Cricket brings out the best in us. Unfortunately it also brings out the worst in us. Cricket is a great unifier of this country of one billion-plus people, diverse languages, ethnicities and faiths. More importantly, it is a great leveller and also the most accessible ladder of social mobility. The way Maharajas made way for commoners in just over 40 years shows talent doesn't need quotas to make the mark. It was always a popular game, probably because it was the only one Indians could play reasonably since colonial times, Ranjitsinhji onwards. But the advent of the live telecast caused its popularity to take a quantum leap, mesmerising the entire country in a way live radio commentary could never do.

That in turn caused passions to rise. At least since the mid-80s, cricket ceased to be only a sport. First, it got commercialised. I still recall Kapil Dev's "Palmolive da jawab nahin and his promotional for Rapidex English speaking course, both showcasing the earthy machismo of an upwardly mobile ruralite. Over the years, commercial considerations overtook most others in the cricketers' psyche. Shoots took precedence over shots. Anybody who got selected to play for the Indian team became an overnight celebrity. They accepted modelling offers as if there were no tomorrow.

Howsoever regrettable the slide into advertising-driven commercialism, the greed could still be pardoned as legitimate. But it turned out to be just a short step from there to the criminality of match fixing. We lost some of our best talent, Mohd Azharuddin and Ajay Jadeja to name just two, to sleazy Indian bookies who even succeeded in roping in South African players including a superb team leader like Hansie Cronje. Next, it was the turn of politics. As BCCI's coffers burgeoned, politicians began to take acute interest in controlling State and national boards. Those who could not distinguish between mid-off and mid-on used their political and financial clout to wend their way into controlling positions in cricket. Their motives range from money to promoting progeny in the team as in the case of a controversial Cabinet Minister. Meanwhile, the boards became hotbeds of intrigue and guile, with moneybags securing dominant positions in these, since there are dollops of patronage to be disbursed.

As the media, spearheaded by 24-hour news channels and a rash of specialist sports channels vied aggressively for eyeballs, cricket reportage got progressively intrusive. The finer aspects of the game were discarded as great cricketers of yore had to tailor their commentating skills to meet the demands of commercial TV. As a subscriber to the just discontinued Delhi edition of Bengal's predominant newspaper, Ananda Bazar Patrika, I am stupefied by the extent of real and imaginary coverage that occupies its front page. For the last year, if not more, there has probably not been a single day that the paper has not carried at least one report on cricket on the first page, usually centred around the fluctuating fortunes of local icon Sourav Ganguly. It is the oxygen of publicity that drives commerce in our post-modern society. But in the process, cricket in India has been transformed from a game into a debilitating obsession. Just has China's shrewd leadership has converted a country of 1.3 billion people into frenzied consumers, saturation coverage of cricket, particularly the politics over it, has turned almost everybody in India into a rabid analyst with inflexible views.

The boorish antics of Greg Chappell have infinitely worsened the situation. "Public opinion" artificially generated by fiercely competitive TV channels with their contentious SMS polls has become a major factor in cricketing decisions. This is where the altered complexion of cricket management comes in. As a political leader of considerable standing, Mr Sharad Pawar cannot be impervious either to "public opinion" or the views of his parliamentary colleagues. While a non-political professional heading a cricket board would not be expected to be accountable to such hysteria, Mr Pawar or any politician in a similar situation has to be seen being responsive to these circumstances. And hysteria it is.

I am no admirer of Greg Chappell and believe his arrogance, megalomania and misplaced zeal to play god have brought Indian cricket to its present sorry pass. But I am equally disturbed by the looming prospect of semi-ignorant TV anchors deciding how Indian cricket should be run. Of course, Chappell is very largely responsible for his present plight. It is rightly believed by an overwhelming majority of cricket lovers that India's most successful captain Sourav Ganguly was turfed out because he stood up to Chappell's hyper-ego.

There can be two opinions on whether it was appropriate for MPs to castigate the Indian team and its coach on the opening day of Parliament's Winter Session. But a mere employee of the Board of Cricket Control had no business to make disparaging remarks about elected representatives of the Indian people. A huge disconnect has happened between the coach of the team and the rest of the country. And it is not over Ganguly alone. His wild experimentations have shattered the confidence of first-rate players like Irfan Pathan who is probably the most confused man in the team today not knowing if he should focus on being a strike bowler or a frontline, two-down batsman. Chappell rides roughshod over a magnificent batsman like Rahul Dravid who has been reduced to a captain only in name. Dravid's authority is about as impressive as that of Manmohan Singh vis-à-vis Sonia Gandhi. Ironically, the two persons running India's politics and cricket are foreigners! Says something about us, doesn't it?

A senior cricket manager I conversed with during the Champions' Trophy tournaments last month had an interesting point to make about Chappell. He pointed out that John Wright, Chappell's highly successful predecessor, decided to become an Indian as soon as he took up the coach's job. "Wright would join the players for a wedding feast and gently advise them against devouring rich, oily food the next day. The players would be chastened and make a serious effort to refrain. Chappell not only stays aloof but also severely reprimands, almost abusing players who have put on a kilo or two under family pressure. But scolding someone like Sehwag all the time for succumbing to his mother's delicacies doesn't work. It makes a player obstinate, even rebellious. Indians will do anything if you talk to them pyar se. They resent being shouted at, that too in English!"

It is this disconnect that will lead to Greg Chappell's exit in 2007 as an unloved coach. That said I do wish we let our cricketers alone for a while. They have hit a bad patch but constant hectoring by the media won't result in an overnight change in fortunes. I also hope that the personality-oriented coverage that is already dominating the South Africa tour, does not destroy whatever is left of Ganguly's grit and stamina. To be a successful cricketer in the age of the media, growing a thick skin is definitely more important than cultivating sporting skills.

Courtesy: www.dailypioneer.com, December 03, 2006