Why Cricket?

For a long time, what seems like ages, there has been a cry about fading popularity of the national sport of India, hockey, and almost no support or backing for other sports and other sportsmen. For decades, sportsmen playing other sports have been wanting support and attention and of-course the sponsorship which keeps the sport alive. Hockey has lost its sheen or importance as the national sport and though in official records it is still the national game, cricket is the only game which attracts huge sponsorship, huge crowds on any given day. It has long replaced hockey as the national game, although unofficially. Why is cricket so immensely popular in the Indian sub-continent? Why such a boring game (test cricket runs into 5 days and becomes bit boring when the result is a draw) which lasts for almost 7 hours (ODI) or 5 grueling days (Test) is so wildly popular and followed by millions of fans? A game which came to India only because we were once ruled by the British, a game which only handful of countries play, a game where one has to chase a small red leather ball for the entire day. How can such stupid game draw millions of fans to the stadiums, keep them glued to the television sets for the best part of the day? And how can few people make the whole nation stop and pray for them? Lets make an attempt to find out.

In my opinion, there are many factors contributing to the popularity of cricket and that starts with our so-called "gully cricket" and our childhood. For many decades now, parents have found it easier to buy plastic bats and balls for their toddlers, mainly boys, to be specific. I guess, throwing a ball or hitting it by a bat (or whatever object in hand) doesn't need specific skills. Also that bat-ball thing brings a wide grin to the kid's face for sheer movement of the ball (mostly red) and sound of hitting it with that plastic bat. Almost every kid gets attracted to any sort of sound made by someone and playing bat-ball is probably the easiest way to be with them, throw the ball to them and ask them to hit, sounds music to most of the parents here.

Availability of round rubber-balls, widely used for gully-cricket, or even harder tennis balls at cheaper rates gives a good reason for teenage boys to play cricket. Plus, you don't really need a proper cricket-bat at all times. I myself have played, with whatever I could, with my friends with wooden plank, hardbound registers, normal wooden bats (costing barely Rs. 20-100) and sometimes, even with bare hand used as a bat; of-course it was painful to hit the ball with bare hand. We were crazy bunch of kids back then. And it wasn't really necessary to have a full size ball, it could even be a smaller one, the size of a table-tennis ball, to play in the backyard.

The other reason, and which many would agree to, is in India, especially in cities-towns, we live in multi-storeyed apartments where we do have a bunch of kids. You don't really need 2 sets of 11 players to play the game. We have played with 3 players on each side and have thoroughly enjoyed it. All you need is one bowler, and two fielders, wall acting as stumps and wicket-keeper. Mostly, you can't find 11 players in each side, even for the over-arm format of gully-cricket or small grounds and you find teams playing without their own wicket-keeper. The batting team provides one. So mostly, there are no runs scored or offered behind the stumps line. (Probably one of the reasons why Indian batsmen are good at driving the ball.) The point is when majority of the boys in the society are playing cricket, it becomes tough for the other kids not to go and join them.

Currently, if you look at the state of sports in the country, it is only cricket where you have multiple state/region teams, many of the companies do have their own cricket teams. It means that there is sufficient infrastructure available at the base level to groom, nurture and provide cricketers more than other games. Though there is a need for establishing and developing the basic infrastructure for other games, because cricket is the most popular game in the country, there is no such development in that direction. Moreover, other games require some special skills, and special conditions. To become a hockey player, you have to acquire the skills of being able to use the hockey stick and hit the ball in the desired direction (like cricket), and also to pass the ball towards the other player through the crowd of opposition players attacking or pouncing on you. Moreover, you have to be able to hit the ball (in hockey or football) into the goal post, no points/rewards to hit it in any other direction. For almost every other game you need to have special skills, and apart from hockey and to some extent football (football is not yet as popular, except in convent-run schools and some colleges), most of the other games are individual games. So you have to rely on self and prove yourself. For cricket, it is rare to see a specialist in India. It being a team-game, your inability can get covered by others in the team and you get a chance to rectify your mistakes. In hockey, I don't think if I make an error, I would get another chance in the remaining part of the game. As Shahrukh Khan says in "Chak De", the ball barely comes to you for more than a minute in the entire 90 minutes of the game. Who would want to run around the ground when you hardly get any chance? In cricket, you either get to bat, or bowl or even field, and a chance to do something on the ground.

