Jump to content

Vision 20/20


Gambit

Recommended Posts

Vision 20/20 Soumya Bhattacharya, Hindustan Times Email Author September 17, 2007 As India took on Pakistan in the Twenty20 World Cup in Durban on Friday night, I settled into a corner of my ersatz leather sofa at home with an advance copy of Philip Roth’s forthcoming novel, Exit Ghost. The TV was tuned to Animal Planet: my six-year-old daughter was watching a fleet of lions barrelling through the African savannah. India was playing an international cricket match, and I couldn’t be bothered with even the score. It hasn’t happened since I was five years old. Usually, it’s not like this. Usually, when cricket is on (and it need not necessarily be an India game), life at home is what happens between overs. It’s been like that for as long as I can remember. As a matter of fact, not too long ago (or at least not long enough ago for me to be not able to remember), before I was an average, middle-class, getting-to-be-middle-aged working father, all of life was what happened between overs. Even now, ‘V.S. Naipaul’ is what flashes across my mind second when someone says ‘Trinidad’; ‘Queen’s Park Oval’ does first. On the underground in London, I still always feel a certain quickening of the pulse, an odd, visceral thrill when the train pulls into the Oval station. Cricket gives me — has given me for as long as I can remember — a sense of place. I think of cities in terms of their cricket grounds: it is the most enduring geography lesson I have ever had and it brings closer and makes familiar places with which I have little acquaintance. It gives me a sense of time: a certain event in my life is referenced with the memory of a particular game. It is, I have found, something that offers a coordinate, a centre amid the daily, changing clutter of life with which it is so tough to keep up. So what happens with Twenty20? Why does it leave me so cold? Let alone not wanting to watch it closely, why do I actually not care at all how far India go in the World Cup in South Africa? The trouble is, Twenty20 doesn’t seem like cricket to me. It appears to be not so much a speeded-up, watered-down version of cricket, a sort of cricket-lite for dummies who are incapable of comprehending the complexities and subtleties of the greatest game in the world, but an utter impostor. It has whittled away at cricket’s essence; it has snuffed out its soul; it is unrecognisable as the game I adore. One of the great allures of cricket is the sense of narrative the game offers, the manner in which a Test match (or, to a lesser extent, a one-day match) unfolds with its ebbs and flows, its twists and turns, its shocks and surprises. And then, there are the subplots, the small face-offs within the larger confrontation that give the narrative of a particular game its very own sense of frisson: Shoaib Akhtar versus Sachin Tendulkar within Pakistan versus India; Shane Warne versus Kevin Pietersen within Australia versus England. The ruminative, contemplative nature of cricket (can you think of any other game that would accommodate meal breaks in the rhythm of the regular day’s play?) makes it enthralling to its followers. When a fast bowler charges in with the new ball and beats the batsman time and time again outside the off stump, the uninitiated believes the same action is repeating itself over and over again. It seems as though nothing is happening, that the game is not going forward. For the fan, though, something like this is as spectacular as it is absorbing. And yes, to him/her, plenty is happening, the game is going forward — the batsman’s confidence is being undermined, the bowler has his tail up, the batsman is being set up for the kill, balls like these will have an impact on the subsequent run of play — although no runs are being scored and no wickets are falling. The charm of cricket often lies as much in the apparent intangibles as in the devotee’s ability to know where to look to find joy. I can’t think of any other game in which conditions — of the pitch, of the ball, of the light, of the weather — are so critical. In football, if the field is slushy, both teams play on it at the same time. If there is a strong wind swirling around a tennis court, both players need to adjust their ball tosses in equal measure while serving. But in cricket, conditions change as the game wears on, and it’s never the same for both teams. A crumbling final-day pitch; an overcast sky that helps bowlers; dew in the evening of a one-day match that makes it hard for the fielding side; sun that dries up a pitch and makes it hard and ideal for strokeplay — all these are things on which the result of a match can hinge. That is cricket’s particular charm. These things need, above all, time. And time is what Twenty20 doesn’t have. It has no time for any of these factors to come into play and deliver the surprise and the excitement that is unique to cricket as we know it. Worse still, it has no time for bowlers. There is no contest between the bat and the ball. In the Twenty20 version, bowlers have simply been taken out of the equation. Batsmen get a free hit (an extra ball to hit in which they can’t be dismissed) after every no-ball; to me, it seems that every ball is a free hit. There are next to no fielders out in the deep, so that makes things even more unequal. Sometimes, it looks as though Twenty20 needn’t bother with bowlers: batsmen may as well throw a ball against a wall and hit it as far as it can go. Look, I can see the point of Twenty20. I know it is supposed to make the game more inclusive, to introduce it to a newer, wider audience. You can see it happening in England, where people are streaming into the ground at the end of a working day for a game, ties loosened, wine coolers ready, with children and wives and girlfriends. It is supposed to be like an evening out. The multiplex is all booked? Go to the cricket. Its brevity is its biggest draw. And who knows, with the Champions Twenty20 league just announced, it might just be the cornerstone of cricket’s popularity in the future. So I’m not dense enough to not understand why it’s good for us. Trouble is, I don’t think it’s much good. Oh, it’s great fun, sure. Just don’t call it cricket. Soumya Bhattacharya is the author of You Must Like Cricket? Memoirs of an Indian Cricket Fan. Link

