Warning! The following piece of writing contains extended metaphorical sequences which some of the more literate readers may find distressing.
Andy Zaltzman’s Cricinfo articles never fail to arrive punctually at Comedy Central. But whilst his latest piece on the IPL was chugging along nicely, inducing more than its share of laughter from the Hughes sofa (or more accurately, the idle man reclining upon the Hughes sofa) it gradually became clear that I had boarded the wrong carriage. Having travelled on his train of thought for most of the journey, I was forced at the last minute to leap from the speeding vehicle of logic and roll down a grassy embankment of disillusionment.
Jumping from a metaphorical locomotive isn’t easy, but I had no option. So what was it that could have provoked me, all these days later, to create such a shaky analogy? It wasn’t that he expressed his lack of interest in who might win the IPL. I don’t care who wins it either. What led me to pull the emergency cord was the conclusion that he drew from that insouciance. Not giving a Mark Nicholas about who won the thing, he seemed to be saying that it would not therefore be permitted to cross the electronic threshold into Zaltzman Land.
Do other people feel like that? If so, then what is cricket about? Why do we watch it? Do we only care about a match because we want one side to win or another to lose? These are big fat hairy challengers that every cricket person should at one time or another get into a wrestling ring with. They are fundamental questions that deserve to be fully explored by a literate, learned and erudite writer.
I won’t be doing that, obviously. For me, as Ronnie Irani would say, it’s simple. I like cricket. I watch a lot of it. Really, far too much of it. Not because I care who wins any of it, but because I like it. I’m watching the IPL because the best players in the world (and Ajit Agarkar) are playing the best sport in the world in the same place at the same time. What other reason do you need?
Cricket is like the works of Shakespeare (yes, really, trust me on this.) When you file in to a performance of Romeo and Juliet, are you carrying an enormous foam hand that says, ‘Chak De Capulets!’ on one side and ‘Tybalt Rocks!’ on the other? Do you come out of the theatre shaking your head because you felt Mercutio was on the wrong end of a poor decision? No. The play’s the thing. So it is with cricket. It’s the game, stupid. As Oscar Wilde definitely didn’t say, there is no such thing as the wrong or right result; there is only good or bad cricket
There is of course, a third way to look at the IPL. I know that there are people in England who have only taken an interest in the tournament whilst the English players were involved. For them, the entertainment has been rather thin, though they have, if they’ve been paying attention, witnessed a fascinating phenomenon, known as the Freddie Paradox. It runs something like this. Pre-IPL, everyone was agreed that Andrew Flintoff was a snip at $1.55m and would do the canary-coloured ones proud. Post IPL, everyone is equally adamant that the big buffoon can barely hold a bat and is so deficient in the important skill of bowling slightly more slowly than usual that he should never have gone in the first place.
I say ‘everyone’, by which I mean cricket journalists, by which I mean former England cricketers. And if you are prepared to be patient, you may see another paradox. Currently, the ex-pro press corps are unanimous that Andy Flower is much better than they said he was two months ago and that the selection of a man named Onions is a sure sign that England can win the Ashes. Make a mental note of this so that you can compare and contrast with what they say amid the ashes of England’s Ashes hopes in mid August.
But I digress. Freddie didn’t do very well nor did the rest of them, with the exception of Ravi Bopara. Still, at least we now know for sure what kind of England captain Kevin Pietersen could have been. For Bangalore, he strutted, he clapped and he chivvied and all of it registered high on the decibel scale. He was a tattooed mother hen with a megaphone. Sure, he lost most of the games he played in, but he did it at an impressive volume. And Collingwood’s and Shah’s familiarity with dug-out facilities at all of South Africa’s main stadia could prove very handy when England tour there later this year.
Coinciding with the departure of the Englishmen has been a noticeable stripping out of dead wood as international class egos are ignored in the pursuit of victory right now. The franchises are like Formula One teams, frantically tinkering and modifying mid-race, with the result that those making the early pace are now in danger of being overtaken. Even Bangalore, now running on Kumble, a lower emission, higher efficiency fuel, are looking like contenders. It’s all very confusing.
Thank goodness then for the old-school incompetence of the Kolkata Knight Riders. John Buchanan’s sequel to ‘If Better Is Possible’ will presumably be entitled, ‘Can It Get Much Worse?’ to which the answer is, undoubtedly. Kudos though to the laptop-bothering Sun Tzu quoting coach. In such an open format of the game where anyone can beat anyone, it takes a special kind of magic to string together six defeats out of seven.
Finally, you may have noticed that these ramblings contain no mention of commentators. That is because I have realised that they are impervious to criticism of any kind. Like a herd of charging rhinos with their Ipods turned up full, they are not going to listen to reason, even if it is shouted in their faces. I realised that satire was futile when I heard Alistair Campbell admit that he had run out of nouns with which to describe the action. Muting is too good for them.
