How good are we at cricket?

CRICKET: Many a people wonder at Sri Lanka’s proven prowess at the game of Cricket. For a small country like Sri Lanka, our ranking among Cricketing nations is quite remarkable. True, it is a game played only in a few countries, formerly associated with the British Empire.

In Europe, only the English follow it seriously, typically calling their premier Cricketing centre the Lords. In the American continents they probably think it is a reference to a pesky insect.

The Chinese most likely conjure up a stir-fried dish on the game being mentioned. Australia and New Zealand are apparently serious about their Cricket but does any body care about the pursuits of these nations whose closest neighbour is the South Pole!

But in our money dominated world of sport what matters is not the number of countries playing the game but the numbers in the countries. On this basis, the cricketing nations in South Asia are the behemoths.

Although the average individuals purchasing power in these populous Cricketing countries, relative to the Developed world, is unimpressive, collectively it amounts to something quite substantial.

The three large countries in the sub-continent, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are top bats, truly in the Don Bradman class when it comes to having people power!

Our standing among the Cricketing nations merits attention. A decade ago Sri Lanka triumphed at the World Cup in the limited over version of the game beating the formidable Australians.

This year in Barbados we again acquitted ourselves well overcoming several strong challenges on the way to the final to meet the evidently invincible Aussies.

Although between these highlights our performance at the international level has been somewhat erratic we are still a good team. As a friend of mine, an inveterate sports analyst, pointed out, this is a matter to be pondered because we really do not seem to have the general background of a typical sporting nation.

As a percentage of the population, the number of persons taking part in active sports in this country is minimal. In the rural areas even a casual worker attracts the attention of the folks around whose energies are spent in the struggle to eke out an existence from the land around. It is argued that they have no effort to spare for sporting pursuits. A vast majority in this island cannot swim and consequently avoid water fearfully.

In physical terms we cannot be considered a particularly athletic or a robust race in relation to renowned sporting races. At international events such as the Olympics or Commonwealth Games our performance invariably is mediocre. So what is the secret of our success at Cricket, a game according to its historians originated in the cold climes of South East England in the early 17th century?

The differences in the culture of those who originally created this game and some of its fervent adherents in lands far and wide are striking. Even if one were to disregard the empire building achievements of the industrious inhabitants of that small European island, there is much that distinguishes them from others padding up to bat today. The famous English reserve is a world away from the excited volubility of the changing rooms of the sub-continent.

The love of the feathery greens, tenderly nurtured in the cold climes, is a mystery to those who are inclined to assign the upkeep of such facilities to the vagaries of nature. Barred the occasional hiccup, British sporting administration is the picture of rectitude. In many of the emerging Cricketing nations there is something distinctly underworld like about the goings on in their sporting bodies.

My friend, the sports analyst, is of the opinion that there is an unmistakable harmony between the general mindset here and the ethos of Cricket. He argues in other words that the game of cricket has certain features, which touch a chord in the social psychology prevailing in Sri Lanka.

For example, he points out that Cricket, or Kreckett as it was called in those early days in England, was essentially a children’s game until three centuries ago. What thrilled the children of England during the medieval times will surely hold our present day adults enthral, he says. My friend’s arguments are not without appeal.

The game’s lack of impulse towards a definitive result, the regular ending of games in draws, accords well with the laid back attitude predominant in our culture with the valued bonus of both teams saving face at the end of the day.

It is a game with full of uncertainties, which can go a long way in determining the winner. In the long run the fit and the athletic teams will naturally have a better record. But the fact is that in a given situation we can occasionally humble a mighty team which is sufficiently rewarding to our short-term attitude he argues.

Then there is the famous Sri Lankan cultural inclination towards patron client relationships, which is buttressed by the various institutions of the game of Cricket. It is hard to nominate another sport in which the captain of the team plays such an important role. He is not necessarily the best Cricketer in the team. But the Captain determines many things, which probably affect the performance of the player.

Now, in an individual sport like say Badminton, the best player in a given situation this can be easily established. But in Cricket the selectors and the captain by their decisions can make or mar a player. This whimsical nature of the game is apparently is acceptable to the culturally imposed expectations of life here.

He further argues that we as a race are uncomfortable in situations of individual decision and action. The lone gladiator facing the hungry Lion in the arena is something outside of our experience. It is teamwork we are inclined towards. The crowd provides us security. In numbers we delight. Cricket is a team effort.

When I pointed out the sweeping changes brought in to Cricket by the hugely popular limited over version of the game, my friend while conceding the radical transformations, pointed out that the essential harmony between Cricket and our basic culture remains unbroken. He said: “In the traditional form of the game a batsman would try to score some thing like hundred runs in a day.

The purists consider this unhurried pace quite acceptable if not desirable. In a limited over game the batsman has to attempt a hundred runs in one hour. Because the old form was not drawing the crowds Cricket has now invented this new game where batsman must score at a hara-kiri pace. We are also like that. If you observe our historical behaviour, we too have long spells of inaction interspersed with frenetic actions which are really suicidal.”

One may not necessarily agree with the opinions of my philosophic friend on the reasons for the popularity of this alien game on our soil. But it is a fact that we have proved ourselves good at this team sport unlike many other foreign things we have dabbled in.

From the point of view of attempting to replicate what generally works in a given society it may be useful to ponder why we became good at this essentially British game of Cricket.

- RP