Different strokes, for different folks
Sujata Prakash
There are times when even very smart people don't make sense. Perhaps my understanding is not what it used to be, but two current cricket issues leave me thoroughly confused.
The first is not playing Pakistan, and I would hardly like to disagree with Uma Bharati on this point. By now it’s considered de rigueur to accept that since cricket holds the pulse of the nation, it’s enough to boycott all Indo-Pakistan cricketing ties but to continue as normal where hockey and other sports are concerned.
Right, and we are doing this because Pakistan is aiding and abetting terrorism and is accountable for our soldiers perishing on the borders. Now, isn't Bangladesh doing the same thing? For years we've been reading how illegal Bangladeshis are pushed across the border because their country can't feed them, and how many of these immigrants are, or become, insurgents.
And a short while back, we had the BDR vs BSF drama, in which 16 Indian soldiers lost their lives. So why are we not breaking off cricketing ties with Bangladesh? Does the government still consider Bangladesh a ‘friendly country?’ And if so, how much more rope will we give this friendly country before sporting restrictions are enforced?
My guess is the government will turn a blind eye to all these shenanigans as long as the Prime Minister of Bangladesh continues to hint sweetly about being pro-India. I’m not a politician, and neither do I understand policy matters, but to me it smacks of hypocrisy
The other matter that is confusing me is Ian Chappell’s assertion that the reverse sweep allows the batsman to take ‘unfair advantage’ of the bowler, and hence should be dealt with by the ICC. With due respect to Ian Chappell the player and Ian Chappell the much-admired commentator, surely this is taking things too far?
To quote him: ‘It is unfair to ask the bowlers to nominate beforehand the way they are going to operate (over or around, left or right arm) and then allow batsmen to change their mode of play after the ball is in play.’ And, ‘By this method a right-hander becomes left (or vice versa) after the bowler commences his run up and is rendering obsolete the field placings. This is taking an unfair advantage, while a batsman sticking with the first method is taking a chance and pitting his skill (evenly) against that of the bowler.’
What would he have the batsman do, inform the umpire before the field was set for him that he was in a frame of mind to reverse sweep? What if the batsman then decided not to go through with it, would that also render obsolete the field settings? I fail to understand the difference between the reverse sweep and any other cricketing shot. There are times when field settings are of no use when batsmen like Tendulkar decide to go after the bowling and employ unorthodox methods, so perhaps they should also be restricted to using only those shots they have stated before hand.
I know that sounds incongruous, but so does Ian Chappell’s fear that one day we might see a Test with one run needed off the last ball to win, and the batsman using the reverse sweep to get that run. The pressure of the situation will hardly tempt the batsman to take such a risk, but if he does, then that’s one more example of the glorious uncertainties of cricket!
Sujata Prakash
