Skip to main content

The "great" Indian cricket follower

One of my most common laments about growing up as a cricket aficionado in India is the fact that the average Indian cricket fan is more of a fan of the Indian team than of the game itself. And even here they are fickle in that the same players go from hero to villain and back to hero every other day depending on Team India's fortunes. This piece (and especially the passage below) by one of my favourite cricket writers, Siddhartha Vaidyanathan sums it up nicely.

 "I have also been charitably compared to Mark Antony for switching sides and writing a eulogy for Tendulkar a day after advocating that he be dropped. I am stumped at the number of people who fail to understand that the first piece was about the selectors (and the rebuilding a team) and the second about celebrating an incredible career. I am also amazed at how many people think this is a zero-sum game.
What pains me is how a large part of discourse on the internet is so limited to black and white. You are apparently either for Sachin or against him. If you question his place in the side, you are a moron who has no right to express an opinion or an ignorant bum who has never held a bat in his life or someone with a vested interest."
This attitude towards Tendulkar is representative of the general malaise that affects cricket following in India and maybe (if I'm allowed to be a bit bombastic for a second) even Indian society in general. Everything has to be black and white. And while I don't agree with Vaidyanathan on dropping Tendulkar from the Test team, its not because I hesitate to see Tendulkar's failings or recognise that he is long past his prime. And I also think that many of the points that he makes are well thought out and true. And I'd love to have a discussion/argument with someone like Vaidyanathan on the topic. Sadly though, that's not something I can say of most Indians I talk cricket to.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Et tu?

As a single sport website, I think Cricinfo has brought about a revolution and the fact that they were bought by ESPN is testament to how highly valued they've become. Their editing and approach to articles/opinion has been refreshing to say the least and even though they seem to have had a lot of editorial staff movement they've usually maintained very high standards. Off late though, both in their headline styles as well as in actual content, there seems to be an occasional slippage of standards and an inching towards the modern media sensationalism which is a bit of a pity. This piece  by Siddharth Monga is a classic example. Granted that the last two press conferences by Dhoni and Sehwag  indicated clearly that the captain and his deputy did not agree on this aspect of selection but "discord", "dissent", "public sniping" feels rather presumptuous and heavy handed. Yes, it is a team sport but there is no reason why everyone on the team needs ...
1 comment
Read more

The Ashes part deux: series preview

While I admire the honest, outspoken style that Ian Chappell has in his commentary and writing I don't find myself agreeing with his views very often. This latest piece on ESPNcricinfo is an exception though. In what is a faintly ridiculous set of back to back Ashes series (to accommodate an ODI World Cup of all things), the build-up to the second round has been laughable almost. Anyone who hasn't followed the game for a few years might be forgiven if they thought that the Australian domination from the 1990s and early 2000s has continued and that they will win in a canter again. For a team that's lost seven of their last nine matches (and it should have been eight really), that's quite a good turnaround on paper (and digitally). The reality though is that unless they show a drastic improvement (especially in terms of scoring runs) and England have a bit of a shocker, its going to be well nigh impossible for Australia to win back the urn. Despite putting Buffoon Bo...
Post a Comment
Read more

Quick singles: Why the double standards?

I'm no fan of David Warner's but for once, I'm firmly and squarely on his side . Sportspersons are probably treated the most unfairly by public opinion (and often the media) whenever they are involved in pay disputes. "Oh, look these millionaires are complaining about not getting paid enough" seems to be the gist of the general reactions. I find this attitude inexplicable at best and grossly hypocritical if I'm feeling less charitable. Like the rest of us, all athletes have the right to fight for what they think they should be paid. That is the fundamental part. In addition (and unlike many of the rest of us), most sportspersons operate in the knowledge that they only have a short period available as a performer, and therefore only a short period to maximise earnings. Most people that I know would behave exactly the same as Warner and his colleagues are doing. So why all the hue and cry?
Post a Comment
Read more