The write stuff - Blues Brothers at Cricinfo

All this is a far distance from the easy-paced 1950s, from the romanticism of annual fixtures between Gentlemen and Players. It leaves less time for contemplation and pondering the vicissitudes of life while watching a single innings. Like always, cricket is a metaphor for society – the freneticism of the 21st century breeds IPL; Virender Sehwag sends text messages, Peter May probably wrote in longhand.

Cricket is not alone in trimming the frills. In 1994, Brazil took away the World Cup playing dull, defensive football. It won the final on penalties after an eminently forgettable final that had none of the flair and dash of Pele, Garincha or Zico. Likewise, modern hockey has little room for delectable dribbling and wrist-work.

What was once a languid, gentle pastime is today a muscular, rapid-fire sport; there is less grace, more punch © Getty Images

Does this also tell on the way we write about cricket? Admittedly it is difficult to re-read Cardus’ prose and imagine him reporting an IPL game between Chennai Super Kings and Bangalore Royal Challengers. Yet, while Cardus is the Don Bradman of cricket writing, his is not the only prototype. Cardus was evocative, descriptive and sometimes florid. He was a writer of his day; like John Arlott a generation later, he tended to use more words than may have been strictly necessary.

My favourite cricket writer is actually E.W. ‘Jim’ Swanton, Hutton to Cardus’ Bradman (or Laxman to his Tendulkar, suit your analogy), and a crisp, spare writer who would have been a natural in a T20 press box. So it’s not the length of the match that circumscribes the writer but the writer’s inherent skills that re-create the magic of cricket, any type of cricket.

That brings us to point three: why has IPL reportage in Indian newspapers been so uniformly pedestrian and non-memorable? This again is an issue that needs deeper examination. With a few honourable exceptions, cricket writing in Indian newspapers, magazines and websites is sub-standard. As the number of column inches and pages devoted to cricket has increased, the quality of cricket writing has dropped.

There are good political columnists around, fine cultural and film essayists, engaging book reviewers; so why aren’t there a plethora of readable cricket writers? Why do so few cricket writers have a sense of narrative? There is a sinister inverse correlation between volume and quality of cricket coverage. Today, editors and newspapers (and executive producers and news channels) are driven by cricket as celebrity. They need the oxygen of access: for that exclusive bite from this batsman’s mother, that prized photograph of that bowler’s dog.

The casualty is disinterested assessment, acute analysis and well-thought out criticism. IPL didn’t create this monster – India’s cricket media brought it upon itself.

IPL, or rather 20/20 cricket gernerally may not have created this monster, as you put it, but it is a symptom of the same malaise. You bemoan the desire for quantity over quality in the writing, and yet praise 20/20 for seeking quantity of runs and boundaries rather than quality of batting.

Those that are not interested in finesse are only interested in results, in one case column inches, in the other 6's hit and spectators in seats. People want to read about games, get as much information about results as they can quickly and to the point.

And yet you weep for the lost turns of phrase? Romanticising about the use of more words than is strictly necessary?

Hypocrisy comes in many forms.

And incidentally, Football, while the style of play has evolved, didn't compromise it's spirit at the altar of the dollar. It is the same game, just faster. 20/20 is not the same game.

The volume of cricket played in a very short time makes it difficult to find quality cricket writers. Which newspaper can afford to have one in each of eight cities? They don't exist.And it isn't possible to bear the expense of having fewer and flying them around.

It is also true that the sheer lack of the spectacular doesn't make for great writing. "Big hitting" was considered worth superlatives, but with 65-yard boundaries, sixes are commonplace, and no longer require "big" hits. Eight runs an over would have called for rave reviews, but with short boundaries, when six is really only a lofted 4, and would in many cases would have been out, what's to rave about?

Most of the truly spectacular performances have come from bowlers and fielders who did wonders against long odds: and here is the tragedy. The media were brainwashed into writing about some "big" hitting, when there was really not much, and they showed that they don't really know their cricket.

I like to classify journalism into two broad types: Tabloid and Responsible. Unfortunately, the mainstream media's fixation with ratings has resulted in a pervasive deluge of the former.

In many ways you can attribute this, indirectly, to the pace of life today. So I would suspect that the IPL and its associated tabloid journalism are both products of the changing times we live in rather than sharing causality.

Perhaps this has been amplified by the disdain the IPL and Twenty20 in general have been greeted with by established cricket writers (one of my favorite writers, Ramchandra Guha, for example), and the refusal of some commentators to report on the modern version.

I believe very few things could actually change collective styles of writing, and the IPL certainly doesn't deserve such an honor. So I agree with your article, though I would argue this isn't limited to cricket writing alone.

Well written, but the point is Ashok that writing in general - at least in India - is in a bad way and this has nothing to do with IPL, except that old timers may have lacked even their usual enthusiasm for the game out of self-righteous IPL hate, consequently making for bad copy.

What's misspelling lose as "L-O-O-S-E" (I read that everyday in both my dailies and have now whittled down to one!) got to do with the fast pace of life? It's mediocrity, pure and unadulterated. Not many are into writing for the love of it, and more for the money because the gift of writing is still woefully rare in India.

