Congratulations to Sri Lanka for winning a rain-affected Test series against Zimbabwe. They were clearly the better side overall, although there was perhaps not too much difference between the two teams, neither of which appeared to be at their best.

Both teams bowled and fielded particularly well almost throughout the series, with Sri Lanka's seamers doing a fine job and Muralitharan troubling the Zimbabwean batsmen but without terrorising them. Zimbabwe would have been a more difficult proposition had Heath Streak been fit, and it is conceivable that Zimbabwe might even have won the series had he been at the top of his form because the Sri Lankan bating was well below its best.

In the First and Third Tests the Sri Lankans relied an inordinate amount on Atapattu and Arnold respectively, who scored half their runs. In the Second Test Dilshan played the major innings, although this time he received a lot of support from Jayawardene - but again the other batsmen did little. Had Zimbabwe been able to dismiss the top scorer cheaply, Sri Lanka would have struggled - and Streak has so often been the man to do that. But cricket does not deal with 'if only' situations, and with the given resources Sri Lanka deservedly came out on top.

The controversial Goodwin dismissal as reported in last week's editorial excited several letters coming out strongly on one side or the other. The main aim of the editorial was to point out the offence this dismissal caused in Zimbabwe, and elsewhere as South Africans and Englishmen present came out very strongly against, but rather than condemn appeal for such matters to be discussed and resolved at a higher level, with perhaps the Test captains doing most to reach an agreement. Some of the letters seemed to miss that point.

In view of the strong feelings aroused, it has been decided not to include any of this correspondence on our regular Letters page, as we do not want to fuel controversy but rather find solutions in a spirit of goodwill. The exception is a letter from David Colin-Thome, a Sri Lankan living in Australia, who has some very interesting comments to make connected with this matter. Otherwise, we consider this matter closed as far as possible; cricket should foster goodwill rather than hostility.

Unfortunately, if almost inevitably, there has been some apparent fall-out on the field of play from this incident, as after the Third Test three Zimbabwean players were fined 30% of their match fees and given 'suspended suspensions' by the match referee after complaints about sledging by the Sri Lankan management. Since this is the first time Zimbabweans have been punished for this type of offence, it would appear to be more than coincidence that it followed the Goodwin incident.

Not that this condones it, even though it has been said in some quarters that what the Zimbabweans did was very tame compared with what they received at the hands (or lips) of the Australians or South Africans. That doesn't condone it either. Sledging has never been an accepted part of the game in Zimbabwe, although that is not to say that it has not taken place, as former national captain David Lewis will testify, but this was generally kept to Currie Cup matches against South African teams. By sledging we mean the deliberate policy of strong verbal abuse, rather than the odd word or phrase of exasperation emitted by bowlers or fielders.

Neither do we really need banned the odd bit of verbal jousting or humour - between consenting individuals, one might say. It is when it is done with planned malicious intent that we consider it crosses the line, although it is sometimes hard to define that line. Respect for opponents has been one of the traditional basic disciplines for cricketers, and sledging of the kind we are opposing breaks that tradition. It is also, in a sense, bullying, as one batsman is at an obvious disadvantage when more than one fielder is doing it, and even at a one-to-one level the batsman is far more liable to be put off his job than the fielder.

Sledging is also now against the laws of the game, and all three indicted Zimbabwean cricketers admitted they had been in breach of the ICC code of conduct. One wonders then why the umpires chose to ignore it, but umpires do seem to be reluctant to step in and have a quiet word with the fielders responsible. If they would do this early on and in a good-natured way, much unpleasantness could be avoided.

One article appearing in CricInfo recently stated that five different Test teams have complained about the sledging they have received when playing against Australia. Zimbabwe was not one of them, although they too have had the same treatment. They may have learnt some bad habits since they gained Test status, but they don't want to be seen as 'squealers', and they have clearly learned to give in return. Unfortunately, as things are at the moment, a side on the receiving end of sledging appears to be at a disadvantage if they do not respond in kind.

In one way it is puzzling why Australia should be guilty of so much sledging. Perhaps one reason why Zimbabwean players do not appear to be unduly offended by it is that at least the Australians are willing to mix with them off the field and keep their hatred for the field of play. But Australia are quite good enough to win matches without sledging, so why do they indulge in it? Is it considered part of the macho image? The greatest Australian cricketer of all, Sir Donald Bradman, has never countenanced sledging and Keith Miller vehemently denies it was done in his day, so it is obviously not a long-standing tradition. However seriously we take the game, it is still a game and not war.

Sledging is one of those matters that should (but probably won't) be discussed by the national captains. As we said last week, matters that cause offence, whether we feel that offence justified or not, need to be resolved, not ignored, otherwise the game we love degenerates into antagonism and hostility. In the meantime, let's see Zimbabwean players keep a clean image.

A final word for readers and supporters still looking for various items of news, most notably provincial news: unfortunately our difficulties continue with finding reliable correspondents, and every week we go to press with several promised articles not submitted. We keep trying.