I agree with you. The commentary is pathetic, but the cricket has been getting so much better, so what if it is a T-20 tournament. The whining of how bad IPL is, is getting as bad as the commentry as well, not the whiners have been having so less to complain. So what if Owais Shah did not get a game to play but said that he liked this tournament, he probably meant that he liked the way he met new people, got to know them better, trained with some of the best people, if it injects passion and enthusiam in some of the English players it would be welcome i suppose. The cricket is good in the second week because the Indians in all teams are getting used to the conditions. I hate the strategy breaks, Lalit Modi, the commentary, the hosts, but cricket is top notch, it is close, it is interesting, it is fun, far better then some of the recently concluded bi-lateral series. But i guess as good as cricket's past has been, it will always haunt cricket's future.
Posted by: sonic surfer at May 5, 2009 4:23 AM
I actually think commentary is okay. Sure they've been paid to always talk good about the games but there are times when it does come out of the heart. I think everyone is too busy passing judgements. I've enjoyed the games and it has given a selfish follower of Indian Cricketers to appreciate the skills of players from other countries like Hayden etc. I do have favorites in every match but @ this time my allegiances are not quite clearly yet the games have been fascinating for me and I've enjoyed the commentary as well as I'm not hell bent on criticising IPL.
Posted by: Moses at May 5, 2009 4:39 AM
The IPL is like a sumptuous looking dish of Chicken Tikka Masala, except you discover there's very little checken and too much masala. In IPL, there's just too much extra unwanted masala.
Another analogy is that of Faust - Cricketers, commentators and everybody associated with the IPL have sold their souls to the devil, and they now have to do anything and everything to satisfy the devil himself...
Posted by: Sreekar at May 5, 2009 4:42 AM
I really fail to understand why we all cant just enjoy quality cricket. Im an Indian(Goes without saying , i love cricket) and i love to watch India play. But i also watch England play the Windies. Why? Because its good cricket. So when one can have fun watching cricket, is'nt it hypocritical to say that i only watch when countries play against each other and not IPL(Which by the way is equally good or even better). So anyone who likes his cricket shoul'nt be tonked about watching IPL, the reasons simple, its CRICKET and its FUN!
Posted by: adverbin at May 5, 2009 4:44 AM
As a 7th generation Bangalorean, I have been supporting BRC. I have also been envying those neutrals who can enjoy the IPL without getting on to an emotional roller coaster. Maybe my chance will come in the P20?
Posted by: anil at May 5, 2009 5:07 AM
Well spake, O noble cricket lover and adroit metaphorizer. You hit the nail on its figurative head with '..(Pietersen) was a tattoed mother hen with a megaphone'! Your style somehow puts me in the mind of a rambling monologue Bertie Wooster may have indulged in over cucumber sandwiches and tea. Charming!
PS: Please wear a helmet before launching off metaphorical trains.
Posted by: N at May 5, 2009 6:06 AM
Rajasthan, because of the king!
Posted by: redneck at May 5, 2009 7:21 AM
i have reluctantly accepted that the ipl is now as much apart of the cricket calender as the boxing day test is. however i think the hype about the worlds best cricketers all being apart of it is just crap! the standard of cricket does not add up to the quality of a international match. yes half the team is made up of the best in the buisness but the other half of the teams are made up with no name indians that are even more out of their depth than last year with the tournament being in south africa this year! i thought kamran kahn was a standout as far as the no name players are concerned but now i see his bowling action is suspect and hes been sent away for 2 weeks to work on it! honestly its nothing more than a over glorified 3 hour commercial from my perspective with high profile actors combined with screen extras to fill the set which happens to be a cricket field! and i its a damm shame that the last time warney or mcgrath will play is in this mickey mouse travelling circus!
Posted by: NJ at May 5, 2009 7:28 AM
It's funny how people whine so much about the IPL; is it because of the failure of England to put up a good T20 show? I am a die-hard Super Kings supporter and am sure there are many more such folks out there. Whatever dude, just have fun as long as there is some cricket out there!
Posted by: Jamie Dowling at May 5, 2009 8:01 AM
I have made clear my distaste for Lalit Modi, his attitude and his "product" which is the equivalent of Pot Noodle in the food chain and of WWE "wrestling" in the sports environment. The commentary in the last IPL was so abysmal I was bereft of pejoratives to describe it and suitably chastised by my grandmother for descending into expletives. As with anything that takes itself so seriously there is ample room to mock and satirise IPL, which Andy Zaltzman does very very well.
Posted by: Judson at May 5, 2009 10:41 AM
Best Players in the World and Ajit Agarkar, you sarcastic fool. Who else has managed 288 wickets in 191 ODI matches? If the selectors are blind, you are foolishly blind.
Posted by: Captain Swing at May 5, 2009 10:47 AM
I find that I do take sides in any game of cricket. It's just on a whim, but I enjoy it. I am also sure that I would enjoy IPL cricket, but it's on Setanta. Any England follower now has to have Sky and I just don't feel like putting a second crocodile in my wallet.
