Sport - Cricket   

A case of over-rated talent and under-rated character

By Nirmal Shekar

Ever wondered what Jacob Oram's endorsement value is? Or maybe Robbie Hart's, for that matter?

When the last ball was struck in the India-New Zealand Test series at Hamilton last Sunday, it was indeed time to ponder yet again the endless capacity of sport not merely to surprise but, more importantly, to put destiny's magic wand in the hands of the unassuming and the unglamorous.

Surely, no management consultant working in the business of sport would recommend Oram or Hart to help sell anything — from soft drinks to television to bikes — in any part of the world. Nor indeed would a sports event manager depend too much on these Kiwis to help put people in the seats at stadiums.

Yet, in a tense climax at Hamilton, these were the very men who guided the home side to what was, in the end, a rather comfortable victory.

And you can be sure that both Oram and Hart would be able to step into a neighbourhood pub for a pint of lager without being mobbed. They are the kind of men who'd perhaps get on a bicycle and pedal their way to the local newsagent to pick up their morning papers and a half litre of milk!

If any one of the 11 men they helped beat tried that anywhere in India, barring perhaps the Kargil heights or the tribes-inhabited forests of the Andamans, there would be enough commotion to make you want to dial an emergency number.

Ah, sport, capricious sport, how cruel it can be to its Gods!

Is that what you are wondering, after a pair of Test matches in which the most glamorous and celebrated batting line-up in world cricket managed to score 535 runs in four completed innings _ that is, a phenomenal (!) average of 13.37 per wicket?

But, let me tell you this: sport has always been this way. It is a great leveller, and in its court, the Chief Justice takes no note of your bank balance, your glamour value, your fan base, whatever.

And the secret of success in team sport is not in assembling an array of so-called glamorous superstars. Eleven megastars do not make a team. This is true as much of cricket as of any other sport, tennis or football or hockey or whatever.

The New Zealand side, which beat India so comprehensively in the first Test and then showed tremendous application and courage in the tense climactic phase of the second Test does not have a single superstar. And the only New Zealand player who perhaps has a chance to make any all-time list in terms of greatness — Chris Cairns — did not play in the series.

So, what does all this tell us about sport? What does it tell us about a bunch of men from this land on whom millions upon millions upon millions are spent by rival manufacturers of everything you can think of?

Quite a lot, to be sure. And there are two key issues here. The first has to do with the fact that the so-called `expectations' placed on this Indian side are hype-driven for the most part. In the high noon of sports as business, there is too much at stake for too many people to settle for a fair assessment of the side's chances at any point of time. It becomes necessary, in a way, to whip up hysteria and scream from roof tops that Sourav Ganguly's boys are potential world beaters.

Sweeping judgements are made based on performances on friendly pitches in familiar conditions. And quite often these are done after watching limited overs matches and the so-called skills of the performers are then projected into the Test arena and the stars are hailed as the new messiahs of Indian cricket. The truth is, given the limitations of many of our batsmen — barring Sachin Tendulkar and Rahul Dravid — India should always be counted on to do better in a form of the sport where you don't find four slips and balls coming at the batsmen shoulder high.

Of course, in Test cricket, especially in conditions such as seen in New Zealand, there is nowhere to hide for men with technical shortcomings as batsmen.

The second point is this: a good team is one that shows character. It can be made up of men with modest gifts, men such as the Orams and the Harts of this world, but when push comes to shove, when you have to get in the trenches and fight, often this is the side that scores, not the one packed with over-valued superstars.

"I still get goose pimples when I stand out there with the guys, when I hear the Star Spangled Banner and watch the flag go up,'' said that lovable rascal John McEnroe in 1986 when he was past his prime but still a great team player in the context of Davis Cup.

McEnroe, for all his faults, was one of the greatest Davis Cup players of all time. And in that great era in tennis, two of his greatest rivals, Jimmy Connors and Bjorn Borg could never perform at their best in a team situation.

But, what price goose pimples, really? In the present scheme of things in the world of sport, what are they worth to the megastars? How do they rank alongside crisp bankrolls? And to what extent, in terms of sacrifices, will a top player go in order to experience that special tingle of excitement run through him while playing for the country?

Sport is a strange business. Pulling together is easier said than done. And quite often when a team is packed with superstars, pulling together is doubly tough.

In Indian sport today, in a team situation when playing for the country, there is nobody who spills blood and guts as often as does the inimitable Leander Paes. The hockey player Dhanraj Pillay is a cousin, so to say. And, in Ganguly's team of megastars, the closest anyone comes to working the Paes magic is Rahul Dravid.

But, then, in a Davis Cup team made up of four, it is easier for one man to influence the fortunes of the side in a big way as Paes has done time and again. Unfortunately, for all his commitment and skills, Dravid can seldom do that on his own.

Yet, if Dravid's mates show 75 per cent of his one-pointed focus and his steely resolve, no matter with technical skills that would pale in comparison with his, India would still do a lot better than it has in New Zealand.

Say all you want about dazzling skills, celebrate all you want the gifts of an array of superstars. But do remember this in the end: Talent is over-rated and over-valued in sport. Character, on the other hand, is under-rated and under-valued.

On the big stage, when push comes to shove it is character that matters. Jacob Oram may not have banked several million dollars from endorsements. But he did show character. And in Test cricket, that matters more than pure skills.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Sport

News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

Stories in this Section

Billiards & Snooker

• Vidya, Uma Devi to vie for honours
  
  Cricket
  
• Parthiv promises plenty
• A case of over-rated talent and under-rated character
• Selectors baying for Steve's blood now
• Ganguly happy with one-day team selection
  
  Football
  
• East Bengal rallies to hold Indian Bank
• Vasco keeps winning
• Seah's strike sinks Mahindras
  
  Sports : General
  
• Olympic award for Ashwini Kumar
  
  Tennis
  
• Paradorn is Thailand's `Person of the year'
• Varman beats Kamala Kannan
  
  

Copyright © 2002, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu