Sports
Reading Of Saina's Glory Against The Backdrop of Indian Physical Culture
Sport is a form of social activity that shapes specific semiotic systems. In many ways sports are able to expresses its aims and values. An analysis of the problem of the place and role of sport in the culture of the contemporary society means learning to know about the semiotic aspects of sport relations.
If we set apart two levels of semiotic sport activity, depending on what functions the semiotic systems perform, we get ...
The first level as semiotic signs, indispensable for sport activity as such. They regulate the activity of the sport movement and express its goals.
The second — are semiotic signs, arising due to the incorporation of sport in the general system of social relations and which properly define its real value status. The change of the status of sport as a value finds its expression also in the internal logic of its development.
An analysis of these levels helps to reveal the structure of sport relations, to define more distinctly its functional trends and to understand the hierarchy of values.
This helps to draw conclusions as to the manner in which the various aspects of sport and sport itself in general are reflected in social and individual conscious ness. A semiotic analysis makes it possible to reveal the mechanism of the taking shape of an orientation regarding the value system, which permits the definition of the principal and indispensable aspects of directing the development of physical culture and sport as essential components of the entire aspect of culture.
The might of the melting pot
England's resurgence has come about thanks to intelligent use of its natural resources, whether the variety within the immigrant community or the grey matter of former captains
December 9, 2010
Fifteen years ago I predicted that by 2010 England would be the strongest team in the world. It was a bold forecast, since they have not claimed the top spot since Len Hutton was taking the shine off the new ball, Frank Tyson was terrorising batsmen and Jim Laker was outwitting them. And it has proved premature. England are not yet top of the tree but are climbing fast and showing no signs of vertigo.
Several factors lay behind the predication. England's main advantage is that for historical reasons most of its incoming populations are familiar with the game, if not devoted to it. Alone among the colonial powers England took its sports with them and sought to convince locals of their merits. Of course they argued that the games were character-building and so had an educational value. It was arrant nonsense. Englishmen of a certain sort have long tried to pretend that they are above all this nonsense. The poor dears spent too long fielding at third man in house matches and never quite recovered. Accordingly they became snooty and pseudo-intellectual and wasted their lives writing for obscure magazines.
Of all the cricketing countries, though, New Zealand is the most literate, with Australia not far behind. It is a meter of record. England is the most obsessed with sport. As much can be told from its cheerful following overseas and the number of reporters sent to cover matches, and at no little cost. England's failures have not reflected any lack of interest. Just that the emphasis was on quantity not quality.
But the influence of the immigrant populations has been crucial. At the last count about 150 foreign-born players had secured county contracts. And that does not count fellows like Monty Panesar, born and bred locally but into a Punjabi family. His ancestors come from Ludhiana, a teeming city not far from Chandigarh.
Thanks partly to European labour laws most of these players counted as locals. As a result English cricket became ever more diverse. Although fewer of the giants of the game signed on - considerably to the disadvantage of West Indian and eventually Australian cricket - as the international season spread and the IPL offered an alternative revenue stream the county books still bulged with all sorts. Football did not break the supply chain; Gary Neville, a promising batsman, was lost to the game but others stayed with bat and ball.
Long ago England depended on the aristocracy and the mines for cricketers. Both instilled strength, identity and purpose. Douglas Jardine and Harold Larwood. Ted Dexter and Fred Trueman reflected this curious and effective partnership. Eventually the empire ended and private schools were no longer called upon to train leaders. Finally the mines became uneconomical and the towns changed and the cricket clubs and brass bands faltered. English cricket had to look elsewhere.
Over the next 25 years it was unable to develop reliable new sources of talent. Nor were existing coaches and structures well placed to fill the gap. Television provided the money but the community remained inward-looking. County cricket became self-indulgent, with arranged declarations, lob bowling and other cynicisms creeping in. Inevitably the national team fell back. It is the product of the system, not it's saviour.
And then two important things happened. Astute appointments were made off the field. Huw Morris was plucked from Welsh cricket and invited to run the game. Meanwhile, four-day cricket had been introduced and the importance of central contracts was recognised. Money filtered through to the counties and, though much of it was wasted, the rewards for players rose. County cricket became an attractive proposition. And the uncertainties of the new South Africa meant that many frustrated and dedicated players were seeking greener pastures.
| There is brightness about Graeme Swann and Stuart Broad that appeals whilst Alastair Cook belongs to an older tradition, the phlegmatic farmer who can survive the elements and the worst the Australians can throw at him | |||
England's success has been due to its ability to make the most of these various influences. Africa arrived with its rigour. Four of the top seven team members were born on that continent. Two of them were imports but England could hardly turn them away. Two were raised locally but brought with them the harder outlook required to survive in raw places. Those convinced that their place of birth is a coincidence are defying a mathematical certainty. Incidentally David Gower and Derek Pringle (the most underestimated of the English scribes) are also sons of Africa.