Well, another reason for the popularity is public view. I came to know about this when I started travelling in public transport. We all have seen funny interviews and discussions on the game, before and after it, by the so-called experts of the game. The interviewer or the host rarely gives the expert a chance to voice out his full opinion and in the end, ensures the expert is saying the same thing that he (or his producer) wants. Remember the "Match ke Mujrim" on some news channel (probably Aaj Tak or NDTV) after India used to lose in matches? But in the public transport it is even more frenzy, fanatic. Anyone and everyone who sees something related to cricket, has his/her own view on the game, mostly its result. People, even those who don't even know the difference between off-spin and leg-spin talk for hours on how the bowler should have bowled. Those who can't tell the difference between cover drive and pull shot, bark about how a batsman should have played that shot to save his wicket and win the game. This insane following is the fruit of telecast of the game to millions, or we could say, the game is telecasted to millions because people love to watch the game. The media knows what to show and how to show. They have long ago picked the hint of showing the game to people and get most viewership.

Lack of heroes in other games, especially in the past, has also been one of the contributing factors. Barring Major Dhyanchand, there wasn't a big name in Hockey, or we rather would say, other names were quite overshadowed by his game. But after we stopped winning at Olympics, the game slumped in the popularity quotient. In tennis, chess, badminton, we have had heroes in recent past, not too long ago. People like Prakash Padukone, Dhanraj Pillai, Anand have made us proud on numerous occasions, but I have rarely seen people inspired by them and representing the nation and taking over the torch from them. But in cricket there have been many such performers who have inspired the kids in the nation to take up this game and dream of representing the country. Right from the pre-independence era, we have had some fascinating players who drew crowds to the stadiums, inspiring youngsters. And the media has only added to that fascination. Ask any current young cricketer, what brought him to the game and they would unanimously say, Sachin Tendulkar. Seeing him, many drew inspiration and came to the game and are now representing the country. Right from Sehwag, Dhoni, Gambhir, Ashwin, Yuvraj, Virat, you name them and they would say the same story. Sachin himself got attracted to the game because of Sunil Gavaskar and the story goes on backwards in similar fashion. I am of-course not neglecting the role of media in making Sachin a legend and visible inspiration to youngsters. If they had not seen him on TV, they probably wouldn't have been drawn to the game. But the point is many kids saw him reaching new heights and their love for him and the game has only increased. He too has been a fine ambassador of the game, a inspirational figure for others. We also had a great reason to celebrate when Kapil and his "devils" won the 1983 World Cup and now when Dhoni and his team has won the 2011 World Cup. Never short of heroes, to be honest. If the other games want to have a better status, they need to have more heroes, impactful heroes, who could put the name of country on global scene with consistency. Sania Mirza did show that hope, but it was short-lived. Saina Nehwal currently is doing great and hopefully she can inspire others. But ofcourse, we need better infrastructure for those sports too.

In today's times, I have seen many people saying cricket is not a worth-ful game only because it has become a fashion to criticize the game, the players, especially after the match-fixing scandal. They say, football is better game, hockey is national game. But more often they sound like people who don't like cricket's popularity and don't really care for the other games too. Merely following the game on TV doesn't mean you become a football fan or a hockey fan or a tennis fan. You have to know the game, understand the game, understand the nitty-grittys of that game. Cricket, as a game, is lot easier to follow. We all know, how a bowler should bowl, how a batsman can score and how a fielder should field. To understand it is a lot simpler than to understand the other games like football. It isn't mere kicking the ball and scoring goals. There are hell lot of other things in the game. Even a housewife knows what is a wide-ball or what is a run-out. That ease of knowledge is not associated with other games in our country. As a small kid you tend to follow what the family is following and this is passed on from generation to generation. That is the real beauty of the game's popularity. Media has only cashed-in on this, but it has always been there right from the beginning.

