There are some words, which are repeatedly used to describe the actions of cricketers and events on a cricket field, but in my view, have absolutely no place in a cricket related discussion. If you really think about it, words like pathetic, spineless, gutless, incompetent can never be applied to performance in an international cricket match – definitely not by members of the lay public (who invariably use them most liberally). George Orwell wrote a great essay about Politics and the English Language, in which his central idea was that bad language, is the result of, and results in unclear thoughts. In Orwell’s own succinct words – “But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely.”
Let’s pause for a moment and think about each of the four words mentioned above – these are but a few of these erroneous words which lace lay conversation about cricket – on blogs (possibly even mine), amongst friends, in newspaper reports.
A “pathetic” performance, would be one arousing pity or sympathy – at times scornful. This describes the reaction to the performance, without revealing much about the performance itself. So, while it is probably Ok to suggest that India’s performance against Bangladesh was “pathetic”, such a statement does not really contribute to a description of India’s performance against Bangladesh and says nothing about the performance itself. For example, i didn’t think India’s performance against Bangladesh was pathetic. I felt no pity, sympathy or scorn for the Indian team after the Bangladesh match. Did i get disappointed that India lost? Sure. But did i feel like lashing out at the players or at their performance? No. I am unable to relate to this notion of a “pathetic” performance in a cricket match. How can sport, which is a privilege, and a celebration of the fitness of mind and body, ever be pathetic?
Similarly, the words “gutless” and “spineless”, both of which are metaphors for a performance lacking courage, seem misplaced in cricketing discourse. Killer instinct is yet another phrase which falls in this category. What exactly is a sporting performance lacking courage? In most instances, the state described as “lack of courage” is the stage when one side knows fully well that it has been outclassed. I have rarely, if ever come across a match report which explains in clear cricketing terms that one side was better than the other. The losing side (especially if it is the home side), is invariably “spineless”, unless the game has been an epic encounter, lost by very few runs or very few wickets. Even in such cases, the most often used words is “harakiri“. What usually happens in such events is that the poor batsman tries to play a ball with the spin and the ball spins just that little bit more and takes the outer half or edge of the bat rather than the middle, and results in a catch – after which the new batsman, who comes into a difficult situation finds it hard to make good – resulting in a loss of momentum and turns out to be the difference between victory or defeat. Or – some fielder who has practiced his catching as much as the other guys who held all their catches on the day, misjudges the flight and pace of the ball as it is spooned up near him, and misses a crucial catch, which turns out to be the difference between victory or defeat. How can all this be compared to ceremonial suicide? Insipid is yet another adjective which is very popular when it comes to describing performance. For some reason, a dour, joyless performance, not resulting in defeat is never described as being insipid.
How can anyone who plays international cricket, who’s worked harder than all the journalists sitting in the press box put together have, to become the super achiever with the extraordinary talent and skill that one has to be to be in a top international cricket team, be gutless or spineless or a coward? For that matter, how can he be “incompetent”? How can a team comprising of these individuals be “incompetent”? Sure, players can and do lose the plot occasionally, and teams do get defeated by lesser teams (unfortunately these truisms have been relegated to a thick forbidding black folder labeled “cliche”) – thats the whole point of a sporting contest – that results are unpredictable, theoretically both sides can win, and occasionally, the weaker side does win.
Does this inaccurate use of language further fuel a warped view of events on the field among readers? There is a view, that readers (who are supporters of one of the sides, though not necessarily interested in cricket) have a right to expect victory by their side every time they watch they play. Reporters and Opinion writers take these expectations on board, make them their own, and write accordingly.
There is something blindingly stupid about expecting, nay demanding victory, and then celebrating it when it actually happens. How can something that is expected, and therefore not exceptional (no, you cannot expect something and also have it be exceptional at the same time – the exceptional is what it is, because it is the exception and not the rule), invite surprise and extraordinary reaction?
Every article about the Bangladesh – India match, referred to the “poor” batting performance. Yet nowhere were the dismissals described in any detail. I didn’t watch the match, and if it weren’t for Youtube, i would have had no chance of finding out how the dismissals took place.
For example – i would never have known that the Sehwag dismissal was a result of some good lift, combined with seam movement into the bat. Sehwag broke the cardinal rule of not playing the square cut early in ones innings. This batting rule is from a bygone age, when the pundits adviced “Give the first hour the bowler, and the other five are yours”. One day cricket has little time for these rules. Sehwag was also cutting on the front foot, and hence hadn’t gone back and across which might have saved him. This of course is due to his famous technique of playing “beside” the line of the ball, which has brought him so many runs square of the wicket. His late attempt to adjust to the seam movement, made it look like an ugly chop on to the stumps. Utthappa attempted to play on the rise, like he does so brilliantly on the front foot, but couldn’t get on top of the ball, and didn’t find the gap, resulting in a sharp catch at cover point. Tendulkar attempted to play on the rise for a single square on the leg side. It was a stroke he’s played countless number of times. He played for turn which wasn’t there and hence got the inside edge – the wicketkeeper took a brilliant catch – off the inside edge, just outside and above the leg-stump. It was the sort of dismissal which happens onces in 70-80 games (This is not an excuse – ive seen most of Tendulkar’s dismissals, and ive never seen him get caught of an inside edge of a left arm spinner).
None of this is judgemental, no one of this is uncritical of the players concerned. It does however describe what happened. The only place you get to read this kind of thing, is if you follow Cricinfo or Cricbuzz’s ball by ball commentary. No match reports include this.
If any reader reads a description of events before he is offered an opinion about them, he will expect a nuanced opinion, which he himself hasn’t thought of yet. He will expect a take on events, which isn’t obvious. That would be too much work, and would require too much detail.
Instead what we get are reports (and this is one of the better match reports) with a glaring subtext of condescension. There seemed to be a suggestion that making 10000+ runs in ODI cricket, somehow makes batsmen immune to good, accurate seam bowling in helpful conditions! Dravid meets the bowling on more even terms (as though he’s striking a blow for the 10,000 club) – the only minor detail being that Mortaza was out of the attack and the ball was older. The “Bangladesh are minnows” preoccupation stops the report from giving any credit to Mortaza as an accomplished practitioner, even though his test and ODI records are atleast as good as Zaheer Khan. In fact, when Chaminda Vaas bowls at India on Saturday, he will recieve more respect from the press (i assure you not from the Indian batsmen, who rate both Mortaza and Vaas) inspite of the fact that both have almost identical bowling averages in ODI cricket.
I wonder whether this reporting ends up defining Cricket and Cricketers. Thus Ganguly was inspirational and passionate, while Dravid is subdued and not quite so inspirational. Such cliches abound. Cricket reporting defines how cricket is viewed, and is in turn defined by how cricket is viewed. The way Cricket is played is irrelevant.
