Shouldn’t cricketers be expected to be accountable to the media and the fans?
Being a fan of any sports requires an investment of time and emotion. To savor the bliss of a victory, one should be able to risk the trauma of defeat. Wins enthuse; defeats excruciate. But is the despondence cascading from a defeat worth the rhapsody a win brings?
Especially, when it’s ephemeral, erratic and has no impact in your real life? Well, if you start questioning the value of sports in real life, then everything we believe is relevant can be subjugated to the same appraisal. From a nihilistic panorama everything loses value, let that be education, love, affection, food, sex- the list only runs the gamut.
Let’s stop here since we stand the risk of going adrift from the topic. Any sports buff would be receiving criticisms from all and sundry for being what they are, followed by how sports have no real meaning in real life. It must have become a part of our lives, that such pitiable attempts at ‘correcting’ our lifestyles often find a path from one ear to another and out of our system.
However, one cannot resist but question himself/herself on the value of sports, when an ardent, earnest opinion is shirked with citations such as “You can’t hold a bat properly, so don’t tell him how to bat”. Shouldn’t fans who religiously follow a sport express their view, just because they simply cannot play the sport?
The way Dhoni treated the Australian Journalist is emblematic of a sprouting problem
When Dhoni invited Sam Ferris and wrapped his shoulders around him and orchestrated what I would call as a humiliation of an individual and his profession, the majority of the fandom was impressed. Adulations poured in for Dhoni, not surprisingly since he had already been compared to Usain Bolt for his athletic effort in dismissing Mustafizur Rahman.
It may have been the result of frustration stemming from being repeatedly asked the same question, but there is no denying the fact that Dhoni’s comments were patronizing. This shows a new problem taking its root deep within the cricketing industry since it is not just Dhoni who has been involved in such arrogance in the recent past.
It wasn’t the first time Dhoni finds himself spitting barb at the media. After a narrow win against Bangladesh, Dhoni criticized the tone of a journalist for being unhappy about India’s win. He proclaimed that if the journalist was not ready to analyze the pitch and the conditions, then he shouldn’t ask such questions.
To begin with, there was nothing wrong with the question. Dhoni had impelled his fellow players to increase the Net Run Rate against Bangladesh but could only muster a one-run win against them.
All that the journalist wanted to know was how satisfied Dhoni was about India’s performance after wanting so much from his team in the prelude. He was a journalist; he was doing his job. Dhoni has no right to tell journalists what questions can and cannot be asked. No, that is not his job.
He could not have expected the journalist to be happy about India’s win either and his question didn’t carry any bias too. So, how was it right to question a journalist’s tone? And asking a question doesn’t require any analytical skills too since that is not the chief part of a journalist’s job.
A journalist doesn’t need to know about the pitch and the toss. Instead, it is his/her duty to inquire about them from responsible parties, in this case, Dhoni. So, while the journalist crossed no lines, the Captain Cool, definitely lost his cool.
In the second incident, though, Dhoni’s warm gesture to invite the Australian journalist to the desk could be suffered to an extent. But he didn’t stop there. He stated that "I wish it was an Indian media person. Then I would have asked if he has a son who is a wicketkeeper and ready to play. He would have said no, then I would have said maybe a brother who is a wicketkeeper and who is ready to play.”
Should a journalist question Dhoni about his retirement, only if he/she has a brother/son to fill in his boots? If a journalist cannot do what Dhoni does, does he lose his right to question him?
The Indian skipper might have been harangued with such questions in the past, but the fact that he is 34 and by the time the next WT20 comes he would be 39 is an enough pretext for anyone to ask that question.
Furthermore, Sam Ferris’s question was only about how keen Dhoni was to play further. It, at the most, may have vicariously sounded like a question on Dhoni’s retirement, but it was never a question that wanted Dhoni to retire as the captain interpreted.
