World Cup. In one game, Srinath went for 60+ in his quota of overs. In the post-match team meeting, coach Anshuman Gaekwad singled him out for special attention. "Ten overs for SIXTY runs?! Why? Why were you bowling consistently down the leg side? Why? WHY????"

Srinath shot back: "YOU tell ME why! You are the coach, YOU tell ME what I was doing wrong. YOU tell ME why, despite bowling the way I always do, the ball kept drifting! YOU are the coach, you tell me what I was doing wrong technically and how to correct it! Did you ever tell me and the other bowlers what line to bowl, did you discuss any strategies with me before the match? Why are you the coach? YOU tell ME! Why? WHY?"

The other members of the team didn't know whether to roll over laughing at the accurate parody, or muse over the questions posed by the bowler.

Anecdote two is of later vintage -- Kapil Dev was the coach at the time. Again, India was on the receiving end. Again, the bowlers seemed clueless. At the end of the day's play, Indian skipper Saurav Ganguly was being interviewed for a television programme. Ganguly pointed to the thoughtless bowling as a major reason for the defeat. The interviewer asked Ganguly why the bowlers had strayed, why they seemed to lack strategic thinking. 'Didn't the coach give you any suggestions at the team meeting?'

Ganguly reached over, covered the microphone with his hand, then said, 'Sorry to say this, but inputs from the coach have been zero.'

He then took his hand off the mike, and said words on the order of, 'Well, you know, suggestions made at team meetings are not enough, the bowlers have to actually go out there and put things in practise'.

Doesn't that make you wish players (and administrators, come to think of it) would tell us what they really think?

Cheers, all

Prem

Mail Cricket Editor