Readers' comments: what a variety

We are an interesting lot. Not the royal we; but the plural we. We, the readers of Cricinfo.

The number of comments has been going up; so is the variety. Distinct types of comments with some common traits can also be seen, in adequate numbers to trace the type. This piece is an attempt to identify some of that distinctiveness, and label them, in a lighter vein.

Type 1: Oracles

Oracles are like psephologists who surface during election times with their predictions; but in our case less scientific, and more of gut feels. These oracles make predictions before game, before a series. Many a time ending with the exhortation, "Mark my words"!

To their chagrin, more often than not, they find their predictions go haywire. When reality doesn't respond to their predictions, will they resign to the fate like unrequited lovers? No! Like the obsessed, they take it as a mission and will pursue yet another target. With the same old conviction; and same old results.

Type 2: Experts

For the laymen, the experts are a good source for learning a few cricketing nuances.

For example, they teach you that balls 'swing' in the air, and not off the pitch. From the pitch, the balls only 'turn', and not swing!

For those uninitiated to the technical niceties of spinners, they will also give a discourse on the flight, drift, dip, grip, turn, and the ball spiraling up like the rising hood of an angry cobra!

Type 3: Lobbyists

Lobbyists have favourites, for every role - batting, bowling, leading and even coaching. Once they start pleading a case, like energetic lawyers, rarely do they back off - unlike the lawyers. At least, lawyers stop after getting a judgment.

Don't tell them a player is getting on in age. "What is age; a number?" they may say. They can always pick a Hogg or a Tambe to prove their point. Lack of form? "Come on, that's a blip, and will go away," will be their response. "Form is temporary; class is permanent" is a dictum they hang on, even when the 'classy form' has gone for good, and 'bad form' has moved in, like a permanent rowdy squatter

Type 4: Cheerleaders

Cheerleaders are the milder version of lobbyists. They have favourites too, and will cheer them with full might; but won't push them beyond a point. And won't make excuses for their poor performance! If you support them, well and good. If not, they will still be happy.

Positivism is their hallmark.

Type 5: Critics

Critics are the opposite of the 'cheerleaders'. I used the term, 'critics', and not 'critiques'.

The 'critiques' make objective assessments. Critics, on the other hand, take their nomenclature literally & seriously. Criticise! Find faults! Period.

If a batsman plays classic shots, strike rate is poor. If strike rate is good, he is reckless. If both are good, he isn't in the team. The litany goes on & on.

If a bowler's line is right, length is wrong. If length is right, line is wrong. If both are right, he's not bowling right. If pace is there, swing isn't there. If swing is good, pace is cannon fodder. And so on.

There is always a target to attack. Negativism is the trademark.

If 'lobbyists' and 'critics' coexist in the same space, they may spawn another type, and will start a ping-pong game.

Type 6: Funny Ones

The 'funny ones' use many a tool: Pun. Twist of a phrase. Metaphor. Mixed metaphor. Analogies - real ones and pulled out of air. And, on rare occasions, they also write with delightful wit.

Most of this type use puns, and the next most popular tool is sarcasm. Puns may be the lowest form of humour and subtle wit the highest. But, so often, subtle wit (like subtle sarcasm) goes over the head!

Type 7: Story Tellers

Many of them are followers of cricket for long. Their memory space is full of the past. Any trigger can retrieve that stuff. And recite an interesting anecdote or two. They will narrate those to anyone who care.

Even when you show disinterest, they plug in their stories like unwanted ads, between overs in a gripping match.

Type 8: Reporters

Reporters make an excellent summary of what happened in the match. One may think they are failed cricket journos, looking for an audience.

The demand from those who miss the match, they think, meets the supply - their report in a capsulised form.

The only catch is that the reader would have already read the review from the 'Cricinfo reporter', before scrolling down to this type, the 'Reader Reporter'!

Type 9: Bandwagoners

They are just the opposite of 'oracles'. They are post facto type, not a priori! Hindsight is the most reliable source which can never let them down.

They wait for results. Watch which players are delivering consistently. Which teams are winning most. Watch the reaction trend everywhere to find the bandwagon.

They climb the band-wagon and sing paeans in praise of the successful ones. Current heroes are their heroes.

Type 10: "The Rest"

This is the major chunk; all the rest! I couldn't find a name for this group. 'Balanced ones' is a possibility, since most of them display that perspective.

Their observations are sincere and serious. Often, neutral to the core. They appreciate good cricket and cricketers, irrespective of the team they play for, or the nation they come from.

They will discuss at a rational level. And, with good logic, may often make you introspect or even change your stand.

****

A few caveats, though.

This typology has all the flaws of any other typology. For instance, the 'types' do overlap. Same writer may fall in different types, at different times, depending on the context. Who knows, even depending on the mood of the moment. Even within the same post, it may shift from one type to another. I don't think any of us consciously think about it when we write. I did a mental test-run of my own comments over the years and found these caveats to be true.

I just marvel at the variety among us; tried to express that, for some fun and joy. This effort is to understand our brotherhood, with happiness, fun and a bit of introspection. Certainly with malice to none.

We, readers, often take ourselves far too seriously. Isn't it time for us to sit back and look at ourselves in a lighter vein? And see what a wide spectrum, we all fall into? And, laugh at ourselves, if we can.