I have tried to touch a few points which I found important over the years of playing and watching cricket. As Rahul Dravid pointed out in the Bradman Oration recently, cricket started out as a gentleman's game, but has trickled down to the common man, even to the poor section of the society and that makes it more popular than any sport in the country. In a poor section, you can't really afford to buy that big foot-ball or a hockey-stick and no tree branch can substitute for a hockey stick. But you can always find enough money & time to buy a small rubber ball and a wooden plank to play cricket in your backyard. Unless you have the real desire to stand out and counted for the other games, I don't see any reason why in India cricket will lose its popularity to even football which is the world's most popular and one of the richest games.

Readers sure have the right to disagree, but believe me, for the next 10 years I don't see any cricket match having completely empty stands or zero viewership, which sadly has been the case with many of the other games.

Indian Cricket and "Numero Uno"

Indian cricket team was recently stripped down of the "Number One" tag which it enjoyed for close to 2 years. And they were comprehensively beaten up by the Englishmen, aided by the increasing injury-list of Indian team members. However, there is no denying that the others, who played, didn't put up a better show.

It was sad to see the Indian team struggling to find good bowlers once Zaheer & Ishant were ruled out. Only Praveen Kumar, with a large heart, showed some fight & fire. Others were just taken for ride in all the matches. Things were made worse by the batsmen (except Dravid) who consistently failed in English conditions. They just didn't put up a big score. Other biggies like Dhoni, Laxman & Tendulkar played in patches, but that was never going to be enough when you have a weak bowling attack which couldn't pick 20 wickets convincingly.

The question after this series was quite crystal clear. For most of the time of being "Number One", India played at home in familiar Indian conditions. It would have always been difficult to be on the winning side in foreign conditions. Just before the World Cup 2011, India was beaten in South Africa, & now they are going to Australia. The question, as mentioned above, is "Did Indian team really deserve the tag?" I am not at all questioning the ability of this team & like all cricket lovers,

I have not failed to notice the extreme hard work put up by the team to earn that tag, to rule the cricketing world in the most testing format of the game. However, considering the history of the game & characteristics of the previous "Number Ones" who enjoyed that status for longer period, some more than a decade, it is time to be honest & ask ourselves, did the team really look like a "Number One" team?

Just take a look at the few previous "Number One" teams & you can get a brief idea of what I am coming to.
Australia in Bradman era, especially after he became the captain, 'The Invincibles'
West Indies in the late 70s and early 80s
Australia again in most of the 90s and early part of the current century
Instead of throwing the 'ever-so-stupid' statistics let me tell you a few things about these teams.

Talking about "The Invincibles", that team had a great captain in Sir Donald George Bradman (Don). He was what Sachin Tendulkar is now, or arguably even better. (But my vote still goes to Sachin Tendulkar in terms of being a complete batsman, although Don was a lot more effective, more in Sehwag mould, but was consistent like Sachin.) That team believed in the most important aspect of being "Number One"; complete domination, being ruthless. On field there was no chance or opportunity given to the opposition, & no chance of the opponent getting up once knocked down. Interestingly, in the late 90s and early 2000s, under Steve Waugh, the Australian team showed similar character traits. Both the teams didn't just have strong line-up, but more importantly, they lived upto their reputations, almost every time. They always played to win the match, not even thinking for a "draw" result unless, there was no other option.

Both teams had bowlers who could take 20 wickets in any given conditions & their batsmen consistently scored 450+ together. Noticeable was the fact of Steve Waugh's team, they scored at a brisk rate, of close to 4 or even more, & whenever they batted first, they often scored about 350+ on first day, declaring or getting out at close to 500+ on next day, by tea & trying best for enforcing follow-on on the opponent. The strategy was simple, score bit, put pressure on chasers, or bundle out the opponent cheaply & successfully chase the target.

The West Indies team in the late 70s and early 80s had a different, yet similar, strategy. They had the fleet of big-tall-fast bowlers, & a fleet of aggressive stroke-makers. But the thing was, either their bowlers made sure that their batsmen don't have to chase bigger scores, or their batsmen made sure their bowlers had enough runs on the board to defend. And this they did everywhere, not just in home conditions, but in England, in Australia, in India, in Pakistan, wherever they went. They probably were un-affected by the conditions, just played their own game & were quite successful at that.

