« When mediocre was good enough | The thing about Pakistan »
September 19, 2010Posted by Samir Chopra on 09/19/2010 in Samir Chopra
Play to watch: The player as an informed spectator
Fans can appreciate the game better by playing it
© AFPThe recently concluded US Open confirmed for me what I’d been suspecting for a few weeks leading into it: I’d really started to like watching tennis. All over again. The graph of my tennis fanhood had probably peaked in the mid-1980s, and then steadily declined. Despite the brilliance of Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, my interest in tennis never attained the heights it had reached when I was enthralled by the McEnroe-Borg rivalry. But this year, and the last, I’d noticed a renewed interest, and also managed to pinpoint a simple reason for it: I’d started to play tennis on a regular basis.
What does all of this have to do with cricket? My answer has two components. First, I’ll note that sadly, cricket’s hold on me seems to have declined, especially this year. Whether it is because I simply do not have the energy any more to deal with low-quality telecasts, the unfriendly time-zones, the lack of results in high-scoring subcontinental games, the proliferation of an unappealing format, the endless, nasty, nationalist bickering, the match-fixing or whatever else, cricket this year has played second fiddle to football, tennis and now, in the fall, baseball.
Secondly, I’ll take note of two articles I’d previously penned here. In one, I wrote of how I didn’t like playing cricket in the US because of the lack of cricketing context; and then another, in which, based on my experiences of watching cricket in Australia, it had seemed to me that a cricket-playing spectator was likely to have a more informed response to the game in front of him.
My experience with watching tennis this year has now convinced me that if I’m to rekindle my interest in cricket as a spectator sport, it will be by making cricket a personal endeavour again, by playing the game myself. International cricket holds many disappointments for me (as I write this, yet another accusation of conspiracy is starting to make the rounds), but perhaps the personal game itself will retain its attractions.
For I discovered, after several weeks of playing tennis regularly, that my tennis-watching senses had become sharpened: even an encounter between minor-league players seemed attractive, for I had more to pay attention to, more to note, more to observe and critique. The game's edges became sharper; my response to the player’s skills was more measured, appreciative, and nuanced.
With cricket, it seems to me that I’d done the reverse. As long as I’ve lived in the US, I’ve not played cricket. This, of course, was not the case when I lived in India or in Australia. Of course, there is the lack of a cricketing context in the US, but I’d compounded it by not playing. Not coincidentally, the last time I can really remember being enthralled by cricket since I’ve returned from Australia has been on my various visits to India and Australia. The US will never provide that sort of background to my cricket-watching, but I can do my bit by simply picking up bat and ball.
And I can do so in the most American of ways. A young New York local, who I’ve become friendly with in the past few months, coaches a group of Bangladeshi schoolboys in a New York school league (how about that for a role reversal?), and has invited me to join them for a game or two. Next year, I plan to take up that invitation. What the international game won’t do, perhaps this lower-level game will.
Posted by: AN at September 19, 2010 6:42 PM
Samir: I feel for you. Now with that contrived and formulaic T20, matters have worsened. I had more or less reached the same point some time ago but players like Sehwag, Gilchrist and McGrath kept me going because they played an attacking game in Tests and brought joy. Sehwag continues to entertain and has shown that the plodding along by others at 40-50 strike rates on good wickets is unacceptable. He is the reason why more results are generated. Amir was one I hoped would bring more positive action from a bowlers perspective but now that is up in the air. I have also shifted to watching tennis quite a bit except when Sehwag is batting. Unfortunately, I cant play any game due to physical limitations these days...
Posted by: Kunal Talgeri at September 19, 2010 10:48 PM
I sometimes wonder if a vast majority of us fans in the sub-continent and our uncles watch cricket so religiously BECAUSE we cannot play the game ourselves. You will be appalled at how playgrounds in Indian cities are fast on the endangered-list. Also, tennis-ball cricket just isn't the same as the ol' leather one. Playing cricket is a dream for most Indians once they enter and/or finish college. :-( One (and, often, the only) way to stay involved in the sport is to watch and participate. If what I'm wondering is indeed true, isn't it a tragic irony in the humdrum of life here? :-)
Posted by: Gizza at September 20, 2010 1:43 AM
Samir you are right and so is Kunal Talgeri. You played cricket in India too which is good. But as an Aussie of Indian origin I have seen a complete difference in cricket culture between the two countries. Indians think cricket is entertainment and watch it. Australians believe cricket is a sport/game and play it.
