Kartikey Sehgal

Critics who point out that Sachin Tendulkar is ‘selfish’ in his desire to want to continue are spot on, except that this quality of selfishness is what we ought to emulate and instill in our self. Or rather not. That’s how we are naturally.

Deriving from Darwin’s theory of evolution – whose ardent proponents hold intra-special instead of inter-special competition as more relevant – intra-racial competition is more important to us than inter-racial competition. That is, we compete and fight more with people who are closest to us than with people of other races. The road to growth and victory is actually associated with outwitting people who are more like us. This is our true nature. Even among animals, a lion will not accept another lion in his territory. He will be keen to kill him, rather than share and prosper together. Or sacrifice his position as the master.

What many of Sachin’s critics are tending towards may be termed as “group favouritism”, which puts forth the theory that animals function according to the interests of the group; they put group ahead of the self; the individual’s self-interest is kept secondary. This theory was put down several decades earlier but finds a place in modern parlance. It manifests itself as sacrifice – and holds that man is essentially a team player. It further argues that even though ‘some’ humans keep self-interest over group interest, the quality of ‘humaneness’ makes them sacrifice.

However, it is to be noted that sacrifice, in actuality, is a quality that is best performed for the world, by which I mean that sacrifice is also a selfish quality. We sacrifice for self-fame. We give up to get more.
Thus in the immortal tale of Heer-Ranjha, Ranjha sacrifices comforts to get his beloved Heer. And thus the televised drama of a certain politician sacrificing the prime-minister’s chair in ‘national interest’.

Sacrifice and group favouritism are not base human qualities, no matter what we have been fed by our school textbooks. As such, those aspiring for sacrifice are actually selfish and manipulative. Exceptions occur always among people who quietly sacrifice, but these do not form the rule. And as individuals we rarely seek out such hidden gems.

Therefore, It is perfectly fine for Sachin to want to continue playing cricket. Even as a pure desire, free from the question of form and fitness, it is perfectly ‘human’ for him to want to continue. That he keeps playing well is a quality that we must admire and seek in ourselves.

Kartikey Sehgal

Women’s interest in cricket is a sudden development, propelled mostly by the advertisements projecting cricketers as demigods. In the year 2003, model and actress Mandira Bedi became popular for hosting a cricket-discussion program during the World Cup cricket matches.

Her immense popularity had little to do with her knowledge about cricket and more with the plunging neckline of her saris and the unavoidable amount of cleavage on exhibit.

Passionate about cricket? Mandira Bedi has succeeded in adding sexual interest to the sport. And only that.

Today, women are seen cheering for their favourite players on television and attending cricket-celebration parties at pubs and restaurants where they join the men in post-cricket drunken revelry. And these women don’t watch women’s cricket.

They do not know about the captain of the Indian women cricket team and they don’t cheer for them at pubs and discos. Advertisers spend lesser money on women’s cricket because most women don’t bother to attend the matches and there has never been a strong demand for women cricket.

Fact: Most women don’t know the sport. And their cheering and fan-following has more sexual tones than any proof of their love for the sport. This is perfectly healthy. However, it is a problem if these women start commenting on cricket and assume the role of critics. They are fooling their self and adding to their misery. They may feel left out during cricketing discussions because their knowledge is immature.

Women are watching cricket because men watch it a lot. And watching cricket brings attention to women. It is enough for most women to know the names of the players and which player is ‘hot property’. Cricketers parade on ramp shows and women accompany them or foreign models dance around them. These women don’t know the meaning of a reverse-sweep. They don’t know if the batsman’s strength lies in his front-foot strokes or his back foot-drives. They don’t even know the meanings of drives and hooks. They will parade around the cricketer because he makes lots of money and is seen on television. And standing next to a cricketer would give the models lots of attention. These advertisements tell the women sitting at home that cricketers are successful people because they play cricket; never mind their stature in the sport, their technique or their skills. 

Advertisers are selling cricket and women are being naïve in accepting the advertisement.

Not celebrated by Indian women: Jhulan Goswami is recognised as the fastest bowler in women's cricket. She was recently appointed as the captain of the Indian team.

Now say the advertisers decide that women ought to be educated about the sport to sustain their interest. They hire models (Ruby Bhatia, Mandira Bedi) to talk about cricket on television. These models are not expected to know much about the sport. They have been hired so that they can make the men talk about the sport. Also note that actual women-cricketers are not asked to do this job, ostensibly because they do not project sexiness.

Once again, there would be women who wouldn’t watch the cricket chat programs to learn about the sport but would wait for something ‘exciting’ to happen in the sport. This is healthy; the women know what they want from the sport and they are not feigning any extra interest in the sport. But there would be women who would hear opinions about the sport from the models and the experts who talk on television.

Television offers mostly opinions and not much wisdom about the sport. The experts contradict themselves and the viewer does not know about the back-foot punch that is discussed on the shows. As such, to know the sport, actual practice and demonstration along with a regular and a keen interest in the sport seem imperative. I have met women who don’t have much idea about the sport except from what they hear and read from media.

A woman told me that she loved M.S. Dhoni because he looks good and also because he played well. However, she was unable to tell me what she liked about Dhoni’s batting. She did not know what the term ‘average’ meant in cricket. She wrongly associated it with the average age of the players. [Average: Number of runs scored per match]

Another girl said that Sachin Tendulkar has never really won matches for India. She heard it on some television news channel. She didn’t know how matches are to be won. “You play well and you win matches for India.” I asked her if Sachin’s position as a middle order batsman would help him finish matches and raise his personal scoring average. She was clueless. The women mentioned are educated and have opinions on several women-related issues. Neither of them had seen Ricky Ponting bat but knew that he is good player based on newspapers and television channels.

