Pseudo-nationalism polluting cricket discourse

Ian Chappell, like his brother did, seems only to divide opinions of sub-continent followers. His latest branding of some of Shahid Afridi's actions as "idiotic" has led to vilification from many Pakistanis. Just the way the Indians reacted when he called for Sachin Tendulkar's retirement after the 2007 World Cup.

Firstly, on Tendulkar. If I remember right, Chappell was not alone in calling for his retirement. There were hordes of Indians, too, wondering in more polite terms about Tendulkar's decision to continue playing despite a "seemingly" interminable decline. One among these hordes was a man considered by many to be one of India's finest cricket writers and a Tendulkar admirer for long - Rohit Brijnath. Similar doubts went through the mind of many a writer, spectator and even ardent devotees (I am one of them). Some voiced it publicly and politely like Brijnath, and others more bluntly like Chappell.

Of course just as geniuses do, Tendulkar answered his critics with his performance. But that does not blind the fact that Tendulkar's form and runs were deserting him since the 2003 World Cup. Everybody knew it. Injuries were piling up. Many of us hoped he would capture some of the magic of his youth and sign off stylishly, but I would like to hear from someone who believed he would have the almost super-human second-wind he has had since then.

Despite my strong conviction that Tendulkar is the best player post-1990s, I respect the opinions of those called for his head. There is something seriously wrong with the media if not a single writer calls for the head of a No. 4 batsman whose averages for four consecutive years are as follows - 17 (5 matches), 91.50 (10 matches), 44.40 (6 matches), 24.27 (8 matches), with even the 91.50 being primarily due to three not-outs.

Now coming to Afridi issue. Chappell is not the first and will not be the last to describe Afridi's actions in such a manner. The problem being that the man as a bowler and captain seems to be intelligent but as a batsman, the less said the better. Here's what Wasim Akram said about Afridi : "If Afridi hasn't learnt to bat in 10 years, then I wonder when he will." Well, how would you bluntly call a man who has not learnt his daily trade in 10 years ? For a start, 'idiotic' is not a bad word. Akram put it in polite terms and Chappell put it bluntly.

I do not agree with Chappell's stubborn refusal of Afridi's captaincy and indeed, Chappell, like many strongly opinionated commentators has often infuriated me with inflexible opinions. But should that mean I vilify a commentator just because we differ on something?

What is more disheartening is to see are comments insinuating that since Australia lost to Pakistan, Chappell has lost his right to criticise Pakistan. I am not sure how Australia's cricket performances bestow rights on Chappell to praise or criticise the opponent. Does it mean that if Australia wins, all that Chappell, Taylor and Healy say should be embellished in gold? Even in the comments section, an Indian cannot criticise a Pakistan or Australia player. The first response is 'look at your own team and they are struggling'. Well, even if that is the case that neither proves or disproves my criticism and only diverts attention from it. If I am allowed to criticise players from teams only when India defeats them, then for the most of 1990s, I would have been on a silent-vow. Even in the last month, should I criticise only the Associates, Bangladesh and West Indies?

It is sad to see a good writer like Kamran Abbasi, too, linking Australia's poor performance with Chappell's commentary. I agree with Abbasi's article except his last paragraph that equates Chappell's reference to Afridi with Australia calling him so ("Indeed, a more troublesome issue for Australia is that your World Cup campaign must be in genuine danger if you are walloped by a team led by an idiot?"). The article was indeed an apt response barring this last paragraph. Such vilification of commentators and writers is nothing new and seems a clear case of pseudo-nationalism.

It reminds me of friends who were upset that Danny Boyle was showing Indian slums, forgetting that countless Indian directors had done so. Their fury was not that India had despicable slums or someone had shown it but rather a foreigner had exposed the country's ugly side to the world. Ditto is the case here. The issue seems to be less about Tendulkar's retirement or Afridi's idiocy but more about an Australian calling it.

Increasingly, cricketing discourse and especially comments sections on many forums are marred by such narrow-mindedness. If Chappell calling Afridi's actions as idiotic is wrong, then please say so and explain it. Indeed, question his double standards over Afridi's and Brett Lee's celebrations? Chappell's favourite Shane Warne was no less a exhibitionist on the field. But why bring his nationality or his national team's performance into the picture? They bear no relationship whatsoever to the validity or invalidity of his comments.

Respond (positively or negatively) by every means possible to the comments if you want to, or reject them, but please do not pollute or pervert interesting discussions by going after the writer or the commentator. They are not paid to commentate on only one team or the winning team. It's a sad development if even the so-called experts who respond to them are being jingoistic and only encouraging base pseudo-nationalistic tendencies among fans.