And when did retirement become a phenomenon governed only by fitness? Sangakkara, when he retired, was still the best batsman in the team. Brendon McCullum hung his boots after scoring the fastest test century ever. King Kallis was still middling the ball in his farewell test and Murali’s off breaks were still spitting venom as he retired.
A players’ role in the team, the need to groom youngsters can all become deciding factors in announcing retirement.
A journalist’s question echoes the thirst of the fans
Even then, the fact that Ferris wanted Dhoni to continue playing cricket doesn’t answer the question. Behind a journalist’s question is the general fan followings’ inquisitiveness to know about a team’s plan and a player’s future.
Ferris may not have wanted an answer, but the fans may have. There is no way that fans can get an answer for all their questions and that is why you have journalists. That is why fans love reading interviews and watching post-match media briefing. If a cricketer doesn’t need to answer, then what is the whole point in hosting a media briefing?
Dhoni is not the only cricketer who has become intolerant to questions and criticisms. Dilshan asked a fan in New Zealand whether he wanted to bat for Sri Lanka when the fan asked Dilshan to retire.
While the fan’s behavior is completely inappropriate, Dilshan’s response is a microcosm of the modern trend, that you need to shut-up if you can’t do what cricketers do. Ahmad Shezad blocked a fan on twitter for a mild criticism of him not taking his cricket seriously, in comparison to Virat Kohli.
It was within Shezad’s right to block him, but shouldn’t a player accept a critique as much as adulations? Virat Kohli, to play his part, not too long ago stated that “someone who hasn't played for the country has no right to comment on an international cricketer anyway. I don't think that has any kind of logic.”
No, journalists are not inferior to cricketers
Journalists and fans are often accused of being arm-chair critics, even though that is acceptable to a lot of extents, that cannot be an excuse to coldly rebuff the media. Media has a lot to add to cricket and the cricketing industry doesn’t function around the players alone.
Saina Nehwal and P.V. Sindhu, despite having done so well for India at the international level are not seen on billboards in every nook and corner of India owing to two reasons: The media doesn’t wax lyrical about them day in, day out and Indians are not so fanatical about badminton as they are about cricket.
The tales of champion athletes having to spend their lives in poverty shows the importance of media and the fans. Ever heard of a cricketer who won the man of the match award in a world cup final spending his life in poverty? Cricketers have earned a fortune, not just because they play well, but also because a billion watch them.
So, without the media to extol each and every performance of the cricketers and fans to buy tickets and scream at the top of their lungs to cheer their ‘heroes’, cricketers cannot be superstars.
Nearly a billion watch cricket and without them none of the cricketers cannot enjoy their ‘celebrity status’. There can be no fans without cricketers, and there can be no cricketers without fans. It is a cycle.
So it’s is paramount that cricketers understand that the media and the fans are all part of the cricketing industry. The ground staffs who haul in the covers, the pitch curator, commentators, the media, the fans and the cricketers are all part of this industry. For cricket to continue its success, it needs everyone, not just the players.
Inability to play cricket doesn’t account for cricketing nescience. People who can’t hold a bat properly might carry a wealth of knowledge about cricket and a brain that can possibly solve a burning problem of a team.
While VVS Laxman’s cricketing skills are streets ahead those of Harsha Bhogle, it is not without a reason most of us love Bhogle’s commentary more than Laxman’s.
Dilshan once stated that he didn’t know who Garry Sobers was until he met him. Compare that to the amount of anecdotes, stats and know-hows the fans and the journalists carry with them!
The part media played in the growth of cricket is undeniable. Cricketers must understand that. A player should accept the fact that it is a journalist’s job to raise questions and it is his job to answer them, if not why attend press conferences at all?
The world should realize writing about cricket doesn’t make a person inferior to a person who plays it. A journalist cannot do a cricketer’s job and a cricketer cannot do a journalist’s job. They require each other to complete their jobs.
Test cricket is dying- not because the players are not playing it, but because fans are not watching it. There you go! Can there be a better specimen to illustrate the importance of fans?