A telling sign of their understanding of the sport is their judgement of Rahul Dravid. The middle-order batsman is considered a role-model for players who wish to perfect their batting technique. Many men, fed on the modern wham-bam cricket, don’t like him because he doesn’t play ‘fast’, i.e. score his runs quickly. Women don’t like him because they have heard that men are losing interest in him. However, I did come across some women who like Rahul. He is a “sincere character” and “a gem of a person”. He is “quiet and non-aggressive” and a “thorough gentleman”. These women were not able to explain what they liked about his batting. They saw in him a man they may like to know; or a man who could be short-listed as “a husband material”.

Apart from troubling the cricketing sensibilities of men (and women), such women also reveal their unsurety; probably their need to hide their enchantment with sportsmen and to appear wise about the sport.

Despite the technological and informative era, women are misled by advertisements and useless shows on cricket that have permeated television and are, in fact  surrogates of advertising.

Less advertising money means less women fans for the Indian Hockey Team

It would be fair to say that such human behaviour applies to many other sporting and non-sporting fields. But note that the Indian hockey team has fitter and stronger players than the Indian cricket team and very few women see these men as pin-ups. Advertising (including surrogate) impedes the pure exposition of sexuality, and this exposition is healthy and essential for human beings. Women’s preferences are being dictated by advertisement in every sphere, including cricket.

My references to women are not restricted to any collective based on class or aptitude. Most women and men watching and adoring cricket is an extension of their sexual nature. It is not a judgement or a statement on the gender. Sexual nature is manifested in most of our decisions. It includes the decision to read this story on this website. 

Part One ends

Kartikey Sehgal

The young waves thrash and splash but it’s the bigger old waves of the sea that steer boats, rouse storms and carry the force and thunder of experience.

Sourav Ganguly, Rahul Dravid and Sachin Tendulkar have played masterful innings in the ongoing IPL tournament. They have, yet again, awakened the masses to the nuances of timing and stroke-play. Their batting may not have always led the team to victory, but it’s their character and dogged persistence that adds colour to the game that is monotonously unpredictable.

Most cricket lovers should agree that Saurav Ganguly has played one of the best innings of IPL when he led Kolkota to a win over Punjab. It was an innings of strife and struggle. Sourav found it very hard to connect the bat to the ball and was lucky to get away a few times. He misses several chances of scoring boundaries and had to be content with singles. His victory over this struggle makes his batting special.

Sourav didn’t lose concentration or composure. He didn’t play rash shots like his team mates. In the crucial final overs, he took complete charge of the field and the game. None of his shots were struggles. Calm and confident; he was the hero of the day.

Compare Sourav to the ‘young’ Yuvraj Singh. Yuvraj is brash as a captain and a player. He looks frustrated and never short of ill words for his team mates. Importantly, he lacks the cricketing spirit that Sourav possesses. Unlike Sourav, Yuvraj has not improved his batting. He is a misfit in Test matches and survives in the one-day team due to his occasional match winning runs and his good fielding.

Yuvraj’s team, Punjab, beat the Mumbai team in their recent match. He yelled at his players for every mistake and glowered and huffed. Mumbai’s captain Sachin Tendulkar was calm under pressure and dignified in his conduct. He chided the players for their performance off the field and inside the dressing room. He also played an innings of splendour. Avoiding the rash shots, he improvised on the regular cover drives and glances. It was the calmest innings of IPL and made Mumbai’s loss look pitiful.

Another victim of ‘olden duck’ philosophy of Indian cricket is Rahul Dravid, who plays better cricket than Dhoni and Yuvraj Singh. His craftsmanship is a treat for the senses. He played magnificently against the tough Jaipur team and announced his talent that was surprisingly, very surprisingly, under the scanner. Dravid may not be the best captain and may be reserved in his decisions and planning, but he deserves to be playing every form of cricket.

And why not?

What is so special and different about the young (below 30 in Indian parlance) players? Their talents do not supersede the talents of the three finest players of Indian cricket. Dhoni is struggling despite some quick runs. Yuvraj is tense and out of focus. This must be a temporary phase for them. But it as temporary as Rahul’s and Sourav’s form for which they were dropped from the national team.

Kartikey Sehgal

Sachin Tendulkar and Kumara Sangakkara have recited the success for 20-20 cricket. Imagination and innovation.

20-20 cricket is not conducive for young players. It is a game for players who can innovate upon proper cricketing shots. It is advantageous to Adam Gilchrist, Shane Warne and Sachin Tendulkar and tough for Parthiv Patel and Rohan Raje. The younger lot has every reason to feel disillusioned with the pace and practice of this game.

Experienced cricketers like Shivnarine Chanderpaul and Jacques Kallis are facing the problem of motivation and adjustment. Otherwise, they should easily deal with the pressures of the game and perform better than the ‘young guns’. Rahul Dravid recently scored big runs against the Rajasthan Royals at a strike rate that crossed the 200 mark.

Players are short of peace and confidence in this version. The mantra is to dispatch the ball to any place of the ground and garner runs. Bad shots are lauded by the crowd and the players, if they result in some runs for the team. However, in the process, the player feels upset. His disappointment is overcome by the cheers. Thus, after every bad shot, he seeks approval his team and the boisterous crowd.

This process has a shelf life. The player yearns for a forward defensive shot and a proper hook shot. He starts playing with dexterity and elegance. If he fails to score runs this way, he is conveniently replaced by another who is hungry for team and crowd support. Our player then sits in the balcony and watches his replacement play bad shots. After some matches he becomes disillusioned and confused. He can either play cricket as he knows it, or he can play bat and ball and earn some cheers.

Who then, is the winner in 20-20? It is the player who has committed umpteen mistakes in Test cricket and One Day Internationals and can expertly avoid them while playing innovative cricket.