What's the best thing about the twirling and thrusting here? That this guy put together an inspired -- and, I hope within a few hours, match-winning -- performance to back up the twirling and thrusting.
Sreesanth has bite to his bark, he's walked the talk -- choose your metaphor, really. And that, married to gutsy Test-match cricket from every Indian player, should win this team a famous victory -- like I said, within a few hours of this seeing air. May Sreesanth always retain that combination of performance and attitude, certainly through many more Test victories.
(And as an aside, it will be a victory that, once again, shows just how spellbinding Test match cricket can be. Take your stream of nondescript one-day games. Give me Tests, every time).
So I wanted to get this up before victory arrives. Sreesanth's antics in that clip are obviously directed at a man who has, famously, not walked his talk. Andre Nel is known for the jibes he directs at guys he bowls to but is no great bowler. Nothing quite like showing a guy like that where he can take a walk. (A reminder of a previous time that happened).
But apart from that, what is the difference between Sreesanth's and Nel's respective antics?
I mean, I open the sports page of the Hindustan Times today to find that Nel has been described as his team's "nastiest bowler".
But of Sreesanth -- who added to the twirling and thrusting by laughing "mockingly" at Hashim Amla after getting him out, photo on HT's front page -- we read that he "charmed and shocked in equal measure and left you breathlessly laughing", that he has "dramatic, belligerent showmanship" and a "spunky in-your-face attitude", that he "symbolised the spirit of the resurgent side." All of this should be "put down to to high spirits and an eye for an eye." And "cricket needs characters as well as character and Sreesanth is a delightful mixture of both."
HT even tells us that there is no real difference: Sreesanth is "doing to [South Africa] what Andre Nel was trying to do to India, only far more successfully."
So why is one of these men the "nastiest" in his team, but the other a "delightful" character?
Or put it this way: If Nel ever backs up his chatter with a bagful of wickets -- meaning, "more successfully" than he has done -- would he too be "delightful"?