Star cricket’s interesting ad campaign and a certain sense
of gender-based guilt has got me watching the Women’s world cup of Cricket. I’m,
what’s politely called, “a rabid cricket fan” – which means I will watch any
match, anytime, anywhere.
So. Back to the cricket.
First let me just say that there is something about watching tall,
lanky, lithe women, with flowing hair held back by headbands, display
aggression – makes for compelling viewing. Helps you understand the appeal of the Amazons!
(in several ways…. J)
There’s not enough power.
If you’ve been weaned on a steady diet of the male version of the game
you do miss that. Strikes don’t go as far, the ball is not attacked as much and
throws from the deep don’t make it back as quickly. That throws your viewing judgment
off – hits don’t go to the boundary – even on the Brabourne pitch which has a
decently fast outfield – and throws come back slower – so they run more runs
than you expect. You’re heart pumps and you are busy screaming at them to “not
run on the throw” – only to realize that of course they can.
Loved Mark Butcher's pitch report – when he said - “The girls play as intensely but are a lot
lighter – so as you can see, the pitch is in beautiful shape, even though we
had a game yesterday!”
The shapes are more interesting. Not as muscle-bound. More grace. Men –
if you will excuse my bluntness – all look the same! So once the helmets on –
there’s not much to see. With the women –
this is not the case. They remind me of the shape of the athletes in the eighties
who used to play – before the gym and the bullk and the protein shakes all
became mandatory.
It’s a quieter, purer game. No commercials so you can see the on-field body-language, hear the comments and chatter between overs. That’s something I’ve always enjoyed about
telecasts from other countries – because there isn’t as much velocity of commercial noise as
with Indian broadcasts – you can really hear the sounds of the game.
There’s a lot more camaraderie.
Every single batsman who is dismissed has something to say to the incoming
batsman and exchange a gentle glove bump. Never seen the men do that! They are
usually too busy mouthing off at themselves, or shaking their head at perceived umpiring
slights, to focus on the game.
Our commentators struggle with nomenclature. I don’t
understand why they insist on using the word batswoman – that’s like saying “chairwoman”
– an archaic term which has now been replaced by the ubiquitous “chairman” –
applied to both genders. I think language
has to change to reflect context rather than gender. For example, I’m fine being called “Sir” – where the term
is applied out of respect or to the leader of the pack!
The interviews with the players are much more fun to hear.
The women smile a lot more, they laugh delightedly, look a lot more relaxed,
and tellingly – sound less “finished” and “prepared”. You can just tell that the PR guys have not
got at them as yet.
One final plus, they have women commentators who are
professionals– and not some mis-guided attempt at eye-candy, a trap which I was
sorry to see the Big Bash League fall into this year. Wish they would keep them on in place of
certain Indian commentators who’s mangled, inaccurate commentary has all of us fans
blushing from here to kingdom come. Can
the best “man” please take over here?
To use a food analogy, the overall experience is like a
sorbet – light, airy and refreshing. Love it. Will take it over any commercial brand of
ice-cream or the Indian Kulfi – anyday!
Very well written Vidya - your POV comes through strong.
ReplyDelete