The Hindu : Sport : `Great' has become a cheap label

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Jun 30, 2005

Sport

Sport

`Great' has become a cheap label

The 19th century writer William Hazlitt once said: "No man is truly great who is great only in his own lifetime. The test of greatness is the page of history."

In these modern sporting times of constant embellishment, Hazlitt would be laughed off, for greatness is about the here and now, it is bestowed with every century made and goal scored, it is amplified on advertising hoardings and awarded without considered thought.

"Good" in sport doesn't cut in any more, it's not sexy, it's not marketable, but "great" grabs the attention, it is handed out like cheap candy, so what if history is going to laugh at us.

Andy Roddick is apparently a "great" player, but since when did "great" become affixed to a player with one slam, a 1-8 record against Federer and 1-6 against Hewitt. Roddick hardly claims the label, but he's not even close.

So many players of the Indian cricket team are routinely described as "great", so was its previous coach, which makes it rather confusing when its performances don't quite fit the word. OK, maybe Australia is just "greater", right?

Everyone is the "next great thing" because we can't wait long enough to see talent mature, because our attention span lasts just about as long as it takes to flick the channel. "Great" stops the finger.

Test of time

No test of time is demanded any longer, no deliberation required, no proof of lasting ability asked for. History has no chance in front of hype. Judgment is not reserved but imposed swiftly, a label fastened, and then the player must either grow into it, or be defined as a waster of "great" talent.

Sania Mirza apparently has "greatness" written all over her and she is barely starting. Kevin Pietersen is no doubt a "great" one-day player, so what if he's played only 17 matches, has his face embossed on Ashes posters though he is yet to play a Test. Mahendra Singh Dhoni is already the next Gilchrist.

Embroidery needs to be reined in, exaggeration must be handcuffed, deeds must be powerful enough not to require any inflating. Labelling players is fun, but it's also setting them up for failure, for the expectation is often disproportionate to an athlete's true talent. Michael Owen is a fine player, but any appreciation of him is complicated by the impossible standard set for him as an 18-year-old when comparisons were made with Pele.

Real greatness

Men like Tendulkar, owner of a real "greatness" arrive once in a while, and even with him, now, people are amending their earlier judgments. Once he was clearly "greater" than Gavaskar. Now, some wonder.

It is a label being rendered meaningless because almost everyone's a "great" player these days. How do we separate them? If Maria Sharapova, after one Wimbledon, is "great", then what do we call Monica Seles with nine major titles, and Martina Navratilova with 18, and Steffi Graf with 22?

Greatness has no precise definition, there is no set amount of slams won, or wickets taken, to qualify. But surely it means being a dominating presence in your sport over a lengthy period, supreme talent meshed with consistency resulting in a grand record.

Greatness must never be easy either, it cannot be Serena Williams practising for a week, then arriving at Wimbledon expecting to win. Serena is to be congratulated for finding interests outside sport and discovering a more rounded personality, but "greatness" demands an almost Sampras-ian like monkish existence.

It is a full-time job, not a past-time, and Serena has to make a choice. Being "great", even in these times, must not come this cheap.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Sport