On the importance of being "visibly sheepish"

This is what Michael Atherton had to say about Sreesanth and the beamer he bowled at Kevin Pietersen in the Sunday Telegraph

Mirroring the ICC's misguided sense of priorities, there was little comment in the media about Sreesanth's 'delivery'. This is partly because only one man, Sreesanth himself, knows whether it was deliberate, partly because a coterie of former bowlers in the press box (Mike Selvey an exception) are inclined to take the charitable view that it was not, and partly because there was so much more, other than the cricket, to talk about. But I have no doubt that Sreesanth's rancorous spell, which included the beamer and the no-ball, was the most glaring example in the match of something that ran completely counter to the spirit of the game. Forget the jellybeans and inane chatter.

Certainly, Sreesanth apologised to Pietersen immediately by raising his right hand but he was quick enough to turn to his mark leaving the batsman to dust himself down unattended. The royal wave was all that was needed for him to be portrayed as an innocent in the matter and to be forgiven. Later that evening Paul Collingwood sportingly did so on behalf of the England team, but his acceptance was hardly gushing.

Rather an apology than nothing, but it seems to me that the apology is irrelevant. The damage could have been severe. A batsman is conditioned to look for the ball on a downward trajectory out of the bowler's hand, and therefore will not necessarily pick it up. (The only other time I've seen one bowled in a Test match, by Glenn McGrath, it stuck straight in Mark Ramprakash's grille without the batsman flinching).

Moreover, an apology doesn't necessarily mean it is sincere. With match referees on the prowl, any bowler with an ounce of survival instinct is bound to apologise, deliberately bowled or not. And the batsman/batting side has no option but to accept it, for if it is not accepted then the moral high ground shifts in favour of the bowler, whose integrity is suddenly in question.

Only Sreesanth knows his own mind, but there was a glaring absence of extenuating circumstances: the ball wasn't new and the lacquer had worn off, making it less likely to slip out of his hand; it wasn't wet; he had directional problems but hardly of the 'yips' variety. We do know that, since the ball landed at the wicket-keeper's feet, he missed his length by a good 30 yards, an extraordinary failing for an international bowler. If it did slip, it slipped with remarkable accuracy, honing in on Pietersen's skull. Shortly afterwards he overstepped the front mark by two feet to bowl a rapid bouncer at Collingwood. Sreesanth was hardly in control of his emotions during that particular spell.

If bowled deliberately there cannot be a more cowardly action on a cricket field; if bowled accidentally it is still potentially lethal. Either way it should incur an immediate one-match ban.

And this is what Atherton had to say about Brett Lee and beamers in the Sunday Telegraph just over two years ago (July 9, 2005) when the Australians were touring England.

Five years ago, Indian umpire Venkat submitted a report which tabled doubts about the legitimacy of Lee's action. Although he was subsequently cleared by the International Cricket Council's expert panel, the suspicions of a kink in Lee's action, especially when he bowls the bouncer, have always remained.

It is precisely the kind of case that forced the ICC to amend their laws on throwing, so allowing bowlers a greater degree of flexion when releasing the ball. Clearly, Lee and others like him are assets to the game even though, occasionally, their actions might break the purest interpretation of the law. The new 15 degree allowance should allow Lee the freedom to bowl at his fastest safe in the knowledge that no umpire will take offence.

The furore that has followed his rather too frequent use of the beamer is easier to justify. The beamer is the hardest ball for a batsman to pick up precisely because it pitches (or doesn't pitch) so far from where the batsman expects. If it is bowled on target, as Lee's invariably is, then it can be lethal. Lee was visibly sheepish after his latest beamer at Marcus Trescothick during the NatWest Series final. After taking Andrew Strauss's wicket shortly afterwards he remained head bowed rather than celebrating in his usual fist-pumping fashion.

His visible embarrassment and immediate fulsome apology convinces me that Lee's beamers are unintentional, although other international bowlers doubt that such a quality performer can be so far out of kilter. The other reason for giving Lee the benefit of the doubt is that he is such a demonstrably decent fellow. His popularity among team-mates, current and former, is legend. Michael Slater, one of the few Australian pundits prepared to speak frankly about former team-mates, says "he's just a champion".

I know exactly what Atherton’s trying to say. He likes the way Lee says sorry. Lee’s faster than Sreesanth, he bowls more beamers than Sreesanth and he says sorry better, more feelingly, than Sreesanth does. There's no inconsistency in Atherton (now) trying to get Sreesanth banned for a match for bowling a beamer and Atherton (then) trying to persuade Australia's selectors to play Lee so he could frighten England in the Ashes series. Once the Indian tour management gets Sreesanth a coach who can teach him to do ‘visibly sheepish’ as well as Lee does, Atherton, being a consistent and principled man, will be content.