It is ironic that the author chooses to condemn cricket, almost as if that were a valid excuse for the continued failure of all other sports in India. India's cricketers are world beaters, they are the second best in the sport, and in a cricket crazy country it is not easy to be one of those eleven that wear the India cap. Why the author would rather discount that baffles me, and also hints at a writer bereft of valid arguments or proper ideas. More so, when he considers that India's cricket team does not turn up to participate but to win, an attitude he seems to find lacking in all other sports. If India does not win at sports, it is not because of cricket. It is because other sports have failed to emulate cricket by finding young and promising sportspersons and setting up academies like the MRF Pace Academy or the National Cricket Academy, to nurture and grow those talents. If they had not been around, Indian cricket would not be where it is. If other sports are to succeed those sports associations need to find ways to provide players a genuine career through a combination of financial assurance, stability and recognition instead of trying to make sure that for every one Indian athlete at the Olympics, they do not send two "officials" who are in it merely for a free foreign trip. If cricket can bring in John Wright, Greg Chappell and Gary Kirsten and hold them accountable why can't Indian hockey do something similar? Criticising cricket is convenient but stupid.
