This is a blog post from
Rohit Gurunath Sharma makes for a wonderful case study. He’s got the runs. He’s got the respect of his teammates. He’s got the poise, the grace, the finesse. He’s even made the adjective ‘lazy elegance’ his own, thanks to our experts and cricket commentators. They cannot stop gushing about his talent.
Everyone’s invested in him. His fans speak of his ODI feats and are content with his occasional flashes of brilliance. They don’t see Sharma as a run-machine. They don’t mind overlooking a string of failures. They’ve come to accept Sharma. They just want to see the man in action, his elegant drives, the ease with which he stamps his authority on the game. Unfortunately, though, these gems come in between a string of disappointing performances. The disappointment is exacerbated by the gap between the greatness he seems to promise and the meekness of the shot that sends hiim back to the pavillion. And, every Sharma wicket, especially in Tests, also gives his naysayers a chance at taking a dig at his approach to the game.
His dismissal in the third Test against the West Indies has — as expected — brought about another cycle of debate over his place in the Test side. And then, he went and holed out in the first T20 game in a match that India eventually went on to lose. With that comes another opportunity for us explore the role of intangibles in sports — in this case, talent.
What is talent? And, how do we quantify the intangibles?
Our minds are always looking to make sense of the unknown or find a way around the ungraspable — the things that cannot be put down on paper with a definition or a set of theories. Abstractions and the intangibles are an integral part of our lives. We rarely question them. We do not know how they work but we know they’re important. They allow people to interpret it in a manner they wish to. They are fluid. They help us form opinions and, in the process, give us a sense of closure. And, that’s why their effects often endure longer than that of the tangibles.
What is fuelling the Rohit debate?
American sportswriter >Leonard Koppett identified the key aspects of selling any idea . I believe it can be used to understand the talent debate better. They help us understand how notions get strengthened over time, move across quicker and get institutionalised faster.
First, the idea should engage our emotions.
In Sharma’s case there’s clearly an emotional aspect. Debates rage every time he fails to perform. The idea of Sharma not doing justice to his talent, invariably, takes centrestage. You either love or hate Sharma, there’s no space for opinions that try find the middle ground in debates involving him. And, that may explain the constant scrutiny and extreme opinions. People are heavily invested in him, that every move of his welcomes a feedback.
Second, there’s an element of suspense that engages our intellect. He’s vulnerable, yet his performances speak of a talent that is bigger than many of the greats of the game. Every time Sharma gets beaten by a moving ball, there’s a sense of relief that he didn’t edge it. Some have an ‘I told you so’ moment, empowering enough to get on a rant again. He connects the dots in an unconventional manner. He does it in his own way and that constitutes the bulk of the suspense factor — you’re always hoping he would do it in a particular way but mostly it turns out be different.
Commentary you should run from
Some sports have an endpoint — a tangible outcome that decides the winner. In other sports, artistry is the primary measure. Gymnastics or figure skating are sports that lay emphasis on movements and style. Such sports make people feel good in a different way to other sports that have the tangible results as their primary measure of success. The intangibles help people form opinions based on their perception. It touches them at a level where words and numbers do not penetrate. A sport like cricket involves both as its measures of success.
And, Sharma is caught between the two — his thrillingly aesthetic style and his depressingly inconsistent performance; his ability to demonstrate high levels of artistry and the lack of numbers to show next to his name; the need to play his natural game and the consequences of failure; his self-oriented sense of satisfaction and the dissatisfaction of those who are invested in his game and success.
Last year, in an interview, an emotional Sharma said the ‘talent talk’ has had a big negative influence on his career.
“This ‘talent’ talk has messed things up for me. I started my career as a bowler. I was never a batsman. All this natural talent, god’s gift that you guys in the media talk and write about is unfair and wrong. I have worked on my batting to get here. I used to bat at No. 8. From there, I made my way up. Ask my coach, Mr. Dinesh Lad, and he will tell you that I was an offspinner.”
He also rued the fact that he had to force himself play against his natural game, which he admitted is “anything but blocking the ball”. So who’s to be blamed for derailing the thought process of an athlete and forcing him to change his game?
It would do him a lot of good if those around him and the commentators of the game let the man be himself and not impose themselves and their narratives on him. Cricket commentary needs to evolve from just being an exercise of self-gratification. Viewers and commentators need to understand that the players have a considerable burden navigating their game and can do without external interference. Because, as commentators, we construct a narrative. And these narratives arch over all — players and the game — and exert an influence over them. Therefore, commentators — those sitting in the box over the pavillion as well as those of us watching through TV screens — need to distinguish between the tangibles and intangibles and how they work in subtle ways to form or distort public opinion.
