It doesn't look pretty when a normally astute writer gets it wrong, possibly due to an unwillingness to take off the tinted glasses. Nirmal Shekar writes a piece stating how sports cannot be driven by the motive of cheap entertainment. If he is thinking of the overly crass nature of entertainment that is packaged around the cricket in the IPL, the objective seems fair enough. A sport is at its best when a battle between two of its exponents is reason enough to watch it. However, Nirmal Shekar seems to be against the very concept of T20, with or without the side entertainment. Nothing wrong with that viewpoint, except that the arguments that he uses to make his case border on the ridiculous. Sample this.
And in his next sentence, he talks of how a football game reduced to a mere penalty shoot-out reduces a genius like Maradona to a sham.
While most sports allow for regular pauses during the game, football itself does not. The fact is that the best of football games, by their very nature, are one continuous stretch of play, and do not allow too much room for pause. Sample the matches between Manchester United and Arsenal from the past years, and you quite often see a game that is played in high tempo from start to end, and halftime is pretty much the only time when you get to catch your breath and gets your bearings right. In fact, it is the penalty shoot out that provides you with pauses after each kick, and it can only be viewed as the end to 120 minutes of great football.
And so were McCullum and Sehwag. How does a spell that Nirmal enjoyed become a performance solely towards a win for the team, while a couple of innings that he (presumably) did not enjoy as much become performances only meant to entertain? Based on what I have seen so far, the players are taking the matches seriously and are giving it their best shot. And of course, they end up entertaining us, just in the manner of other sports.
I suppose the irony of catching a glimpse of true greatness in a couple of T20 games went past him.
The rest of the article elaborates on the idea that the primary aim of an athlete is to win, while any entertainment is only a bonus. While it sounds like a noble idea, no sport can survive if it does not also seek to entertain. Players play a game of kabaddi aiming to win, but without an entertainment factor, the game is virtually absent from the audience's consciousness.
We remember the genius of, say, a Maradona, or a Shane Warne only because their performances - no doubt brilliant ones - also served to entertain the crowd. People talked about Ishant Sharma's spell to Ponting in Perth endlessly. Only because they were entertained by that great spell of bowling.
Does anyone remember any of Kumble's spells against Pakistan in November? Hardly anyone does, because the games were snoozefests, and there was no edge to any of the performances in that series. A truly exceptional performance will always get noticed because it is entertaining. Such as Sehwag's innings against South Africa in an otherwise forgettable test.
While Nirmal is correct in saying that a sportsman achieves greatness only by playing to win, rather than entertain, to use that as an argument against T20 cricket is only specious.
The best of sport allows for the pause. It lets us sit back and savour the has-been and dream of the still-to-come. Nothing that is breathless — and therefore leaves no room for a complex cognitive process leading to emotional fulfillment — can lay claims to sporting greatness.
And in his next sentence, he talks of how a football game reduced to a mere penalty shoot-out reduces a genius like Maradona to a sham.
While most sports allow for regular pauses during the game, football itself does not. The fact is that the best of football games, by their very nature, are one continuous stretch of play, and do not allow too much room for pause. Sample the matches between Manchester United and Arsenal from the past years, and you quite often see a game that is played in high tempo from start to end, and halftime is pretty much the only time when you get to catch your breath and gets your bearings right. In fact, it is the penalty shoot out that provides you with pauses after each kick, and it can only be viewed as the end to 120 minutes of great football.
You might say that a Brendon McCullum on the opening day of the Indian Premier League, or a Virender Sehwag the other night, were irresistible entertainers; well, of course, they were. But to those who know that the best of sport is more than just seat-edge excitement. Against Yuvraj Singh’s Mohali side, Shane Warne bowled a spell that was pure magic. The lovable old rascal was at his mesmerising best. And, believe me, he was not attempting to keep you amused. He was merely trying to win the match for his Jaipur team.
And so were McCullum and Sehwag. How does a spell that Nirmal enjoyed become a performance solely towards a win for the team, while a couple of innings that he (presumably) did not enjoy as much become performances only meant to entertain? Based on what I have seen so far, the players are taking the matches seriously and are giving it their best shot. And of course, they end up entertaining us, just in the manner of other sports.
More than all the big hitters, more than all those muscular marauders who sought to clear shortened boundaries time after time to give the lay fan value for money, it was Warne and McGrath who helped provide a glimpse of true greatness — something that Twenty20 cricket might rarely get to showcase.
I suppose the irony of catching a glimpse of true greatness in a couple of T20 games went past him.
The rest of the article elaborates on the idea that the primary aim of an athlete is to win, while any entertainment is only a bonus. While it sounds like a noble idea, no sport can survive if it does not also seek to entertain. Players play a game of kabaddi aiming to win, but without an entertainment factor, the game is virtually absent from the audience's consciousness.
We remember the genius of, say, a Maradona, or a Shane Warne only because their performances - no doubt brilliant ones - also served to entertain the crowd. People talked about Ishant Sharma's spell to Ponting in Perth endlessly. Only because they were entertained by that great spell of bowling.
Does anyone remember any of Kumble's spells against Pakistan in November? Hardly anyone does, because the games were snoozefests, and there was no edge to any of the performances in that series. A truly exceptional performance will always get noticed because it is entertaining. Such as Sehwag's innings against South Africa in an otherwise forgettable test.
While Nirmal is correct in saying that a sportsman achieves greatness only by playing to win, rather than entertain, to use that as an argument against T20 cricket is only specious.
posted by Sailesh Ganesh at 11:29 PM
2 Comments:
whatever its merits, i think Sekhar's piece was expected if you look at his writing over the years, especially on tennis (sampras/federer. He seems to value much of the things that are de-emphasised in T20.
Sure Rahul, I have no issues with Nirmal Shekar taking a dislike to T20. It was just that he chose the wrong arguments to make his case.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]