Next, England had the sense to choose another African, Andy Flower, as coach. Flower is tough, respected and measured, exactly the combination needed to get the best out of an ambitious team. Every player could respond to him. Hs task was not to harden the team but to bring out its hidden strengths. Neither England nor its cricketers had ever been soft. No one ever accused them of that. The island story tells quite another tale. Just that they had lacked leadership. But a culture can become self-indulgent without realising it and then an outside voice is essential.
England's other fortune has been that past players began to produce sons. Cricket has always been a game handed down the generations. Now an entire county side could be fielded from the offspring of the previous generation of first class cricketers. Three of them - Ryan Sidebottom, Chris Tremlett and Stuart Broad - have joined the highest ranks. Considering the investment, English cricket still is not producing enough players of its own but cricketing families are playing their part. If England stays on track then the coaches will be forced to respond. Already counties are trying harder than ever to instil a work ethic in their charges.
Happily, too, New England has brought a new breed of cricketers. There is brightness about Graeme Swann and Broad that appeals whilst Alastair Cook belongs to an older tradition, the phlegmatic farmer who can survive the elements and the worst Australians can throw at him.
It all bodes well. Add the insightful comments made by past captains like Nasser Hussain and Michael Atherton and the doughty work done by Graham Gooch and it is abundantly clear that England is intent on making the best of the resources at its disposal. The cricket community has cast aside its wanton ways and embraced hardness and intelligence.
Meanwhile the Australians are alarmed by the flaws exposed in their players and the system that produced them. As a rule Australians respond strongly to defeat. It is not to be tolerated. Most likely they will go back to basics by reinforcing grade and Shield cricket. Older hands in England will recognise the signs of distress.
After a long period England are back on track. Australia's problems have just begun. The first and last wickets in Adelaide told the story. Two middle-aged Australian players lost in a confusion of calls as an Africa-raised opponent, previously regarded as a commonplace fieldsman, seized the chance and threw down the single stump in his sights. A few days later the home team's incompetent tailender was baffled and beaten by an off-break that curled away and turned back between bat and pad.
This was not merely a battle between 4th and 5th nor yet between long-standing opponents or between north and south. It was a contest between rising and falling, young and aged, ambitious and anxious, expectant and hopeful, ruthless and delusional. For the first time in decades, Australia were the older and weaker side.
But England have not achieved their highest ambition. Nothing less than top place on the list will do. Long ago Australians stopped using England as their yardstick. It's time for the Poms to repay the compliment. Doubtless, trouncing Australia is satisfying but it cannot be enough. The rugged pursuit of excellence knows no such halfway house.
England's performance in Adelaide was the best seen from them in a quarter of a century. Although blessed with more talent, the 2005 outfit did not attain the sustained efficiency observed in the city of churches. From the sporting perspective it was superb to watch. But it ought to be a beginning and not an end, an inspiration not a celebration. England cannot rest till the top position has been secured. And that might require the cooperation of a group yet to pull its weight in the endeavour. That prediction was flawed. Back then it seemed obvious that the settler families from the West Indies would have a major part to play in the reformation of English cricket. So far that has not been the case.
English cricket still has a little way to travel. Of all games cricket is the most diverse, and ought to shout it from the roof tops. In a few nations it embraces white, black and brown, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist and Christian, colonial, post-colonial and anti-colonial, first and third world. All the more reason to excite the local Caribbean community so that their contribution is not wasted and English cricket becomes not merely an example of excellence but also a means of unification.
Peter Roebuck is a former captain of Somerset and the author, most recently, of In It to Win It
When cricketers age - Thanks Zatta
Do we have the right to call for their retirements or should we let their dramas play themselves out?
November 15, 2010
There may be few things as thrilling in sport as the blooming of a new talent, but watching the withering - or not, the big question - is the more absorbing. By this time we've had the benefit of familiarity. Cricket is really a family soap set to physical motion, so familiarity is everything. We know character patterns, the back story, the old follies and glories.
We know, for instance, that Rahul Dravid has been on the other side of the fence he is on now. Four years ago he was captain when Greg Chappell attempted to do away with virtually all of India's older players. Sachin Tendulkar, Chappell tried to convince journalists off the record, would not last till the 2007 World Cup; Virender Sehwag was finished, his back packed up forever; VVS Laxman's knees were too dodgy; while Zaheer Khan, Harbhajan Singh and Sourav Ganguly were "cancers". So much for all that.
