Land of Lime

After the KSCA elections, Harsha Bhogle had a fascinating set of interviews Anil Kumble, Sanjay Manjrekar and Prof. Ratnakar Shetty on his ”Time Out with Harsha Bhogle” online talk show. While cricketers have been in charge of cricket administration in the past, including in Karnataka, I was struck by what Manjrekar and Shetty had to say about Kumble, Srinath, Dravid and their team.

Manjrekar, in particular, pointed out how Karnataka cricketers in the last two decades seemed to be more curious about and aware of how institutions function when compared to cricketers from other states. For instance, he said, they know how the managing committees of state cricket associations function and he implied that this knowledge explains the electoral success of Kumble et al in the recent elections. If they succeed in their mission, it will be because of this awareness and intellectual curiosity.

Having come off age in a rapidly globalizing and cosmopolitan Bangalore, which had opened itself to the rest of the world, this group is quite well educated and tech savvy. Their cohort of childhood friends and classmates has settled all over the world and brings to them an awareness of the world that is quite different. This I suspect is what they have added to their earlier reputation as gentlemen cricketers.

Addendum: While Kumble didn’t have any specifics on what they plan to do at KSCA, he did say something very interesting, and indeed a very welcome measure: that his team is actively considering changing the bylaws to introduce term limits (two terms) for KSCA office bearers.

To sit in the stands at Gangothri Glades, Mysore, away from the Press box and KSCA invited guest stands, is to realize the great challenge domestic cricket in India faces. Upwards of three thousand spectators are always present in this pretty little stadium, and their cheerful presence is a constant reminder of what’s missing in big Test match centers.

We often hear about the great challenge cricket administrators have set for themselves, of making domestic cricket more appealing to this cricket watching public.

Given that a typical spectator in 2010 is reared on a diet of ODIs, and increasingly T20s, if the proceedings aren’t filled with aggressive stroke making, then there is great disappointment. The spectator applauds even misplaced lofted hits or streaky edges get applauded. Aggressive intent is what he seeks.

Test matches will remain popular. In recent times, aggressive batting has made them quite exciting. More significantly, there is glamous associated with Test cricketers. Even a great defensive innings by Tendulkar is exciting simply because Tendulkar is batting.

Domestic cricket, especially, in its long form, doesn’t offer the same charm or excitement for the typical spectator.

This is true at Gangothri Glades as the game heads towards a draw by the end of third day, lending the fourth day’s play virtually meaningless. In its Ranji Trophy league match against Baroda, Karnataka has a chance to press for a win. An hour after tea on the third day, Karnataka could set a target of over 350 runs but it chose to get batting practice. Explaining the rationale, Karnataka coach K Sanath Kumar said his batsmen needed time in the middle and in any case, his team was assured of qualifying for the knockout stage as the top team from its group; so there was no need to press for a result.

The unasked, and hence unanswered, question was this: Did Sanath Kumar and his team have an obligation towards the spectator? While tactically their decision made sense, should they have aimed for a win and make the contest exciting? Shouldn’t our well-paid domestic cricketers, who benefit greatly from spectator interest in cricket, also seek to entertain the crowd?

We could take the game to smaller centers like Mysore. We could build nice small stadiums, and create better facilities for the spectators. We could offer life security for the domestic player pool by offering decent remuneration and good pension plans. We could create good sporting wickets, with good bounce and carry, along with lush green outfields.

In Mysore, this week we had all these above listed conditions fulfilled. Yet, the action in the middle was pretty dull, and this was true even for the connoisseur, not just for the typical spectator. On day 1, Karnataka made 257 but Baroda’s bowling was disciplined at best, on what was a pretty good wicket, with good bounce and carry. Karnataka’s talented batsmen threw away their wickets, many after pretty good starts. We didn’t see much skill or flair from either team. Baroda was missing its big guns, the Pathan brothers and Munaf Patel, and so was lacking in the flair department. But Karnataka fielded its strongest team, minus Rahul Dravid, and had no excuse. While it did get Baroda out cheaply for 169 on the second day, this wasn’t an inspiring performance.

In fact, a senior Mysore cricketer said that the standard of cricket wasn’t better than what we see in a typical Mysore league cricket match.

When that’s the verdict wtih several talented players with flair on the field, something needs to change, if cricket has to become appealing.

So how do we set this right?

Perhaps, Karnataka aiming for an outright win would have redeemed the game. That’s the obligation that Sanath Kumar and his Karnataka team will have to fulfill. Additionally, they have to draw the spectator into the game. At Mysore, he is already there at Gangothri Glades, and the obligation for the players isn’t to lose his attention.

Eulogizing T. E. Srinivasan, Suresh Menon wrote in Cricinfo last night:

In the 1970s and 80s, he filled the grounds even for league matches. When word spread that he was batting, the crowds appeared miraculously, cheering him on; when he was out, a big chunk disappeared just as miraculously.

Our players too will have to find their inner Srinivasan and make the game exciting for the spectators, if they wish to keep their game etched in popular memory.