Ishant Sharma and Steven Smith - Two villainous winners

Steve Smith and Ishant Sharma

The World love heroes. They embrace winners and scorn losers. They despise them to an extent that the players won’t even dare to try their luck once more in the game.

But what happens when a winner turns out to be a villain in the middle of the play? ‘Ethics’ will throw brickbats at him, though some fans will still silently enjoy his triumph. But once he loses, that’s going to be the end of everything. The whole World will start hurling stones at him.

We expect our heroes to win the game as well as our hearts. But at times, the players will have to make a choice between the two. The most difficult and confusing choice. Experts are flying over their top like vultures, to tear them apart if they take the wrong pill. Their eyes are sharp.

Sanjay Manjrekar, someone who was sent back to the pavillion by the on-field umpire for his exemplary calm demeanour, has a bit of advice for Ishant Sharma. Brendon McCullum, the sacred soul who ran out Muttiah Muralitharan when he went to congratulate his partner for scoring a century, raised his voice against Steven Smith. Deeds, not words.

Two ‘villainous winners’ - Ishant Sharma and Steven Smith. What did they earn, for playing with extreme passion and intensity? What did they garner by wearing their hearts on their sleeves? Hatred and denunciation. Be happy gentlemen, at least you won them for your nation.

Ishant Sharma - ‘The Hurricane’

Ishant was embroiled in an ugly brawl with Dhammika Prasad

When Virat Kohli locked horns with Mitchell Johnson in the previous Border-Gavaskar series, we said Kohli is a ‘tough guy’, ‘on your face character’, so he should be allowed to play the game as he wishes. When Michael Clarke got embroiled in a brawl with James Anderson, we said that’s the Aussie way of playing the gentleman’s game.

But when Ishant showed his inner demons to the Sri Lankans, the World said it was ‘ugly and unnecessary’. So is sledging, a privilege of players in the top 10 Test rankings or is there something that makes Ishant’s sledging a bit uglier than the rest?

Sledging carries a nice little recipe. 1 spoon of aggression, 1 spoon of contemptuous smile, ½ spoon of vengeance, 2 spoons of annoyance and a bit of humour to taste. But what the lanky pacer displayed was 3 spoons of vengeance, 3 spoons of aggression and 3 spoons of intimidation. A bit of unwanted salt can make the dish savour horrible.

Yes, I agree it was unwanted. His gestures were demented and his celebrations resembled that of a maniac. Because he doesn’t know how to give flying kisses to the bowler, like Kohli. He also doesn’t have any ‘punch dialogues’ in his pocket to deliver, like Clarke. To make things worse, he isn’t that good looking and handsome as the other two, or else he would have got some support from the female fans at least.

And his actions were condemned. Because Ishant is not a hero. He was the hurricane who blew off the Lankan batting line-up with unprecedented aggression and precision. He was totally uncontrollable. He screamed, he danced and at the end of the day he was banned.

But that should be the end. Too much opprobrium won’t do any good. We must respect him for what he did to his country. At least he has the support of his captain. We haven’t seen Ishant like that before, therefore, give him one more chance. He is not the only one who should be criticised. The word ‘aggression’ has a different meaning today.

Steven Smith - The cold-blooded Aussie

Smith discussing the controversial decision with Eoin Morgan after the match

At the age of 26, Smith has a tough job in hand. He is not just any captain, but the skipper of the Australian cricket team. A team led by Steve Waugh, Ricky Ponting and Michael Clarke. A team renowned for mental toughness and perpetual hunger for victory.

Yes, Smith simply wanted a win. It was his first series as a full-time captain. And that too after handing over the Ashes urn back to the Poms. Yes, he badly wanted to win.

But that’s not the only reason he is being crucified. He led from the front and they said he exploited the rulebook to his favour. And what's more! They said he was heartless and callous.

Isn’t that too harsh towards a young man who has just stepped into the cricket arena? What did he do to deserve such severe reproval from all parts of the World? Mitchell Starc’s throw was quick. Ben Stokes’ reflexes were even quicker. And to make the situation more perplexing, Stokes’ hand-eye-co-ordination was nothing short of amazing.

Maybe it was accidental. But there was always an element of doubt and Smith decided to leave the decision to upstairs. And after the first couple of replays itself, the TV umpire JS Wilson declared it out. That means the unbiased third umpire confirmed that Stokes’ action was intentional. So what’s wrong in agreeing with him?

But for many, Smith showed unethical behaviour just as his predecessors. They asked him to learn maturity from M.S. Dhoni. But think a bit, in Ian Bell’s controversial run-out, it was absolutely sure that it was a case of silly misunderstanding. And Dhoni also got a break to come up with an ethical decision, which was later lauded by millions. But Smith, in that short time-span couldn’t take a decision against his team when Stoke’s intent was unclear.

Well, Smith didn’t try to be a saint or sage by withdrawing the appeal and gifting a free wicket to the opposition. Even Rahul Dravid, a man known for his morality and creed had appealed once against Inzamam-Ul-Haq for obstructing the field. So let’s forgive Smith if he had taken the wrong pill. Let’s take into account the human fallibility. He is a highly talented and hard working individual. Let him grow to the unreachable heights.