Vacuous Analysis and Gratuitous Nastiness

So much of cricket coverage is so routinely vacuous that commenting on it would be like writing about the invisibility of air.

But there is a certain type of commentary which is particularly insidious because it hides its emptiness beneath the polished patina of a pretty turn of phrase. Sadly common in the supposedly serious press, it lacks even the redeeming honesty of a tabloid hack job.

Writing in the broadsheet The Australian, the highly regarded Gideon Haigh has recently produced some fine examples of this kind of writing. Surely he has written much better in the past to deserve his great reputation.

What particularly moves me to comment is some seemingly gratuitous nastiness that goes well beyond pithily describing cricketing failures. Here, for instance is his take on Kohli:

"In the long-term, a candidate for this pivotal role could be Kohli, who finally fleshed out the sketchy case he has made to be considered a serious Test batsman rather than a one-day gigolo."

Gigolo? And how exactly has Kohli prostituted himself? Just by playing for his country in ODIs and doing very well? Maybe it is intended to be just mildly amusing. Maybe it is a clever play on words, one-night, one-day.....But the nasty - and patently baseless - jabs seem to be a regular feature of the column. Sachin Tendulkar is "fast becoming cricket's Harpo Marx." Just why he is supposed to be becoming a clown is never clear. Judging from the surrounding sentences, apparently it is because he hasn't spoken to the press. Or maybe it is because he hasn't scored the much-awaited century (on a related note, I love the way people talk about how Tendulkar should have played in the West Indies ODI series and gotten the century "out of the way." As if it is something like his morning toilet). Of Dhoni, we learn about his motorcycles and his money, without knowing why any of it is of any relevance.

All this is accompanied by much eloquence without any substance. It goes without saying that of cricketing analysis we find next to none. Maybe this column is supposed to transcend such mere mundanities as bowling and batting. But we do not even find any logical, coherently reasoned arguments.

Thus, much ink and space is wasted on the IPL riches - with the BCCI making its usual mandatory appearance - and a vague allusion that somehow it is contributing to the present predicaments of the Indian team. These are not, mind you, the garden-variety arguments about T20 technique. Instead, we are supposed to be convinced that the enormous monies at stake in the IPL have somehow led to a "greater malaise" in Indian cricket:

"Does this suggest that the BCCI's colossal works are trending towards an environment of mediocrity, there being no special incentive to master Test cricket when rewards are so concentrated elsewhere. After all, being a powerful short-form batsman and a competent wicket-keeper has made Dhoni, by the reckoning of Forbes, the world's best-paid cricketer. Why bother trying for more?"

Why, indeed? They must all be masochists, to stand in the sun for days on end, and get themselves called all sorts of names. The fact that India won a World Cup less than a year ago? Probably an aberration in the sea of mediocrity. The fact that the IPL started in 2008 and India did not lose a single Test series for much of its existence, from Oct 2008 to Jul 2011? Well, maybe the effect takes time, much like a slow-acting poison perhaps. And what of this "special incentive to master Test cricket?" I don't see any such thing existing anywhere else either, in Australia, England or South Africa. Every top player from every one of those countries is most anxious to join the IPL too and it doesn't seem to affect them any, if the recent results are anything to go by. Seems to be a mysterious illness that afflicts only Indians. But even that doesn't wash. The bulk of the Indian batting consists of legends who can hardly be said to be affected by IPL riches. The one guy in there who is from the IPL generation has, rather inconveniently, come somewhat good on the tour. The argument fails on so many fronts that it is hard to call it an argument. It is confused thinking and sloppy reasoning sliding by in fluid language.

Not only are these articles disappointingly void of any insights; they are almost irresponsibly personal in their unthinking slinging of some very ordinary mud.