The point is, these teams were not just consistent or ruthless, but they also were not affected by any wicket, any conditions. Apart from this, they had a team in which everyone performed. Bowlers were effective in all conditions, consistent in almost all games, took 20 wickets convincingly. Batsmen were good, focused on the game, & not throwing away wickets like in ODIs (like our batsmen did in South Africa and England). Someone or the other stood up and played for the team, but more often the whole team performed.

During the tenure of our team as "Number One", as I said earlier, we played mostly in Indian conditions. Batsmen put up runs for the bowlers to defend and we relied on the spinners to get the opposition out twice. However, it is worth to be noted that we played only 4 specialist bowlers for most of the series and the fast bowlers kept going out of rhythm because of the batsman-friendly nature of the wickets. And more importantly, after the retirement of Anil Kumble, we dearly missed the ability to wind up innings. The opposition tails wagged more than often and we just couldn't tighten up the hold on the match when half of the opposition had given away their wickets. This surely is not the sign of Champions. We were not ruthless. Agreed our bowlers were tired after being pelted all round the park, but so did the opposition bowlers.

How often we saw that our tail wagged lot more than usual? Except for the two centuries by Harbhajan Singh against New Zealand, and a few innings by Ishant Sharma, we never had any tail to be honest. Playing only 4 bowlers didn't help either, because the so-called 6-7 batsmen didn't put up enough runs consistently, & we did have to rely on part-timers to give rest to the specialists.

Interestingly, Mike Atherton commented on a particular shot, where the close-in fielder ran till the boundary & not the pacer who could have reached there first, that it is kinda un-written policy of the English team to give rest to the pacers & they literally meant it. The close-in fielder did most of the job to run to the boundary rather than letting the pacers (especially those who were in their spells) do that job. That help them conserve the energy, & they could come back fresh in next over. It seems a silly thing for us to accept that, but if it helps in any way to the bowlers, why not? Why let the bowlers work hard in the field when you can do the job for them. Ofcourse, no one is asking them not to do the fielding, but when it is possible, why not?

The English batsmen in almost all of the innings, ran hard between the wickets when the Indian bowlers tightened up the boundaries. We run between the wickets only when we are sure the ball is not going to reach the boundaries. Why be lazy? They ran hard, kept the score board ticking & piled up big scores. And we kept on looking for boundaries and wasting precious time & losing out runs. And the new lot of batsmen did virtually throw their wickets when all it was needed to stay on the crease, play like how Dravid played.

As long as our team is missing out on these simple basic things, & as long as we don't show the ruthless attitude, & wrap up the innings, we are not going to be looked on as real Champions. Every team who comes to India, says, Indian team is very strong & hard to beat in India. When would the teams say, Indian team is very strong & very hard to beat (regardless of the conditions). Unless, we take our game to that level, it would always be tough to retain the "Number One" status for long. And now that the big-trio is on the verge of their respective retirements, & the youngsters still not settled in, it would be interesting to see, how soon we can grab back the "Number One" status & then maintain it. God forbid, if the trio retires, & if we don't get suitable replacements, then we would go 10-years back from where it all started.

Wishing a good luck to the Indian team down under & hopefully, if we win the series, then we shall see how best we can cover up these finer points & become "Number One" again.

Sachin... Sachin...

He arrived on the big stage in a very quiet manner. He didn’t score much in that series and the results weren’t very exciting in context of the matches played. But, even before he made his international debut, he had followers, largely the ex-players who had seen him burst on the domestic scene. There were stalwarts like Dilip Vengsarkar, the recently retired (in 1988) Sunil Gavaskar, and many ex-players in domestic circuit who saw him score debut-centuries in Irani Trophy, Duleep Trophy and Ranji Trophy (a record which is still in his name). He was even exposed to on-his-peak Kapil Dev in one practice-session by Dilip Vengsarkar to see if he could handle international bowlers. Sadly, he missed his tour to West Indies in 1989 and had to wait a few more months.

The tour to Pakistan in November 1989, therefore, is an interesting point in his career, albeit because it was his debut tour, but more because, he was exposed to a quality bowling line-up comprising of Imran Khan and the cricket-ball-wizard, Wasim Akram and the fast-and-furious debutant Waqar Younis who famously bloodied his nose in the match. Here was a young lad of barely 16 years who everyone was monitoring microscopically; and they still do after 22 years. Even before he had faced his first international delivery, people had started expecting wonders from the wonder-boy, Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar.

