• For latest updates on mobile SMS CRI to 52622

C. Rajshekhar Rao is the Editor of Cricketnext.com. He has over 15 years of experience in sports journalism and has covered cricket extensively at the domestic and international levels.

More Columns

Archives

Bhajji grounded but what about Sreesanth?

Harbhajan Singh’s career received a rude but predictable blot when he was handed an 11-match ban in the Indian Premier League (IPL) for slapping S Sreesanth, an India team-mate who was on the other side of the fence during a T20 match.

The Punjab off-spinner has been a problem child for long, his first major incident of indiscipline being an act of tearing up the menu card at the National Cricket Academy a decade ago. He has had a long and controversial career in which he made friends and foes alike and during which even his bowling action has been under scrutiny, but the biggest controversy featuring him was the recent ‘monkey-gate’ controversy which had Andrew Symonds as the other central character.

In a storm that just about fragmented the world of cricket, Harbhajan got away on a technicality with the BCCI backing him to the full. But this time around, Indian officials probably realised they have created a monster that needs to be subdued, thus, the appointment of another committee by the BCCI, which will decide his future since he is a contracted player of the Indian governing body.

But what about the other protagonist in the episode that has made Indian cricket a laughing stock? Sreesanth, who is proving to be irritating rather than intimidating to batsmen, escaped with the kind of warning that he has now been so used to getting from officials.

Harbhajan’s forceful attitude probably helped him garner the courage to bowl without fear and get wickets by the bagful over the years, but Sreesanth is yet to do that. While Harbhajan matched fracas with scalps, the swing bowler from Kerala is far from doing justice to his uncalled for aggression.

Total Comments: 105

Posted : By S.Ramprabhu

buddy..sreesanth didn;t go and field there of his own..dhoni made him stand there..and that particular catch even u will take it in ur dreams..haaa... this is cricket not a movie to show ur considerations

Reply to this Comment

Posted : By siddharth

this prooves how the match referee was more intrested in watching Ms. Zinta who might have cried on ss bieng slapped.Harbhajan should understand his owner aint a actress.

Reply to this Comment

Posted : By Deppak

I agree with this but i also belive that the Mumbai Indian team should have stayed along side Bhajji through all his problems. The team management should stand along side its players. The punishment was fare but we must listen to both parties and the umpiers; i believe that team managemented should have pushed this forward.

Reply to this Comment

Posted : By Thrishal

Great Yet another indian story!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1People and the "experts" say that what bhajji did was wrong.Why?Because he is a professional and he should never have done it.Agreed but the same proffessionalism is being questioned.I''ve never seen a proffessional CRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! that too on the field..What is happening???Saying that you may say that bhajji should have not done that in the first place.Ok but i was not impressed by the crying part..What was sree thinking???Maybe some sympathi from Preity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Well he got what he wanted.....

Reply to this Comment

Posted : By bradman

most of the bowlers and fieldsmen irritate batsmen like rajsekar irritate most of the readers. he wants sree to hit back. did miandad hit back Lilee.what was the great bowler Macgrath was doing with Sarwan. he was irritating only. Australia is practising mental disintegration using the great bowlers and fieldsmen including great captains.

Reply to this Comment

Feedback Form

Your Feedback

Name

Email

All the content posted in CricketNext.com Blogs section, unless specified otherwise, are made by CricketNext employees. The content posted in on CricketNext blog does not follow routine internal CricketNext reviews and editorial processes and should be considered only as the views and opinions of the writers themselves.