Olympics: Insights for Fans & Viewers

As some of the celebrated players from India crashed out of London Olympics, many people shook their heads in disgust and moved on with the usual refrain: This is the same old story. Some players too expressed disappointment at their performances, and the leaf was turned over.

I have overwhelming sympathy for Deepika - world's top ranked archer - the poor girl from the backward state of Jharkhand, and I very deeply recognized the pain that her statement after losing the qualifiers reveals. Her statement can be translated as "By the time I came to figure what was happening, the match was over". Abhinav Bindra, a gold medalist from the previous Olympics, also lost - again, in the qualifiers. It was certainly not his day - as he said later. We had an almost instantaneous empathy with these dear flag-bearers of our country, though it was alloyed with a bit of despair.

I suddently asked myself: Do the cricketers in this country also have the luxury of dismissing their defeats as 'just a bad day'- even when playing a bilateral series, not at a stage as big as World Cup? The rebounding thought was "There is too much money that the cricketers earn, so there is less sympathy for them", or, "There is too much money that is spent on cricket, while the other poor athletes get little - and hence, they can be forgiven." I bounced this off close friends and aquaintances, and their reponses were nearly the same.

But, somehow, at a deeper level, I find this argument difficult to reconcile to. Following is what I figured:

I don’t think having more money or commercialization is why cricketers should have less of similar empathy. At the same time, some other sportspersons can’t take shelter in having less money, after losing their events or matches. It is just that the latter know that not much is lost in most people’s psyche, if they lost. No pressure – that is to say.

Even cricketers in India were poor and helpless about 35 years ago. How did all the money start coming? Not because it was ordained by some divine authority. They developed a knack of winning regularly. It is winning consistently that makes people wake up and take notice. Which is then followed by money, and subsequently, commercialization. If someone is a loser most of the time, there won’t be any lasting public interest in his/her sport. There may be a chance brilliance, but if not followed up, it will wither away.

Remember, India won a hat-trick of tournaments in cricket –Prudential World Cup (1983), Asia Cup (1984) and Benson & Hedges World Series (1985) - which led to a revolution in cricket-viewership and commercial-frenzy. Moreover, this was the result of some genius players who came one after another (as I once wrote in this blog). Please recall, after the World Cup in 1983, there was no money in the system to reward those players. Reportedly, a legendary singer from the Hindi film industry was roped in to do a show, which helped collect some money that was distributed to those players.

So, it is not money that leads to winning. In fact it is the other way round – you win consistently and the money follows. In short, it is all destined when you sustain... Consistency is what makes it, not poverty or wealth (else, athletes from some of the poorer countries would not be winning).

Let me say one more thing: Imagine Saina Nehwal wins a big medal, and she is then followed up another equally brilliant star badminton player in a few years; who then passes on the mantle to an even big-winning star in a few years... Will there be a revolution in the way badminton is positioned today? Badminton may even become a passion in the country. Same for boxing or any other sport. That is what happened in cricket.

Thirty years ago, most budding cricketers learnt their trade at local clubs and gymkhanas. Now there is money which funds several institutions and academies. It all started because in the days of penury, some magical guys produced wins regularly, which turned the tables.