We are all missing the point. Tempers have flared, egos have been hurt and there's been a lot of unnecessary talk between Sunil Gavaskar and Ricky Ponting, a former great and a modern-day giant of cricket. While the latest salvo from Gavaskar on the death of former Australia batsman David Hookes was uncalled for, what amazes me more is how conveniently we have ignored, or chosen to ignore, the remarks Ponting made.

The issue at hand is not ‘who is the better team’. The issue is more to do with ‘how do cricketers conduct themselves on the field’. Craig Hackney's very recent article on Sportingo made me wonder a little. There were two parts to it. Firstly, the writer talked about the Aussies having a more 'colourful language' in their culture, and, secondly, about the Aussies losing to England in 2005 because of their seemingly good behavior. Before I discuss these points in detail, let me add that this is nothing personal against the writer, whose articles are always informative and extremely well written.

A 'colourful culture' does not mean that they get a licence to be abusive on the ground. Look at the way the Aussie players and crowds have behaved in the past. Here are a few examples:

1) Darren Lehman, on being dismissed, refers to the Sri Lankans as ‘black c***s’.
2) On air, Dean Jones called Hashim Amla a 'terrorist'.
3) Aussie crowds hurl racist abuse at the South African players.

The list goes on. I am no expert in the Australian culture, but I don’t think that any culture encourages people and sportsmen to engage in racist abuse. And I don’t think that Australia lost to England in 2005 because they were good blokes. The fact is that England had an in-form pace attack, and batsmen in form. Australia had Glenn McGrath unavailable for two crucial matches, Jason Gillespie was woefully out of form, as was Michael Clarke and a few more Aussies. For once, can’t we all admit that England played better cricket? Did Australia lose to the Kiwis 3-0 recently because they were good blokes there, too?

Just like Gavaskar had no business bringing Hookes into the whole issue, Ponting had no business talking of India’s record. In sport, winning counts but what also counts is the manner in which teams conduct themselves. What Gavaskar talked about was the latter. Why have writers and commentators missed out on the fact that Ponting talked rubbish by dragging records into the fray and by personally attacking Gavaskar, when that was not the point at all?

Agreed, Gavaskar is not the epitome of good manners himself, but the point he was making had some truth in it. When we read reports of the Aussie crowds showering racist abuse at players, what do we think? Do we think, ‘No, these are just a few lunatics' (which is what the fact is) or do we incorrectly generalise by thinking, ‘Well, look at how their team behaves. It's no surprise that the crowds behave like that - that’s how all Aussies are’.

Cricketers have a duty to behave because they are ambassadors of their countries. Sadly, Gavaskar at times used to forget this during his playing career (as was demonstrated at Melbourne, 1981); but Ponting, too, probably doesn’t even know that they are supposed to be ambassadors of Australia and that they need to behave.

Have Ponting and Gavaskar gone too far in their comments? Sned your views to Sportingo.