Cricket porn isn’t very different from the regular kind. In large doses it has similar effects on the viewer, inducing fatigue, distorting reality and instilling a false sense of machismo. The objectification of women is reflected in the objectification of bowlers.
It is hugely popular, of course, going by the numbers who watch the IPL. But when a team scores more than a hundred runs in five overs, it becomes all six and no substance. Should we change the rules?
However you look at it, that was a wonderful partnership between the centurions Virat Kohli and AB de Villiers in Bangalore the other day. There would have been few who didn’t enjoy it, few who didn’t see it as pushing the boundaries of T20 cricket. But a few would have also seen it as the end of bowling — or, conversely, the starting point of a whole new approach to it.
The skill of the batsmen involved and the near-perfection of their strokeplay was a thing to behold. But it’s the role of the lesser players in the drama, the bowlers, we should worry about. They were merely providers of fodder, fetchers and carriers engaged in the greater task of supplying the raw material for the entertainment all round. They existed for the batsmen’s pleasure.
When a format relies on bowlers getting collared for its very existence, emotions tend to flow from excitement to embarrassment. You can have too much of a good thing.
We know all the reasons, of course. Bats have improved, the boundaries are short, fitness is at a peak and even mishits carry to the boundary. Bowlers are sacrificial lambs. Ravichandran Ashwin recently spoke of the quality of mishits. Presumably, the poorer ones fetch only a boundary, the better mishits go for six. Yet, to acknowledge the power of mishits itself is testimony to how far behind in the game the bowlers are.
And yet, and yet, and yet…
Bowlers will get collared occasionally in any form of the game. Every time that happens there is no call to change the rules. T20 provides the greatest good to the greatest number, if the viewership figures around the world are any indication. Anyway, those who can’t abide by it can switch off their television sets.
There is the danger of pushing the formats closer to a mean by making them resemble one another through reckless rule-making. This, when the best chance of the three formats thriving lies in making them as different from one another as possible. A T20 innings that imitates a Test match innings will turn away supporters of both formats.
Worked wonderfullyDon’t forget T20 was invented to bolster attendances at matches. To that extent it has worked, and worked wonderfully. Today, it might be foolish to think that it is a way of driving audiences towards Test cricket (as it was once believed). If anything, the traffic seems to flow in the opposite direction.
A Kohli-de Villiers partnership is currently the apotheosis of the T20 game, the best the format has to offer. Audiences come for the sixes, so why deprive them of that through a change of rules?
Perhaps the answer lies in more focused R & D by the bowling coaches. Already many weapons have been polished afresh. The slow bouncer, the slow and quick yorker, the deceptive arm speed, and more.
Batsmen have the advantage of hitting out at everything knowing the odds are in their favour. Bowlers will develop greater subtlety; it takes time to master new deliveries. For long, while the West Indies fast bowlers of the 70s and 80s were ruling the world, debates raged around how to extract their teeth: restrict the number of bouncers (done), increase the length of the pitch (left alone), rely on the intimidation law and so on.
Now the cycle has turned, and the talk is of re-teething the bowlers. Reduce the length of the pitch, perhaps, give them more bouncers per over, allow one (or two) bowlers to send down more than four overs per innings — all options exist. And ignore the rule regarding the fielder touching the boundary rope while making a catch or saving a boundary.
What should the authorities do? None of the above, actually. If T20 is a game of sixes and that’s its unique selling point, then why change anything? Traditionally, bowlers have been the labourers of the game. Why interfere with tradition? Crude, but pragmatic.
For the fan, the ideal game is one where both teams score over 200 and the match is decided in the final over. With perhaps a dozen sixes per innings.
The aim of porn, in the words of the novelist Umberto Eco, “ is to stimulate the spectator's desire in such a way that, while his desire is stimulated by varied scenes, the rest of the story counts for nothing.”
While watching the varied scenes of six-hitting, are we acknowledging that the rest of the story counts for nothing?
