I was bored so decided to drink some milk.

Then I thought about milking.

That's when this came up - Between Shahrukh Khan, Shilpa Shetty, John Buchanan, Shane Warne, and Sunil Gavaskar, Whose Milking Who?

Have a read.

Failed former cricketer.
Making a living by telling international cricketers to do what he couldn't.
Made out to be a super coach by the Indian media.
Milking the owners of his franchise through nepotism.

These are the few things that Sunil Gavaskar has said regarding John Buchanan.

A bit uncalled I think.

Failed cricketer or not, Buchanan is arguably the most succesful coach cricket has ever seen.

So to say something like that is not justified.

It is one thing to criticize his ways and theories, another to criticize the man.

Had Gavaskar only talked about how worthless the multiple-captain theory was, it would have been fine.

To go on and attack the man behind it, the way Gavaskar has done, is not justified in my view.

What's more is that Gavaskar has blamed Buchanan of nepotism claiming that "he is milking his owners", i.e. Shahrukh Khan.

Now if Shahrukh Khan was being milked, I'm quite sure he would have known that.

I don't think that Buchanan has been able to talk Shahukh Khan into hiring support staff that may not be required by the Knight Riders.

Not at all.

SRK may not know his cricket, but he surely knows how to do business.

For Gavaskar to blame Buchanan like that and suggest that Shahrukh is being milked is not only naive but utterly foolish.

Isn't Gavaskar part of the IPL Governing board?

In that case he should have definitely not spoken like this.

And if he sincerely thought that the "poor owners" were being milked then why didn't Gavaskar try and talk to SRK about that?

Surely that would have been the wiser thing to go.

SRK is also not one to stay quiet.

His response was to tell Gavaskar to buy a team of his own and implement his ways.

Now if that were to happen, we can be sure that Gavaskar will not include Rohan Gavaskar and his mumbai pals in the plan. Would he now.

One person I would really like to hear from regarding all this is Shane Warne.

When will the King of Spin speak up?

Oh and one more thing. Gavaskar has criticized the Indian media as well of giving Buchanan and other things undue importance.

The same Indian media that Gavaskar is a part of!

What is the relevance of 319?

Its quite high if you are the only triple century scorer of your country and hold the record for the highest test score by a test batsman from your country.

The relevance is even higher if its your second triple century that places you in the same league as Sir Donald Bradman and Brian Lara.

And finally, it puts you at an entirely different pedestal if with that score you hold an Indian batting record and you don't have the surname Gavaskar, Tendulkar, or Dravid.

Thus 319 is of great relevance to Indian cricket as well as Virender Sehwag who smashed those runs in a mere 304 balls. Fastest ever triple century, 10th consecutive century above 150, and all mentioned above is what was special about Sehwag's innings. Definitely a treat to watch.

Uncle J has even mentioned all that he could have left to watch that innings LIVE. It was THAT good.

But how good is Sehwag really?

Apart from his first 4 test centuries, all the rest (10 of them) are 150+ scores, a fact that has been well documented over the last few days. These 10 centuries have come in a span of a bit over 4 years between December 2003 (195 vs Australia) and March 2008 (319 vs South Africa).

Less than 3 test centuries per year - does that place him among the greats?

Sehwag scored 151 against Australia in his previous test. But there was a gap of 7 tests and 13 innings between the 151 and the century before that - 180 against the Windies at St. Lucia. He had only 2 fifty plus scores in those 13 innings with a best of 65.

Between the 180 against the Windies and his previous century - 254 against Pakistan - there were 6 tests and 11 innings during which he scored only 1 fifty, an unbeaten 76. Plus, between the 254 and his previous century, also a double (201) against Pakistan, he played 9 innings in 6 tests scoring only 1 fifty.

Sehwag definitely scores big when he gets to a 100 but his centuries are few and far in between. They are quite dispersed and the scores are inconsistent in between the 100s. Compared to his 14 centuries, he has only 13 fifties, which highlights the inconsistency of scores between the 100s, but at the same time shows his ability to score big, really BIG when he does.

Despite being inconsistent can he be considered as a great?

Moving on, I think that there is one fact that goes entirely against Sehwag. Sachin has been criticized in the past for not playing enough match winning innings for India. I'm afraid that the same can be said about Sehwag.

India have won only 1 out of the 10 tests in which Sehwag scored over 150. While India drew 6 of those 10 tests, they lost 2 of them - to Pakistan in Bangalore when he scored 201 and to Australia in Melboune when he scored 195. The current one will in all probability end in a draw.

Have Sehwag's innings been of importance to the team? Not exactly.

They haven't secured wins for India apart from in Multan when he scored 309 against Pakistan. Nor have they been 2nd innings match-saving type knocks - all of them have come in the first innings.

Definitely an entertaining batsman with the ability to keep on scoring once he gets set, but is he one of the greats as Sanjay Manjrekar has described?

Special he is, no doubt about that. But great? Not really. What's your call?