Link to comment
So I’m not dense enough to not understand why it’s good for us. Trouble is, I don’t think it’s much good. Oh, it’s great fun, sure. Just don’t call it cricket.
Beautiful article in which the author describes so eloquently what enthralls a cricket fan!! I really agree with him.
Link to comment

I am not a huge fan of the tournament and yesterday's Ind-SA match along with the Ind-Pak one are the only ones I watched live. It is cruel on the bowlers but has it's merits in being a result oriented, entertainment based format which can be viewed in its entirety while cooking/eating dinner, over a few drinks in a bar, or simply as a TV filler before sleep. As long as its used as an instrument to popularize traditional cricket and not replace it, I am for it.

Link to comment
Predator' date=' those type of arguments can run both ways. Will we ever witness anything like Kumble scything through the Aussie lineup on a first day track at Chennai in T-20.[/quote'] If you expect to see performances like those in Twenty20, you are a moron. Just like you can't expect to see Yuvraj hitting a frontline bowler for six sixes in a row in a Test match. Doesn't happen. You can't compare these different formats with one another. They have their own unique intricacies and charm. Some things you will see only in Test cricket, others only in Twenty20. Like i said, i wouldn't pick one form of the game over the other (although i'll always lean slightly towards Test cricket because it's real cricket) but using an aspect of one game to denigrate the other is just stupid.
Link to comment
They have their own unique intricacies and charm. Some things you will see only in Test cricket, others only in Twenty20.
I've already said T-20 has its advantages and has something to offer to cricket. Exactly how much, I'm not sure. There isn't a lot in it for the bowlers at the moment and test cricket will remain my personal choice for the time being.
using an aspect of one game to denigrate the other is just stupid.
Isn't that what you were doing when mentioning Dravid's crawl?
Link to comment
I've already said T-20 has its advantages and has something to offer to cricket. Exactly how much, I'm not sure. There isn't a lot in it for the bowlers at the moment and test cricket will remain my personal choice for the time being. Isn't that what you were doing when mentioning Dravid's crawl?
The author is cherry-picking things he doesn't like about Twenty20 - i was doing the same. Sure, test cricket has some exciting passages of play but sometimes it can be dull as dishwater I think most people (strictly referring to cricket enthusiasts here) would pick Test cricket over Twenty20 and rightly so
Link to comment
Test cricket on lively pitches in entertaining. It is borderline torture on patta wickets with absolutely no result possible.
People seem to forget how boring Test cricket was during the 1990's. It's only recently (in this decade) that we have started seeing RESULTS in almost each and every match. Back in the 90's, teams played out sh*tloads of draws and scoring at 3 an over was considered to be fast
Link to comment

Twenty20 format may replace ODIs, says Akram Reuters Karachi , September 21, 2007 First Published: 14:48 IST(21/9/2007) Last Updated: 18:43 IST(21/9/2007) DropShadow_BotLeft.gifDropShadow_BotRight.gif Former Pakistan captain Wasim Akram believes Twenty20 cricket could eventually replace one-day internationals. Akram said the success of the ongoing Twenty20 World Cup in South Africa could have sparked greater interest in the format. "Twenty20 cricket already has the potential to replace the ODIs as the most populist version of the sport," Akram told Reuters on Friday. "The Twenty20 World Cup has been a big success in terms of the interest it has evoked and people coming in to the grounds. You didn't get such big crowds and excitement even in the World Cup in West Indies." The left arm pace bowler said he enjoyed watching the Twenty20 matches. "For a cricket lover it is the ideal format. The match finishes in around three and half hours and there is plenty of excitement and tension for the spectators and viewers," he said. "To me one-dayers have tended to become boring and predictable." However, he did not think the format could be seen as a challenge to Test cricket. "Test cricket will always remain the 'real cricket' for the players and purist fans around the globe. It can never be replaced. Even the advent of one-day internationals didn't affect its popularity and following."

Link to comment

Jesus ! Another silly thread . These Art Film lovers are rearing their ugly head everywhere now ! :D It's deja vu all over again . The rants of these few dis-grunted geriatric purists will not surcease the eventual popularity of this format. These purists conveniently forget that time is at a premium for most working folks and what better way to escape from the mundane existence then to watch an exciting Twenty 20 match after a hard day's work.

Link to comment
Jesus ! Another silly thread . These Art Film lovers are rearing their ugly head everywhere now ! :D It's deja vu all over again . The rants of these few dis-grunted geriatric purists will not surcease the eventual popularity of this format. These purists conveniently forget that time is at a premium for most working folks and what better way to escape from the mundane existence then to watch an exciting Twenty 20 match after a hard day's work.
The above is one main reason why 20-20 will thrive. #1 is Test matches for me always #2 - jury is out (is it 50-50 or 20-20?)
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...