Cricket's taking a beating
Deepti Patwardhan
May 27, 2005
Cricket may thrive as long the Indian subcontinent exists, but it is an
endangered species globally, without a restoration plan.
It is time to explore where the game stands as a sport in a larger context
and why it has failed to become a global phenomenon.
A poignant reminder to this is this week's sports line-up.
England are busy flogging Bangladesh, and Pakistan and the West Indies are
involved in an insipid contest while the rest of the sporting world is
still recovering from the attack of the Reds and busy talking about a
potential mouth-watering French Open teenage battle between Rafael Nadal
and Richard Gasquet.
Steven Gerrard's inspirational leadership and goalkeeper Jerzy Dudek's
dramatics during the Champions League final penalty shoot-out saw
Wednesday night dressed in crimson as Liverpool completed an epic
turnaround.
This, only days after a heart-stopping FA Cup final that was also
stretched to the shoot-out. Manchester United made move after move and
squandered them all. Arsenal, as they later conceded, were only trying
hard 'not to lose.' They finally didn't!
Liverpool showed uncommon spirit in the second half and Arsenal underlined
the importance of patience. In the end both the games reflected the heart
of sport, their teasing unpredictability and the brilliance of the
playmakers.
Paris anticipates a contest between Nadal and Gasquet on Friday. Both 18,
both ambitious. Nadal is one of the contenders for the crown; Gasquet the
potential spoilsport in the scheme of things.
Roger Federer is also looming large on Paris. Talent and grace live with
him.
There is Maria Sharapova and her quest to top the world; and Justine
Henin-Hardenne, refreshed in body and soul. And there are a whole lot of
pretenders lurking around Roland Garros. It is a Grand Slam known more for
the upsets than the unfancied winners it decides to pick.
While football and tennis are capturing young minds and has everyone
swooning after them, the cricket matches have hardly created a ripple.
Bangladesh, you think don't belong to Lord's. They were bowled out for 108
on the first day by England.
West Indies, with a top order weaker than Steven Gerrard's left toe, gave
an unpalatable batting display. Brian Lara lifted the game, showed his
genius and then burned himself out.
Every now and then cricket throws up such leathery feasts. The game is
restricted in quality as just ten teams belong to the top rung. And
effectively there are only seven teams competing. Australia are too good
for the rest; Zimbabwe and Bangladesh hardly matter. Everyone in between
is plagued by inconsistency.
Every sport has its off day, but the number of such days is simply piling
for cricket. The International Cricket Council's 10-year programme makes
sure that you don't have India or England play Australia the time. So we
have to make do with Australia playing Zimbabwe and call it a Test.
There is a very little chance that cricket will go global. Given
Bangladesh and Kenya's progress, including more countries in the circle
may further demean competition. The ICC's ambition of making countries
like the US, Canada and Hong Kong play with the big boys was rendered
useless as the minnows were flogged hopelessly.
Jagmohan Dalmiya tried to take the game to unconventional places but
rather than expanding its influence, it may have unwittingly introduced
the game to match-fixing. The strains of the malaise have also been found
as far back as 18th century but it just bellowed as the game started to
move out of its traditional centres.
Peter Roebuck wrote after the McKinsey report, commissioned by Cricket
Australia to study demographic trends in cricket viewership, showed a
steady decline in cricket audience in Australia: 'In part it is a global
phenomenon. A suburb has become a city, a city has become a province, a
province has become a nation, a continent and finally a planet. Modern
wars can be understood only as the dying rage of the different.
'Australian cricket's main rival is distant and probably untouchable. The
English Premier League dominates the thoughts of young sportsmen from all
corners of the planet.'
In this global village, cricket will find it difficult to retain its
audience. Satellite television is providing a variety of sport and the
growing Internet influence has already starting to take its toll on the
young audiences in India.
The ESPN School quiz Olympiad on Indian television showcases the students'
familiarity with football, tennis and Formula One as well as a complete
disregard for cricket's history. They have no difficulties identifying
even an average player from football but struggle to recognise Vijay
Hazare.
Cricket is slow, long, and the games that matter are played in white
flannels. None of this will excite youngsters who grow up on a soccer and
basketball diet.
Moreover, cricket cannot compete with games like these either for quality
or quantity.
Very often it fails to be a spectacle and the interest is restricted to
international games. The number of people following domestic cricket in
India is almost negligible. Reports suggest that the trend is not too
different in the other Test-playing nations.
Tennis, meanwhile, is played all round the year and is not all about the
Grand Slams. Formula One keeps reinventing itself. For football, if it
isn't the EPL, there are the other European leagues, the UEFA Champions
League or African and South American competitions.
Even indigenous games like hockey will find a way to survive, because it
has a larger playing base. The European nations pump in the support, while
the game thrives well in India, Pakistan, Australia and South Africa and
even in countries like Egypt and Argentina.
It will be almost impossible to expect quality cricket in places like the
US, Canada and Namibia, when even its founding fathers and the biggest
cricketing country is struggling to dominate.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/