It can be argued that hockey was not hyped in the media of the 1950s because the sport has never been associated with ‘posh’; this is something that reflects the media’s own aspirations and its bias towards the upper-class, and also the heavy colonial hangover during the early years of independence. Since then, of course, the hockey team’s fortunes have dipped and in general, Indian performance in sport has been mediocre. The broadcast boom worked in cricket’s favour; the sport is better deconstructed on television than at the ground, and hence does not depend on a proactive stadium audience to maintain a following.

This book will grip an audience that is more interested in peripheral cricketing themes such as sociological circumstances than technical aspects of the game (which he barely touches upon). Some will claim the book puts forward fairly obvious points—though, what constitutes “fairly obvious” varies for different sections of the readership. What is incontrovertible is that minor errors have crept in because of the dated nature of the essays. Tennis, for instance, has incorporated a system of challenges since the time his piece “God’s Eye View: Cricket and the Camera” was written. Elsewhere, a couple of times, he self-indulgently acknowledges not knowing enough to comment. A sports journalist I was speaking to recently, dismissed Men in White as a piece of armchair writing; “Kesavan has never played the game,” he said, essentially using the same elitist argument that reporters use against sub-editors. I have more sympathy for him; notw ithstanding his tendency to make the occasional glib assertion his writing elevates Men In White. It is when the author takes a stand — and to his credit, when he’s on a roll he makes beautifully coherent arguments — that the book finds its purpose.

For instance, he is at once detached and passionate when arguing against the injustice that Wisden did in ignoring Tendulkar while picking the hundred best centuries in Test history: “To grade a single batting performance... in the light of victory and defeat, is to place on it a burden that it shouldn’t have to bear. Worse, such a judgment is untrue to the moment and to the experience of contemporary spectators. Innings that subsequently seem decisive more often than not begin and end with the issue unresolved and the match in the balance. Subsequent performances by others in the team, bowlers, batsmen and fielders, build on the promise of the innings or betray it.”

He also (rightly) takes the view that men like Barry Richards should not be bracketed alongside the Tendulkars and the Gavaskars — not because they weren’t fine batsmen, but because politics kept them out of international cricket. It is not Richards’s fault, of course, but mythic potential and a string of outstanding scores in league cricket cannot be allowed to compensate for a robbed career at the highest level.

The book revolves around Test cricket, the form the author grew up watching. It is a thread that links the at times seemingly non sequitur-ish narrative. Kesavan is always a pleasure to read because his writing is lucid, sharply stylish and infused with a knowing sense of humour. A collection of essays such as this one usually exists more because of the stature of the writer than for the ideas collated but Kesavan has earned the right to put this out.

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