I am at a loss to understand the outrage our countrymen having been showing to our cricketers for their dismal performance in the 2007 world cup. Are we trying to say that we have never heard of losses before by our team? I thought we were used to seing one every now and then.
Dating back to the snuff out we had in the test match in England, where our team under Ajit Wadekar was ripped apart by John Snow and company - till date, we have seen innumerable number of losses. But the reactions have never been this extreme. The reason: the hype created by the sponsorers, media and also we (the fans). The unwanted pressure built up on the Indian team to perform - was hitherto unheard of.
If you go by any past statistics we have always occupied the fifth or sixth position in both versions of the game (albeit a couple of occassions). Then why this mass hysteria this time?
In the good old days when Radio commentary was still on and the TV was just getting in, Indian losses were the order of the day. Even those days we had seen scathing attacks made on all the past cricketers including the giants of that time (some of whom are my personal favourites). But no one carried mock funeral processions or pelted stones at their houses. This was never heard of. Now dont tell me that we did not have fans those days and that we have fans only these days. That is hard to believe.
I would put it differently now. We have more fanatics now than ever before - I use that word because quite a few times in these columns I saw the mention of cricket being a religion in our part of the world. Well one sees it as a religion then it is to be related to downright fanaticism - for a true sports lover, cricket still remains a sport with the required changes to be made to infuse life into the game and its supporters.
I also saw someone mention - when we give something we need to get something in return. I quite dont understand that statement. What did we give to get back - our working hours, our sleep and what else? In what way did we help the cricketers except by praying for their good luck and good performance?
RE:The Outrage
by enticejuan on Mar 26, 2007 10:31 PM Permalink
very very very true some useless foolish jobless median and country men doing it let these fanatics and lunatics die in anger .
RE:The Outrage
by Sudhir Bisht on Mar 27, 2007 07:49 AM Permalink
The analysis(rather discussion) by both you guys is simply outstanding. Thanks for such inputs, and keep writing now and then..
RE:The Outrage
by Chiradeep Chhaya on Mar 26, 2007 10:48 PM Permalink
My friend, we have more fanatics because there are more people hoping that those who earn billions can at least make an effort to repay the adulation that the Indian public gives them. The advertising income they make comes, albeit indirectly, from the money we pay the channels, from the products we use and pay for. The Board has billions of dollars to exercise its muscle with and spend on the players on things such as yacht parties and what not, but cannot contribute that to bettering the seating and basic facilities in stadia that we spectators pay hundreds of rupees to fill and get into. Fans outside India pay hundreds of dollars to buy telecast over premium channels and the web; don't these fans have a right to expect a fight and not a whimper? You'll say 'why pay then?' and I think you'll be right. We should stop paying for these, leave every stadium empty and turn off our television sets rather than burning effigies and performing funerals. I am appalled to see the number of Indian fans here in the US turning to NBA, MLB, F1 and things so that at least their heartfelt expectations are not mocked at by the performance of our players every time they take the field.
How can you still be in doubt of what we give them and what we have a right to expect?
All I can say is that none of the cricketers asked us to buy a ticket and watch the match or hook onto private channel telecasts at pretty steep rates. It was a choice you and I made out of love for the game. So where is question of give and take? It is only a game - win or lose are the only two options (may be a tie in some cases).
As far as sports is concerned we still have a long way to go in our country. By nature we are soft sportsmen in all our sports - not ones who have battle hard mentality to win every game in the sports we play. I am sure you will agree with me on this point.
RE:The Outrage
by Chiradeep Chhaya on Mar 27, 2007 12:17 AM Permalink
I am not sure if we'd say the same about Vishy Anand at this stage at least, since chess is as un-soft a game as it gets when we talk of mental skills. The fact is our cricketers have never endured long sessions of mental grilling on the domestic circuit and the competition in other sports also tends to be below par domestically. And the blame in some ways goes to the administrators. Assuming that you have very good practice facilities, you'd see sharper talent at the domestic levels, which in turn contributes to tough, healthy competition, thereby readying those who make the cut for greater challenges ahead. Also, a very noticeable aspect is that all good players and teams - SA with Gibbs, Aus with Symonds and NZ with Fulton, Taylor and the likes - have multidimensional players. They're also good at other sports, which I believe is essential since it exposes you to mental challenges of a different sort. Perhaps that is why you might find the general IQ of those players will tend to be higher than our fat, obese bumpkins. They're more adept at thinking on their feet than most of our players are. And I think Greg's experiment of practising alternate means of focusing and taking the blokes out to seminars was a good one; the reason why it failed was that our players were dumb and could not correlate those lessons with their cricketing challenges.
