Cricket DiariesWhy I do not agree with Gambhir - II
April 4th 2010 07:27
Link: www.cricketdiaries.com
When I wrote the part I of this this issue, I did not have the cognizance of what was to follow from the Gambhir stable. Now, the second part becomes necessary.
Not happy at having had to apologize and get reprimanded by Lalit Modi, Gambhir went on to add later that he stood by what he said.
If my memory serves me right, Gambhir had said that Rajasthan was an ordinary side. And then, as far as I understand, 'pleaded guilty' for the same. So, now, if he went on to stand by his own side - however one does that - isn't it evident that he is pleading not guilty?
I think there is something more than Rajasthan Royals or Shane Warne here. I may be speculating here, but Gambhir looks to have been rubbed the wrong side of something - and frankly I can only guess - to which the man is reacting in a manner that one does not associate cricket captains with. Not without any reason anyway. Probably he has just been upset by the kind of schedule that the BCCI has released for the year!
Gambhir said that he was not a hypocrite and said what he saw. Agreed. But, in that case, why plead guilty?
Secondly, let us talk about the law itself. It prevents the players from getting into a mud-slinging competition with each other. Can we visualise a scenario in which Shane Warne, now, calls for a press conference and utters, "Gambhir was in his nappies when I started playing cricket and so I definitely know more about the game than he does. And I genuinely think that he is an ordinary batsman and a captain having a lucky run." Would that be pardonable? Just because it is another man's opinion?
I do not quite think so. Just like the society has certain norms, the cricketing society too has 'em, and to my mind, Gambhir seems to be operating outside them at the current time.
You can read the first part of this article here.
Not happy at having had to apologize and get reprimanded by Lalit Modi, Gambhir went on to add later that he stood by what he said.
If my memory serves me right, Gambhir had said that Rajasthan was an ordinary side. And then, as far as I understand, 'pleaded guilty' for the same. So, now, if he went on to stand by his own side - however one does that - isn't it evident that he is pleading not guilty?
I think there is something more than Rajasthan Royals or Shane Warne here. I may be speculating here, but Gambhir looks to have been rubbed the wrong side of something - and frankly I can only guess - to which the man is reacting in a manner that one does not associate cricket captains with. Not without any reason anyway. Probably he has just been upset by the kind of schedule that the BCCI has released for the year!
Gambhir said that he was not a hypocrite and said what he saw. Agreed. But, in that case, why plead guilty?
Secondly, let us talk about the law itself. It prevents the players from getting into a mud-slinging competition with each other. Can we visualise a scenario in which Shane Warne, now, calls for a press conference and utters, "Gambhir was in his nappies when I started playing cricket and so I definitely know more about the game than he does. And I genuinely think that he is an ordinary batsman and a captain having a lucky run." Would that be pardonable? Just because it is another man's opinion?
I do not quite think so. Just like the society has certain norms, the cricketing society too has 'em, and to my mind, Gambhir seems to be operating outside them at the current time.
You can read the first part of this article here.
| 220 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