How quaint that I should be reading Irving Wallace's The Prize now! I will clumsily and inaccurately quote one of the characters - whom you will doubtless recognize - "Authors want to write. People want to be authors."

At least our poor vilified bunch of international stars have put in the hard yards to get where they are and deserve their booty and more.

I think the ipl (T20) bashing should stop. When i was a kid, except the West Indies or Australian Test Matches, no one were interested in Test Matches. Most of the matches were drawn with the scoring rates of 2-2.5 rpo.

With the advent of ODI competitions (from late 90s), teams started playing faster and totals such as 300 were chased. From then on, Australia started the trend to speed up the run rate in the test matches. Then only the tests became interesting and teams were playing for results and good run rates. It was in early 1900s when hitting the ball in the air was considered wrong, but not now. So is it not evolution.

The same way as ODIs helped fasten the tests, T20s will fasten the ODIs and tests. One more thing, now a days people don't have time for the families, do you expect them to watch a match for 5 days which may end up in a tame draw. suits the retired people, not for the people who do not have time and the generation who needs to achieve so many things in life.

I can almost visualize the death of Test Cricket as each day passes. It will be a tragic day when a series between Australia and India has 1 test, 3 ODIs and 7 T20s. I can see that happening within the next 5 years...

I used to think that I will explore all options to make my son a cricketer, but with the degrading standards as far as successful cricketer is concerned, I'd rather explore other sports which have more money and less hype. I really feel for someone I feel will be the next Indian batting star - Rohit Sharma! He will be lost in the crass commercial world of T20 in a few years time... Tragic!

Many scribes have made a case for the idea that T20 cricket represents a dumbing down of the game to appeal to the lowest common denominator; ie. the average Indian. But this ostensibly convincing argument has ignored what the most obtuse ignoramus can not; that Test cricket is - by any standard - inestimably boring.

Contradiction often lies at the heart of philosophical truths. Hence Test cricket is soporific, while the accompanying prose is not. T20 is exciting, while the prose is not.

Still, prosaic descriptions fueled by Prozac prescriptions ain't exactly exciting literature.

Those who wax sentimentally over the anachronistic delights of Test pattern cricket, are the same brilliantine creamed, plodding minded Anglophiles who could never comprehend the aphorism that change is the only constant, who think that Chaucer the superior poet to Shakespeare, and who still pine - whether brown or white - after those wondrously glorious days of the British Raj.

To Victor, above. 20/20 cricket is not aimed at the average Indian. Since it was thought up by a bunch of Englsh marketing men, the average Indian probably never factored into their equations. But it is aimed at the lowest common denominator.
What merit a six or a wicket when there is already an abundance of them? They blend into the background, and relevance is reduced. Test cricket is not soporific, it is (as has been described previously) to 20/20 what chess is to nougats and crosses. Certainly, if you do not understand it you may find it boring, and you may therefore enjoy the mass hysteria that is 20/20 more, but that does not detract from its value. Change may be constant, but that doesn't mean that any change is a good one. If 20/20 evens teams out to such as extent that a game is decided on a single moment, rather than a superior team, then why not get rid of the game altogether and bet money on a coin toss?
And, as with the IPL commentary - big words do not substance make

India is yet to produce a cricket journalist as readable as a Cardus or a Swanton. Good cricket writers in India have always been from some other vocation or profession and never a sports journalist in the true sense.

Among the better cricket writers in India are Ramchandra Guha, Mukul Kesavan, Rudrangshu Mukherjee, Sujit Mukherjee and Ashok Malik himself, who were, or are, not sports journalists in that sense. Unlike a Cardus, who worked for the Manchester Guardian, or Swanton, who was a sports correspondent for the Daily Telegraph.

In that sense cricket, or for that matter, sports writing in India is yet to take off. It has little to do with Test or T20.

Looks like I'm making the same point as others but oh well...I believe T20 cricket, great fun though it is, is too constricted and compressed (and over-packaged) a format for good writing. It is not that it does not 'deserve' good cricket writing, more that it cannot 'elicit' good cricket writing, even from the aforementioned legendary cricket scribes.

The concept of a batsman's innings, or a bowler's incisive spell are quietly replaced by a 'huge hit' and a 'wicket-taking delivery' (perhaps even a dot ball!). Because of these subtle changes, I don't believe we can ever HOPE to see a Neville Cardus of Twenty20 cricket.

Two separate issues here, and I don't believe they are related.

20 over cricket is not bad by itself. It is just another form of the game. It may last and it may go away. It may even prove the future of the shorter version of the game. The crowds seem to like it, anyway.

Writing is something else. A good cricket writer should be able to write as effectively about 20 over cricket as he can about the third day's play in the test between Australia and the Windies. The knowledge should still come through, so should the insights and last the quality of writing.
If cricket writing is poor is it because of the writers and not the cricket.

I don't like 20 over cricket, but the IPL had some note-worthy highlights; Warne's captaincy and leadership being one of them. They surely deserved some well-written pieces. If they didn't get those (and I would argue that in Australia there were some fine articles published, among the dross) find new writers.