Hopefully, the final say from my side on the "the spirit of cricket" in this Sydney test row, where not many remember the details of the game as much as they do about who was abused by who, who was accused by who of what, who lied and who didn't, who was out and given not out, and vice versa.

This relates to the "play hard, play tough" excuse given every time an Aussie decides to mouth off. Australia has a lot of champions in a lot of sports; it is a huge force in sports of all kinds, and cricket is just one of those. However, did Cathy Freeman, Ian Thorpe, Pat Cash, Lleyton Hewitt, Greg Norman, Mark Hager and many other champions routinely mouth off at their opponents? Is someone seriously telling me that Hewitt can tell Andy Roddick on center court of Wimbledon that he is "fu**ing gonna kill you, b**tard" and get away with it?

Sure, all those players are tough, they are champions, and they play the game hard too. However, their sport is not as liberal as cricket is in allowing behavior of this kind, and hence they don't try to get out of line so often. They might scream loudly and pump their fists to psyche themselves up, or throw their racquets in frustration, but most sports would not allow them to take off on their opponents and term it "mind games". Cricket does, and hence the shit we find ourselves in today!

Cricket in this regard considers itself different, and I don't understand why! Rather, why the governing body doesn't do more to control stuff that doesn't need to belong on a cricket field. I am sure Australia can beat the pants off India eight times out of ten without having to behave like boors; it is just that no one stops them from doing so and they realize that intimidation works more times than not. They can still win without intimidation but they realize that it would be a lot easier with intimidation, and cricket's bosses doesn't really care; in fact, for years the cricketing world has been celebrating Australia's toughness (read boorishness) as one of the reasons for their success. Ironic, since the laws of cricket do not actually permit nonsense, which translates into the Australian toughness, and everyone who misbehaves still has the cheek to talk about the "spirit of cricket".

To continue on this line of "Oh, we leave what we say on the field of play" crap is to invite more trouble in future. Kumble being called a b**tard by Hogg (this article explains the offense to the Indians; "To be born out of wedlock heaps great shame on families"; LMAO @ the explanation though technically I can't see anything wrong with it) is offensive to Indians and not to Australians; fair enough and India being what it is, controversies do die out after some time. Can someone imagine what might happen tomorrow when any of the more hard-line religious countries start playing international cricket and the same thing happens? I am not really joking when I suggest that a religious edict being issued against a cricket player as a response to being called a "b**tard" is a reality in the future. I know it might be many years in the future and hey, might never even happen, but do we really want to find out the hard way someday? As for the lying, do we really need to consider the merits of a team that finds it necessary to lie to win? Remember the "spirit" thingy everyone keeps spouting on about?

There are too many people out there playing cricket, and to consider that all of them should either follow the Australian way or the Indian way is stupid. That it has not yet come down to blows on the field of play or attempt to murder in a fit of rage doesn't mean it never will. As long as there is sledging, abuse, mental disintegration or whatever you want to call it, the risk remains. The bosses of cricket bodies worldwide are not helping matters any with their short-sighted views that test cricket is not "tiddlywinks". Neither is tennis, swimming, golf or athletics the same as "tiddlywinks", and these sports managed without sledging and to talk as if one can win in cricket only with the aid of sledging is drivel. Twenty two players are given the freedom of hitting sixes and fours, bowling toe crunching yorkers or bone crunching bouncers, dive around the field in order to save runs or catch each other out and if five days of that is not enough for one team to prove itself better than the other, maybe neither team is better? In that case, even tossing a coin is a more dignified way of judging the contest than by lowering oneself to the depths of lying, deception and abuse. Look at this report - isn't it ridiculous to be discussing a defense based on the abuse to a fellow competitor's mother to negate an accusation of racism? Are we really in that bad a shape, Mr. Malcolm Speed, and what exactly do you plan to do about it?

Come Perth, if Lee sends four Indian batsmen to the hospital, I would applaud but if either team has to act like animals to get the win, then it just isn't cricket, and for all its victory cups and medals, the team in question would be the biggest losers in my book.