The Hindu : Sport / Cricket : It isn't cricket

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Mar 22, 2007
ePaper

Sport

Sport - Cricket

It isn't cricket

Impressive numbers do not necessarily translate into high value, writes Nirmal Shekar

Like cigarettes and alcohol, serious sport — read cricket, in the context of the sub-continent — must be sold with a health warning. Practising and following sport with too much passion may be injurious to health. And, the word `sold' is being used advisedly; for, the line between aggressive, over-the-top salesmanship and serious journalism has disappeared in many sections of the media.

The wildly contrasting, ridiculously intemperate reactions from the fans, 48 hours apart, to India's unexpected loss to Bangladesh and the team's record victory over a bunch of Saturday afternoon public park amateurs from Bermuda, are indicative of the alarming spread of a deadly culturally-transmitted virus.

This has led some to remark that sport — again, read cricket in the Indian context — has become too important for its own good, far too serious to be enjoyable. On the surface, this does appear to be true. But, dig a little deeper, and this might seem to be a specious argument.

For, sport is not something that can independently catapult itself to high status. It is the people following it who bestow on it the importance it may or may not deserve. Cricket is important and serious business because tens of millions of people in this country believe that it is.

Fanatical following

At a time when a solitary Indian loss in the World Cup can trigger the sort of ugly scenes that were witnessed in Ranchi and elsewhere in the country last Sunday, in an era when young men shave their heads clean, light incense sticks and perform `puja' to their cricketing gods, it might be unwise to even question the importance and seriousness.

But, a few days after a good man lost his life at the age of 58, possibly because he chose to serve a sport and a team with too much passion and dedication in a dangerously stressful environment, a moment's quiet reflection on the real value of cricket (sport) may not hurt at all.

Merely because a few thousand crores are riding on the presence of the Indian team in the Super Eight, simply because a few tens of millions of people might miss a heartbeat or two if Team India fails to make it to the second stage, a high value cannot be attached to the outcomes of matches. Impressive numbers — whether it is money or it is the number of people following the sport — do not necessarily translate into high value. If we believe otherwise, then there is a serious need for a revaluation of values.

A point to remember

The point is, many people have forgotten — or do not seem to have the capacity to understand — why cricket was such an enjoyable thing in the first place. For, over several decades, the game has mutated in the realm of popular culture into something that may not even have a passing resemblance to the sport that it was — this, not in the way it is played, but in the way it is followed and prioritised by the public.

Sport, says the new, revised Oxford English Dictionary, is a pleasant pastime. A matter affording entertainment, an occupation of the nature of a pleasant diversion. It is indeed time to urgently question ourselves if we have the right grasp of the meaning of something that many of us have always taken for granted.

On the other hand, when you look at how much we have caused sport to distance itself from its original meaning, you realise with shock the sort of metamorphosis that a multi-million dollar sport such as cricket has gone through as a cultural phenomenon in India in the minds of many of its followers.

A lot of Indian fans would have been pleased if Rahul Dravid had been tried for murder after he made that poor decision — in hindsight — to bat first against Bangladesh in slightly difficult conditions. One bad decision from a remarkably upstanding gentleman cricketer and the whole country is angry.

Dravid, surely, will never attempt anything quite like what the greatest cricketer to walk the face of the earth — Garry Sobers — did 39 years ago on the very same ground where India lost to Bangladesh.

In a sporting attempt to bring to life a seemingly dead Test match, Sobers declared the West Indian second innings at 92 for two on the fifth day, setting England a target of 215 in 165 minutes. Colin Cowdrey's team raced to the target and ended up winning the series 1-0.

That was sport. That was a visionary sportsman's decision. That it backfired did not matter too much in that era. But, if Dravid were to do it in India today, houses would be vandalised and public transport buses will burn.

Too much at stake

Today, seemingly, there is far too much at stake in cricket for it to be viewed as sport. Yet, that is what it is.

The truth is, when our cricketers fail, in the larger context, it hardly matters. But when our politicians, public servants and nation builders fail, it does matter. If only we had demanded of these men and women — from the time of Independence — the same level of organisation, unwavering consistency and excellence that we always seem to expect from our cricketers, India would have joined the First World of nations long ago.

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

Sport