test2wa

Poor patronisation of domestic cricket

The Duleep Trophy final proved to be another thriller of the domestic variety. Whatever be the standard of the bowling and fielding, there was little doubt that Indian batsmen of all classes have become more enterprising and are willing to fight on regardless of the match situation.

It's a pity though that domestic cricket remains so poorly patronised. As luck would have it, no one would have seen the Duleep final save for media people and police personnel if the administration - cricket and police - had decided to stick with the decision of playing the match ‘in camera.' Only the first two days of the match were played without an audience.

Given the intricacies of the Telangana situation and its potential to be explosive, the lot of the cricket admin men had to be pitied rather than censured. They can only be led by the powers that be who, however, seemed to take the easy way out by banning spectators. What a thought, which only an authoritarian government or administration could ever envisage.

Not that we have not seen the likes of it in India. A part of a Test match between India and Pakistan was played ‘in camera' at the Eden Gardens just a touch over 10 years ago. That was the famous game in which people came to believe that Shoaib Akhtar had deliberately obstructed Sacin Tendulkar from regaining his crease.

Feelings were running so high then that the administration took shelter in the serious issues about the security of the visiting Pakistani players and closed the stadium. That must have been the first instance of a 1,00,000 seater going empty at an India-Pakistan Test match.

Back then we believed that only a Marxist state could think of and execute such a plan of excluding the cricket-crazy citizens of a whole city. Apparently, that theory is no more valid. But then better sense prevailed in Hydebarad where the match was thrown open to spectators when it became apparent that there was no security threat to a venue protected by a few policemen and members of other security forces.

What is a game of cricket without its spectators, even if say only a few old age pensioners and their dogs turn up at some county grounds in England? At one point of time, spectators were as much a motive force of the game as the players themselves. Their presence was a source of great motivation for skilled cricketers.

In the era of television in which TV rights revenues rule the game, the spectator may have lost his importance somewhat. But he is asserting himself again these days by being very selective about what he wants to watch. The lay cricket spectator is actually driving the cricket revolution in the form of the T-20 and all reforms regarding formats of the game are being done to suit his taste.

The stadiums in India, which used to have the least imaginable facilities and comforts for spectators, are also slowly changing. Many are being remodeled or rebuilt with the World Cup 2011 in view. The idea is to give the modern spectator facilities in keeping with his improving status in life. He is also known to be willing to spend more provided he can have a good time at the venue.

At such a time, it's a little incongruous to read that a stadium could be sealed off and the final of an important domestic tournament could be played without the public having access. Whatever the circumstances, the Board has to be far more progressive in its attitude towards one of the four rams of the game that go into making the game what it is.

The average spectator is not some Joe on the street. In some way he is still contributing to the growth of the game even if what he gives at the turnstile does not define the financial health of the game anymore.

ADD COMMENT

No comments on “Poor patronisation of domestic cricket”