IN RESPONSE TO THE USUAL MISAPPREHENSION OF A POST OF MINE, A CRICKETING ONE IN THESE CONTENTIOUS TIMES, WHERE THE RESPONDENT ARROGANTLY INSINUATES MY IGNORANCE IN CRICKETING MATTERS

IN RESPONSE TO THE USUAL MISAPPREHENSION OF A POST OF MINE, A CRICKETING ONE IN THESE CONTENTIOUS TIMES, WHERE THE RESPONDENT ARROGANTLY INSINUATES MY IGNORANCE IN CRICKETING MATTERS

Not at all. A post has to be understood in perspective. Else, it is a futile discussion, an endless troll that is best left alone.

P.S. Fanfare is one, analysis another. The critic sees deeper into things than the surface sight of the enchanted follower allows him/her to see. The former, though, advances the cause of both the game and life. The fact that Australia has won five World Cups thus far as opposed to us having won two is because they have a brighter sporting culture where mass adulation is not all that is called 'cricket' but where serious study of the game, its history and the systems associated with the game are given prominence to. Most important is the fact that they do not decry rational original thinking, creative contributions and the fundamental critical approach to life which is the foundation of Western civilisation post the Enlightenment. Our slipshod thinking, hyper-adulation of heroes bordering on irrational worship and neglect of rational thinking make us susceptible to mere frothy emotion instead of depth-understanding of the game and adoption of consequential measures that would make us unfailingly the numero uno team time and time again as Australia historically has been. That we had put in place decades ago some positive institutions like the MRF PACE ACADEMY and the like have paid dividends decades hence whose harvest we are unthinkingly reaping now. That Virat Kohli has set in a new order of heightened physical fitness which was traditionally neglected by us has now begun to show in our much improved fielding and general performance. When this requirement was pointed out by critics decades ago, they were laughed at by their surface-critics that cricket was not football or athletics after all. So, was Bradman's diagnosis of Gavaskar's failures in 1981 down under as his having grown slightly overweight which made his movements at the crease slightly slower, thereby making him susceptible to the faster deliveries a trifle more which was costing him his wicket, neglected by the Little Master. These are debatable issues for sure but they are being cited to consolidate my case. So was Greg Chappell's breaking the immobile mass of Indian cricket criticised by all and sundry except such hawk-eye critics of the game as Mansur Ali Khan Pataudi who with some reservations as to Chappell's methods and means in an Indian setting of an entirely different sociocultural outlook welcomed his initiatives nonetheless and called them constructive for the future of Indian cricket. What Ganguly and Tendulkar did not heed, Dravid did, Dhoni did and now Kohli and company are following suit. Not all but the more intelligent and the diligent section are doing even today for it has now become cricketing culture among the players, not so with the fans, though. Greg Chappell brought about the collapse of the personalised system of cricket in India---albeit often by resorting to questionable means which were undesirable from the view-point of fostering team-spirit---and ushered in the golden age of Indian cricket along Australian lines which intent of the post in altered context is here being resented by followers such as you as well. May my countrymen be better rationalised! But will they, given the social propensity to irrational thinking?

Written by Sugata Bose