Posted by: Matthew Richards at May 5, 2009 12:52 PM
Personally I find it hard to choose between the terrible and sycophantic IPL commentary or Andy Zaltzman’s painfully unfunny blog as the thing I most hate to have to endure. Secondly, I have watched practically every IPL game this and last season and have seen some absolutely fantastic matches and performances. If nothing else, it's better than watching one sided test matches (see England v West Indies this week for an example of this I'm sure) or the most tedious form of cricket, ODIs! I love competitive test cricket more than anything but the IPL has its place in the calendar too. Just get rid of 50 over matches!
Posted by: Harish from India at May 5, 2009 1:49 PM
I like the IPL because its different. For too long has cricket been adamant about living in the past and scorning anything new. Statements like "its against the spirit of cricket" are thrown around by many from the old school when they see cricket in its new avatar. I would then ask "What is the spirit of cricket?". Cricket was a game invented by colonials and since then has been taken over by the sub-continent. Sorry Australia, you play good cricket (the best maybe) but not exciting cricket. Cricket is at its electrifying best when played in the sub-continent (India, Pak, SL). Nobody wants a sterilized version of a game where players play to a crowd which showers polite applause. I am sure every player would like to play in a raucous atmosphere resembling a cauldron which tries his composure to the fullest but at the same time greets his century with a thunderous roar.
@redneck: IPL is an Indian league. But, its the closest thing we have to a full fledged league game of cricket.
Posted by: Sam at May 5, 2009 1:54 PM
mickey mouse travelling circus! if thats the case then AFL is like the road side monkey shows u get in India.
Posted by: Sushrut Biswal at May 5, 2009 2:28 PM
Well Andrew mate! try coming to any of the Indian cities involved in the IPL. The number of people you will come across supporting their cities passionately will baffle you to no end. In fact the number of supporters you will find at the airport will be more than the number of people who have ever bothered to watch or follow the county championship.
Posted by: BangaloreKid at May 5, 2009 2:52 PM
Here is the secret. It is Indian Premier League played by different teams representing different Indian cities. It matters to many Indians who wins because they are rooting for their cities or the ones they like better. It might not matter who wins for people overseas. It is the same case with county cricket. Many Indians don't care one bit about who wins or loses in county cricket because it is irrelevant to them. That is the context one needs to understand before they start pulling their hair as to why these games don't matter much to them. Does it matter to English who wins the county championship? That is the context in which these question needs to be asked.
Posted by: Santosh at May 5, 2009 7:12 PM
Honestly, I dont understand why the English cricket fans are worked up with IPL. In the first place, who is forcing them to watch it at all. The fact that they are commenting itself shows that they have some interest! Anyway, for me, the biggest win is being able to watch closely fought games played between the world's best cricketers. Unlike some of you who mentioned "no name" Indian cricketers, see how some of them are going to take teams apart in the World Twenty20 :-)
Posted by: stormid at May 5, 2009 7:43 PM
Alistair Campbell running out of nouns is the funniest thing I have read all day!!!
Simply brilliant!
Posted by: Lokioki at May 5, 2009 8:20 PM
Read this blog for the first time today and had to go back and read 1 - 3…they actually made me laugh out loud on the train to work this morning! Quite possibly the funniest things I’ve read in while – excellent work!
Am loving the IPL too (Go Rajasthan Royals)! Hopefully, now that the Eng v WI test has started the English journos will find something else to write about instead of being so bah humbug about the tournament. The fans love it, the players love it and the viewers love it. The tournament’s here to stay. Get over it…
Posted by: FlashAsh at May 5, 2009 10:10 PM
I haven't "watched" any of the games but have followed Cric's commentary for many!! Have to say it, Rajasthan for the cup!! thingy!! trophy!! or whatever it is they win!!
Can't help myself as you say its cricket for crickets sake!! Only have slight leanings towards who wins IPL (again, Rajasthan!), but its fun watching the numbers!!
I'll still be glued to first day of WI v Eng Test and checking how Gloucestershire are doing in the Friends Provident, with a sneaky look at whatever IPL match is taking place!!
Yours, Thankful to have received a "Blighty"
Posted by: Roy at May 6, 2009 8:59 AM
Thanks Andrew for your wonderful posts. In particular I share your views on Setanta's coverage (why no highlights by the way?). Why can't Ronnie Irani, Goughie and other worthies keep shut while the match is going on? But then this is probably a lesser evil than the Indian telecast where ads spoil the fun every over... And what's with the cameras? They seldom have the fielder in the frame during a catch or a great save. And no replays either...
Post your comment
About this blog
'Inbox' will feature submissions from you with us playing gatekeeper as we do with the rest of the site. We will set no rules apart from
ensuring a certain quality that you have come to associate with Cricinfo. You may write on the aspects of the game that you
hold dear; about matters that rile you; about players, teams and trends; you may share your memories and views, and
you may so do so in 100 words or 500. The only tip we will give you is to repeat a line from
our style sheet: Brevity is not just the soul of wit, it is the heart of all writing.
Welcome. (Editor, Cricinfo)