Crickets demigods,on trial always. Review on Cricket

A successful cricketer has little to complain about. He lives life in the fast track, buys a decent house and owns a car which could be a Fiat or Ferrari. As a hot celebrity he distributes prizes at school functions, opens pizza outlets and judges beauty contests. People fuss over him, pamper him to death. Perfect style and complete mauj.

But there is a snag, a nasty twist in the story. The problem, explains a veteran player who has obviously experienced the rough side of the game, is not just cricket’s so-called glorious uncertainty. What’s worrying is players are judged all the time —- as cricketers and as celebrities.

Cricket is harsh, it is a one ball game which delivers instant death. In other sports excitement builds up slowly but in cricket, for batsmen, the end can be at the beginning itself.

One mistake and you are gone, the game is practically over. At the wicket Sachin and Lara are like daily wagers, nobody has tenancy rights in the middle.

If cricket is tough, viewed from this perspective, so is being a cricketer. South Africa thought Cronje was a God, and look what happened. In India we enlarge our stars, treat them as celebrities and role models. And then expect them to live up to our expectations.

Which is an unfair ask of a person who may be too young to vote, not old enough to possess a driving license.

Yet he is, suddenly, expected to be a champion all rounder who manages fame, handles sponsors and tackles the media and sets an example for others.

As public figures/concerned citizens/commercial celebrities, players have to perform new roles. Which is difficult because they have few skills and no training for doing all this.

Parthiv Patel knows wicket-keeping and has learnt strong words to communicate with opponents on the field.(WHERE'S HE? HE'LL BE BACK SOON)

But why expect him to be aware about gender issues, show concern for the ecological imbalance in Kutch or Kathiawar or comment on Cancun?

So what happens when players are confronted by these googlies? Some, with in-built modems of understanding, cope well.

The rest stutter, stammer and stumble. Result is sound criticism and unfair judgement —- cricketers are trashed.

But, arre, cool it, let us replay the issue. Judgement is part of cricket because the sport rests on stats. We might judge colas differently, depending on the norms used (EU or Indian) but cricket has averages and strike/economy rates which convey the story adequately.

Of course, there is much debate, much discussion —- and little agreement —- about wider issues like relative contributions of players but, usually, cricket arguments are settled by statistical evidence.

This, unfortunately, is not the case when non-cricket matters are considered. Accepted guidelines to judge Dravid’s off-field performance don’t exist. Very often the opinion we form depends on the yardstick we apply, hence the results depend on the person who is judging.

There is agreement on one thing though —- cricket is bigger than all players we know.RIGHT!!!!