One of the philosophical questions in life is, ‘Just how much is too much?’
Isn’t it? Think about it.
You love the IPL certainly because it is a potpourri of an endlessly entertaining and closely-contested wham-bam style of cricket. That it is a yearly occurrence makes it endearing for fans. But what if it would’ve been played thrice a year? Would it have carried the same zeal or the same appeal?
We are in an age where Cricket is trying to recalibrate itself, in accordance with an audience that’s not only global but challenged by time restrictions, driven by instant gratification and somewhere, dependant on a diet of entertainment.
That, it seeks it, from Cricket, not merely through movies especially in India, is a hard truth.
So what is one to do? Play excessive cricket? Or choose wisely and hold contests in moderation?
And say, we do the former, which is, well somewhere the truth, aren’t we overdoing it or engaging in cricketing overload?
At present, the victorious Indian Cricket team, that won, at the back of Cheteshwar Pujara’s brilliant batting and a commanding bowling performance of the side, it’s first series win in Australia in 71 years, is yet to play the ODIs. There are 3 of them to be played.
But then what happens? India come home and play Australia again. Fact. Did you know?
It’s confirmed that the Australian cricket team would be in India starting February for a 3-match ODI series. Interesting? Fun? Or, is this some cricketing overdose of a kind?
Who’s to decide? Someone take a call.
The following has just been confirmed and is in the news.The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has announced the fixtures for India’s home series against Australia, which starts February 24. Soon, Australia and India will face each other in a 2-match T20I series, following which the two cricketing sides will meet in a five-match ODI series. The T20Is will be held in Bengaluru and Visakhapatnam, and the ODIs will be held in Hyderabad, Nagpur, Ranchi, Mohali and Delhi.
Here’s an example of what may have been a bit ‘too much’ in the context of cricketing nostalgia, even if, not so for the fans.
Tendulkar’s 100 hundreds seemed too much for opponents to handle. But they weren’t enough for the fans. Lara made 277. He would later score 375. This would be bettered by 400. He had already although made 501 back in 1994. Was it too much for fans of elegance and flamboyant batting?
We all love our favorites and can watch them over and over again. And it’s all pleasing to the eye. But just like the famous adage- all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy- could it be that too much of cricket between two sides minus any significant amount of break makes cricket dull (rather, could be making cricket dull already)?
Once again, who’s to decide?