Cricket is a game to many but a loyal friend to me
And since it started to tell me more about itself we became closer(initially, I knew only about his/her Indian life).
One day we were having a drink. I having some whisky(Actually I mixed some coke and sprite to make it look like that) and he/she(whichever way you view it to be) had a glass of some 30-year-old wine.
I was not in good a mood as I am now and that's why in frustration I started pointing out problems with him (I think Cricket is a male as only a female goddess is worth worshiping and I don't worship it but befriend it as he ages).
I pointed out that the short beard that has developed called T20 is helping his popularity but not really developing new talent though it is giving it opportunity.
He asked me on what basis I make that statement.
I told him that the Unorthodoxy that T20 cricket has brought into him is like the side effect of an antibiotic.
I told him that he was better of just sticking to Ayurveda and letting the Orthodoxy rule without any side effects.
I told him that shots like the reverse sweep, the paddle sweep, the scoop shot, the glide to third man, etc. were being played in to much of excess and would not let him last.
I told him that these shots in the end get a batsmen out and don't let help in the long term.
To sum it all up I said that the beard he had was something I like but the way in which it was cut is what mattered. The way in which it was shaping was more unorthodox than required.
Finally Cricket clammed up.
He said he couldn't bear it any more. He accused me of being a false friend.
After much persuasion, he calmed down and started speaking.
He said if he cared so much for a beard then he would have paid more attention to it than to test cricket, his muscles—quite strong.
Then of course he told me what was wrong with my thinking pattern.
He said, that if unorthodoxy was so troubling then it would have not lasted even this distance.
If the shots I mentioned earlier were always costing the batsmen their wicket then they would have been smart enough to avoid it.
The batsman realises that the strokes are dangerous and he still plays it. It means he wants to take a risk. That's what today's me requires.
He told me, and he I realise he is right. None of us will enjoy cricket without the risks.
He said, there was was a time when cricket was played to draw games that could not be won. But today with he(cricket) becoming commercialised that wouldn't help.
I really can't argue against the commercialisation of cricket. Though it may often seem unfair but it still gives people a chance to play without fear of family funds.
Then, of course, came the thing that really made me think. Cricket said that when ODI's came, then also there were similar questions raised.
The one dayers quickened the pace of tests as well. In fact, they were the arena where unorthodoxy first flourished.
He pointed at the fact that I never complained about one day of cricket. It hurt.
He, I realised, was right. Just because I was born when ODI's were settled did I think it was natural and excepted the little unorthodoxy. But because T20 flourished after I was born made me complain about a slight increase in the same thing that I call a fungus.
He also told me that his muscles did become stronger and started bringing more results due to the risks. And we all know that risk is the child of what we call unorthodoxy.
Then came the the part that pinched me. He questioned all the writers—including me—why so many of them have similar objections as I do when they themselves experiment with writing styles.
He reminded how I wrote a poem on a site meant for articles. How I connected Cricket from my life to bring innovation in my writing when the domain was for Only Cricket.
After the lecture though, He did agree that these shots were played more times than required and that was the reason why they got the player out. Though he is positive that these small things will fine tune themselves with time.
Tell me what you think
In any case Cricket says, "Hi!"