Not long ago, another Mumbaikar, Sunil Gavaskar had set a new batting record in Test matches, scoring 10,122 runs and 34 centuries. And Sachin was touted as the next Sunil Gavaskar, immaculate in defence and fearless in attitude. All this at a tender age, when boys of his age worry about which college and which stream to take admission to. Ironically, he faced passport issues because of his age, and no one could believe that a small teenage boy could play international cricket. This same teenage boy showed his first glimpse in an exhibition match against Pakistan when he took head-on another ball-wizard, the famous leg-spinner Abdul Qadir and slapped him a few sixes (against the spin) when batsmen over the globe were finding it difficult to play his spin.

But, in my opinion, the high-point of his glory would still be his match-saving century against England, his first, the way he batted, the way he chose the strokes and played, the way he bisected the field, the way he ran between the wickets, choosing wisely when to run, that is the hallmark of a great batsman and he was just 17. Then he scored 2 back-to-back centuries against Australia in Australia and that’s when he started earning respect around the cricketing world. The Aussies come hard against him, but they also love and respect him more than even their own players. They cheer for him even when he scores against them. He has never looked back since then.

So what makes him one of the greatest ever who has played the game? Just by going the abovementioned antics, should we call him one of the greatest, or even arguably the greatest ever? Sure, there have been many other players, some within the Indian team, who have been better than him. Sanjay Manjrekar had enough of talent to be better than what he was. We also missed the left-handed Sachin, as he is referred to now, Vinod Kambli who could have gone miles ahead if he had used up his potential. Azharuddin was more artistic in batting, leagues ahead of what VVS Laxman is today. A Sehwag is more destructive than what Sachin has ever been. But we still hear “Sachin… Sachin…” even after 22 years.

There is something magnetic about him. Not only because he is the highest scorer in both formats. Not only because he has highest centuries in both formats and just one century close to the never-seen-before magical figure of 100 centuries. Not only because he has won so many matches for the team and has highest ODI Man-of-Match awards and India’s highest Test Man-of-Match awards. Not only because he is the only person to score a double hundred in ODI.

It is the manner in which he has played over the years. It is the way he has changed and adjusted his game to the changing times. It is because the way he builds up his innings, slow-and-steady, but still leaving enough time to allow the team to win (or draw) the matches. It is his consistency with which has been able to dish out brilliant performances, maybe not centuries. It is the way he has behaved on and off the field, and become inspiration to hundreds of aspiring cricketers. Ask any player in current team or who has played in this team over the past decade. Not one would deny his part in helping them on improving their skills, be it a bowler or a batsman.

The bowler-centurions, Anil Kumble and Harbhajan Singh, attribute their batting skills to him. Players like Gautam Gambhir, Yuvraj Singh, Virender Sehwag and many other juniors admit his guidance has helped them improve their batting skills. Moreover, even seniors like Dravid and Laxman look up to him when in doubt. He is not just a complete batsman; he is an encyclopedia of cricket. His knowledge of the game is not restricted to batting, his tips and guidance has helped bowlers too. He is loved for that, respected for that. And for me, that is something I would worship about. He may be the highest scorer of the game, and may have records, that might never be broken. But he is also someone who would never hold back things for himself. Brian Lara, Sachin’s closest competitor, never was interested in other things. He used to practice at times, play the game and go. He never showed interest in bowling. He wasn’t really the one who would take initiative, sit with newcomers and help them. But he was exceptional in the field and at times even better than Sachin, scoring heavily whenever he scored centuries. Almost all of his centuries are big ones.

Sachin has always connected with the people, viewers, fans, by heart. No wonder, he has the highest fan-following wherever he goes. We have had flashy players who had young-fan following and people loved them because of their flashy attitude towards life. People like Ajay Jadeja, Yuvraj Singh, Virat Kohli have been termed as lady-killers. They had young fans, crazy fans; no doubt they were good at the game too. But with Sachin, things are completely different. His fans are not bound by their age. Anyone who knows the game, who understands it, is his fan, irrespective of caste-religion-nationality.

