So, wicket keepers become motor-mouths, spewing inane profanity infinitely. Close-in fielders are not there for taking the catches, but rather to incite the batsman. Bowlers show more aggression by their body language than by their bowling. And if you are not good at ensuring mental disintegration, you will probably not make it to the high-school team. And of course we talk of much higher skills at the international level. Yes, you need to be able to play a bit. But if you can ensure that your opponent plays lesser than he normally would, that's a special skill which is valued.
So, is everything fair in war and sport ? A South African captain once took wireless headphones to the ground, so he could stay tuned to the constant advise of his coach. The Brits take jelly beans to throw at the batsmen so as to distract him. The lore of Australiana is underlined by the oral performance of Gilchrist as much as, if not more than, his impressive skills as a batsman and keeper. Of course there have been numerous other, and decidedly, harmless pranks or pressure relievers - the kangaroo dance of Miandad, More's constant (respectful) maternal reference, or even Sreesanth's version of salsa. These surely add to the colour of the game. But some make the game "off colour".
The question that we now face is really fundamental. Should the game still stay as a "gentleman's game" ? Look around, the Tour De France is stained by Dracula practise - literal injection of fresh blood to extend one's stamina. Olympics have forever been mired in the constant game of oneupmanship between drug tests and drugs that can deceive the tests. In fact, when sport becomes as crazily "professional" or "competitive" as it has now become, the rule of diminishing returns applies, and consequently, there is a minuscule little that differentiates the winner from the rest. Often, that little minuscule difference comes from sources which are questionable. It is interesting to notice that the winner has to constantly innovate to stay ahead of the pack - the pack contains quick followers and quick learners. Once a certain practice is seen as normal (not as in "legalized", but as in "accepted" or worse "ignored"), the very people who had been complaining about the practice being non-ethical etc, will not only incorporate it themselves, but will probably innovate further. So, indeed a number of things are fair in sport. The question of fairness is never absolute. As long as a certain practice provides competitive advantage for all the participating sportsmen, it is considered fair. With increasing regularity, we tend to focus less on the absoluteness of this premise. We accept evolution, especially technology evolution, for providing this competitive advantage. But what about the practices that are not technology driven, but are more subjective ? Fact is, there is a thin line between them. Injection of fresh blood is today considered wrong, but well could become the norm in a few years. And why not ? If Formula 1 cars can take a pit stop, then cyclists will like to take one at the blood bank. And cricketers will take jelly beans and eels and squid and i dunno what. Pity our Indian veggies who wouldn't touch some of that with a stick (or a bat). Maybe Thackeray will give them some petroleum products instead. Hey, Vaseline sounds like a good idea.
Talking of ideas, here are a few more
- The keeper feeds himself plain old beans (not jelly), so that he can fart at will (or at the most appropriate moments), a la Eddie Murphy
- The skipper uses a mobile phone to send SMSs to position his fielders. Comes in very handy, when skipper is applying delaying tactics.
- Idea b), with the extended advantage that the bookies can call the players directly, when the game is in progress. Betting goes live, like never before !
- One of the visiting team's players (picked randomly) is food-poisoned, probably with a laxative, so running between the wickets acquires a new meaning (and urgency !)