This is why the 1 billion poplation argument is overrated because playing club cricket in India is still quite rare. Even gulli cricket as a % of population is played a lot less than backyard/park/beach cricket in Australia.
This is also why the doom sayers saying cricket is dying are completely wrong. Cricket is actually weak in India (not sure about other subcontinental countries). But Cricket the game is still strong in Aus, Eng (growing participation since 05), SA, NZ and WI. To me kids in the park and street playing is a stronger sign of cricket health than crowd figures or TV views. So saying that T20/IPL is saving cricket is very very silly.
Posted by: Phil S at September 20, 2010 2:16 AM
It would appear from recent events that cricket is not for watching or for playing. It is for betting on.
Posted by: The Coder at September 20, 2010 5:11 AM
Oh come on Samir, you dont mean to say that(the lack of results in high-scoring subcontinental games) do you? Just one look at the stats and you'll be wrong.
In last 10 Tests
In India : 7 results and 3 draws
In Srilanka : 8 results and 2 draws
15/20 games is fair to me whatever else you may say. I thought blogs were meant to say original opinion!! Well, my bad!
Posted by: saurabh at September 20, 2010 10:19 AM
Samir, there may be lack of cricketing context in USA but there are plenty of cricket clubs in US and lot of competitions take place.
So pick up the bat and the ball and play some cricket.
Personally I had a great time playing cricket in USA when I was there for some 3+ Years including winning the T20 trophy as well in Colorado in 2008
Posted by: Tsami at September 21, 2010 11:47 PM
America is no place for Cricket.
The Americans, the Arabs the Chinese and the Russians the Hispanics have one thing in common they don't play cricket.
Did they have a common ancestor?
Or what's wrong with them?
Just wondering.
- Shanaka Amarasinghe
-
Shanaka Amarasinghe Possessing the best disguised googly in Sri Lanka (because no one has ever really seen it), Shanaka is the finest legspinner to never have played top-level cricket. He is a popular cricket analyst and host of The Score, the No. 1-rated, if slightly infamous, sports show on radio in Sri Lanka. While in England playing rugby, he earned his LLM at King’s College and is a lawyer by training if not inclination. He is also an actor, a journalist, a writer, and thinks he is a comedian.
- Mike Holmans
-
Mike Holmans, a database consultant by profession, has spent thirty summers (and a few winters) going to the cricket. Brought up in one and working in the other, his dearest wish is for a season to end with Yorkshire winning the county championship by beating runners-up Middlesex by one wicket with five minutes to go. If it’s also a summer when England win the Ashes, so much the better.
- Michael Jeh
-
Michael Jeh Born in Colombo, educated at Oxford and now living in Brisbane, Michael Jeh (Fox) is a cricket lover with a global perspective on the game. An Oxford Blue who played first-class cricket, he is a Playing Member of the MCC and still plays grade cricket. Michael now works closely with elite athletes, and is passionate about youth intervention programmes. He still chases his boyhood dream of running a wildlife safari operation called Barefoot in Africa.
- Saad Shafqat
-
Saad Shafqat takes special pride that his cricket-watching life began during the three-month interval between Javed Miandad's debut Test in Lahore and Imran Khan's 12-wicket haul at Sydney. Although a practicing neurologist based in Karachi, cricket has never been far from his activities. He has co-authored Javed Miandad’s autobiography Cutting Edge and has been a contributor to Cricinfo since 2005. His regular column Reverse Swing appears fortnightly in Dawn, Pakistan’s leading English daily.
- What's with the full tosses?
- Innings swap, anyone?
- Mankading is no grey area
- Thirimanne issue shows cricket's double standards on morality
- Shattering the Kalu myth
- Who is Joe Dawes?
- Someone, please explain the D/L method
- Should we love them more? Or less?
- George Bailey: charm and larrikin in one genuine package
- Can England really be that bad again?