BY BISWADEEP GHOSH
In the recent one-day match between the South Africans and the Australians, the latter posted an incredible 434 for 4 in their allotted quota of overs. In response, South Africa posted an even more incredible 438 and won. The subsequent euphoria surpassed all expectations. Many termed the match as the greatest one-dayer ever. After all, how many times can one hope to see 872 runs being scored at an average of 8.72 runs an over? Doesn't it require some really special batting effort to ensure that the best bowler who completes his spell concedes 6.7 runs an over? Superb. Mind-blowing. Those who do not view the game as a form of art must have exclaimed that way.
Now that the ecstasy has subsided somewhat, it is important to take a serious look at a match that gave no chance to the bowlers at all. Even if the pitch was batsman-friendly, the shot selection by the Australians that enabled them to post such a huge target showed that the batters were operating on a very basic see-and-hit principle. Even decent deliveries were being smacked out of the park, and the ball soared high enough to meet the clouds once every second over. Such a simplistic approach to batsmanship isn't what cricket is meant to be. One cannot question the South Africans. Displaying unbelievable courage, they went after the Australian bowling, using the same formula that their opponents did. Herschelle Gibbs played a blinder of an innings, but the player who gave an indication of the signs of things to come was the lower order bat J J van der Waath. The manner in which he butchered the bowling, ignoring every rule in the book, suggested that a Dennis Lilee could have turned out for the Australians and suffered the same fate.
Times have changed. So has cricket. Commercialisation has ensured that the game has to be packaged and presented in a manner that is viewer-friendly. When cricketers wear coloured clothing and play under floodlights, the situation does not seem outrageous any longer. When a lower order bat walks out to bat at number three so that he can hit, what they call, a few lusty blows, nobody gets surprised by the sudden change in the batting order. With concepts like super subs coming into being, the shorter version of cricket is all about quick thinking and calculations to outsmart the opposing team.
But the one change that is hard to swallow is the complete disregard for technique. In many ways, today's cricket has become like modern-day tennis. During the good old days when players like Bjorn Borg made such a significant impact, the game was characterised by a certain artistry that is rarely seen today. Even lesser players like Vijay Amritraj dazzled in the courts when, for instance, the Indian rushed to the net to meet a lob. Everyone expected a safe smash that the opponent could not have returned. Instead, Vijay touched the ball so slightly that it just about crossed the net and fell on the other side. That kind of control was sheer class, as opposed to the modern game when most players use power to outpace their rivals. Because of his deft touches, Ramesh Krishnan was nicknamed 'Surgeon' in the tennis circles. In today's times, an artist like Krishnan would not have survived beyond the first round. This is not because he was any less skilled, but since his serves lacked power and would have been put away by the most mediocre of players.
Cricket, sadly, is going the tennis way. With competitions like Twenty Twenty becoming more and more popular, power hitting will dominate the game in the long run. Very few would like to take up bowling, because good deliveries will not get the sort of respect they deserve. When batsmen like van der Waath come out to bat, all one will get to see is the ball flying out of the ground. As long as a bowler doesn't deliver a hopelessly wide ball, such batsmen would not favour the idea of leaving the delivery alone.
There was a time when Sunil Gavaskar's best cricketing skill was the art of leaving the ball. Playing without a helmet, he would move away from the line of a delivery and watch the ball go into the wicketkeeper's gloves. That is when one knew how technically skilled Gavaskar was. But, what would he have done had he been asked to chase a target of 500 runs in 50 overs? If a more recent player, he would have surely adapted to the needs of the one-day game reasonably well. Why he did not do so is because, and I seriously think so, Gavaskar did not take his one-day cricket seriously. Besides, one-day games were looked down upon by many then. So, he did not need to do so anyway. Today, things are different. A huge number of one-dayers are being played. So, even if Gavaskar had acclimatised to the format, the Little Master's attempt to play a cross-batted stroke would have been an ugly sight. The ball might have gone for a four, but one's love for the game would have died an instant death. Yet, most modern-day lovers of the game would have cheered and cheered. Won't blame them. They are used to the idea of not watching cricket.
No comments:
Post a Comment