No wonder, when Indian team was going through the black-era of match-fixing, it was Sachin who was able to bind the team together alongwith seniors Ganguly-Dravid-Kumble and other youngsters. Not only it helped the team, but it brought the fans back to the cricketing grounds, to the television sets. India had lost badly in the World Cup 1999 and also lost badly to South Africa in home-series. It was then when he stepped down from the captaincy and handed over the reins to Saurav Ganguly. No one could ever point a finger to him in all that black-episode, because he has played his game fairly. Navjot Singh Sidhu famously said, “You can doubt the Prime Minister, not Sachin Tendulkar”.

He may not have lived up to expectations of people. People still accuse him of not scoring centuries or match-winning innings in finals, especially after the 2003 WC in South Africa. Part of that argument is true because he has succumbed under pressure at times. But is that really the match-pressure? I feel, it is more of performance-pressure. Pressure of failing to live upto the expectations. Pressure of failure in-case he gets out, he knows others won’t really be good enough to win. Sadly, our team has always proved him right. We lost that dreadful match against Pakistan in January 1999 in Chennai, by just 11 runs. No Indian fan would forget that match. He struggled against chronic back pain, scored 136 and got out to a shot which he shouldn’t have played. But he knew if he doesn’t finish of the match, Pak bowlers are capable of winning the match even with low margin. And just that happened, sadly. He got out to McGrath in that 2003 WC final. But in the tournament, it was his batting that helped us score and reach the finals, along with the superb bowling performances by trio, Srinath-Zaheer-Nehra. If he had not scored that 98 against Pak, we were out of the tournament. But he lived up to his promise. He had famously quoted/promised the Indian fans after the loss to Aussies in league-stage that the team would play better and he would see to it that there would be no more hiccups. He lived up to it.

There has been another funny accusation; whenever he scores a century Indian team loses the match. That’s the silliest thing I have ever heard. And infact, that shows how immature the self-proclaimed critics are. In a cricket-obsessed country, we forget the fact that batting is two-person skill. You can’t score alone, the batsman at the other end has to give you support, either by rotating the strike or holding up his wicket. When Lara scored those 400 runs, he had a stickier than Fevicol, Shivnaraine Chanderpaul at the other end who scored 150+. When Sehwag scored his first triple hundred in Multan against Pakistan, he had Sachin at the other end who scored 196 not out. Whenever Sachin has scored a century and the team has lost, check out the scorecard for that match. I doubt you would ever find others scoring more than 50. It would be his show all alone. He might be God to the millions of fans, but he still needs someone to give support and score runs at the other end. Matches can’t be won with single person doing all the scoring. There are very rare occasions when it has happened, not to forget Kapil 175* against Zimbabwe in 1983 WC. That match still ended in a win for Indian team. Whenever the team has lost inspite of his century, there have been very rare occasions when others or one of the other players has contributed. Either the bowlers have failed, or the other batsmen. No point in saying, he steals the show by taking all the strike. It would hold well only if his strike-rate is below 90 (in ODIs) for that match. In all such matches his strike-rate has always been above 90 which means he has scored fairly rapidly and given enough opportunities to other batsmen.

Off-late it has been a fashion or pride in asking Sachin to retire, or saying he is blocking a place of youngsters. But, his performance doesn’t support this. He is 38, has played for 22 years, but he is still in good form and playing better than most youngsters. The only problem is he has been thinking a bit more than usual about landmarks. He slowed down when he broke Gavaskar’s record of 34 centuries. He slowed down when he broke Lara’s record for most runs. And now he has slowed down when he is about to score the magical hundredth century. Give him time, for he has given his prime age to the sport. Once, he is off that monkey, I am sure you would find him back to his ways of scoring runs, tons of them. Forget that landmark, forget the media, forget putting extra-ordinary pressure of it. Just let him be his own self. Let the crowd once again go “Sachin… Sachin…” I am kind-of hoping he waits and scores his 100^th century against Australia in Australia. And I am damn sure about it. That would be the pinnacle of his achievement.

Oh! And by the way, I am sure the ever-hungry Indian fans have not forgotten, he is 2 centuries away from 50 ODI centuries. There is still enough left in us to put pressure on him. Let the roar aloud: “Sachin… Sachin…”