Watching a Dravid innings nowadays has begun to bring the kind of dramatic anticipation as Ganguly's some years ago, though, of course, for drama Sourav was Sourav. Each time Dravid takes guard now we are aroused by the subtext: redemption or fall? In short, he has become an old cricketer.
With age, cricketers turn a little bit more into themselves. No longer discovering their games, they fall back on what they know most. My main memory of Javed Miandad's struggle against India in Bangalore in the 1996 World Cup is how desperately he tried to galvanise his defiance into one last triumph, how hard he relied on it, how inadequate it was. His career was as old as the World Cup.
He himself was about as old as cricket. He played slowly and got run out. In his final few years Brian Lara, wounded and challenged, turned to his original twinkle-foot rapacity, once lashing 28 runs in a Test over, 26 another time, and there was the minor matter of 400 in an innings. Tendulkar's life and his cricket have been a quest for balance, and so he has settled upon a judicious blend of his strokeful youth - brought up his century with two sixes the other day! - and the conveyor-belt accumulation of his later years. And Dravid, who faces balls - who has faced more balls in Test cricket than Tendulkar despite a seven-year handicap - faces more balls.
When their position is secure - when they may "go out on their own terms", as the phrase goes - there appears a geniality about the older player. The fires dimmed, their world view expanded, they begin to feel like nasty uncles showing their softer sides. I never thought Matthew Hayden could be endearing, but he did look so on his last tour of India, where, scrunching his eyes at slip he resembled John McCain a great deal. Which is not to say that aged Republican senators are particularly endearing; but a 70-year-old first slipper is. Never could the word "lovable" be attached to Glenn McGrath until the tail-end of his magnificent career, when he chuntered all the same but, creases etched into his face, smiled more than he cussed; and he delivered some of the funnier press conferences in cricket. By the time he was the grand-daddy figure in the IPL, I had begun to think of him as one of the nicest guys in the game.
| When their position is secure - when they may "go out on their own terms", as the phrase goes - there appears a geniality about the older player. The fires dimmed, their world view expanded, they begin to feel like nasty uncles showing their softer sides | |||
This is a luxury, however. More often the old player finds himself glancing over his shoulder. Allan Border I think it was who was supposed to have said of the coming men at the fag end of his career that they may be better than him, but the thing he had over them was they didn't know it yet. This is the position Dravid finds himself in now, youngsters nipping at his heels, the public urging him to either fight on or retire "gracefully".
He would know that it's been a scratchy few years. When he resigned the captaincy he looked a far older man than when he'd taken it on, but it was his batting that seemed to have aged. In his last Test as captain, at The Oval, he put up an innings of such awkwardness that he appeared both bemused and embarrassed, a performance repeated in the first 100 balls of his innings against New Zealand in Ahmedabad. On the 2007-08 tour of Australia, he could barely get the ball off the square. Peter Roebuck observed that his bat sounded like tin. You cannot grudge a man his method. In Perth he endured through the rust for 93, the highest score in a great Indian win. And in Ahmedabad his 104 was the second highest score in the innings.
Steve Waugh, who nevertheless orchestrated for himself all but a 21-gun salute, made the point that it didn't matter in the long run how someone goes out, and he is right. Nobody troubles themselves with Viv Richards' mediocre final seasons, nor did they prevent him from making Wisden's Five Cricketers of the last century or, recently, ESPNcricinfo's all-time World XI. Journalism overrates near memory.
Waugh was responding to suggestions that he should go out at a time, to use another of cricket's old-man phrases, "people are asking why rather than when". I'm not sure anymore if it is proper to be telling someone to retire. By all means they are fair game for criticism and omission, but they cannot be denied the right to try. Sportsmen don't play for a place in our individual memories. They play because it is what they do, and think they can still do it well. It is timeless drama. Old giving to new, the generational saga, the cycle of life, the stuff of books and movies. Why ask to end it? The least one can do is enjoy it as it plays out.
Rahul Bhattacharya is the author of the cricket tour book Pundits from Pakistan and the forthcoming novel The Sly Company of People Who Care
Why talent alone will not ensure success.
An interesting presentation by Harsha Bhogle, which is insightful and gives you a possible explanation as to why kids who topped the class, never topped it in life and the talented hotshots never took the winner's podium and why it is that we find ourselves applauding the supposedly "mediocre",or as a teenager once told me at the gym.. "why is it that, it is the #@%+, who always gets the girl and has the BMW"?
If you are short of time, go to part II and to the 7th minute of the presentation, where he talks about, the importance of talent in achieving excellence. He mentions how people who are talented, always depend on talent to see them through and when it does not, they are lost and rarely are able to bounce back. To me this was one of the most significant points he made.
I have seen many talented people who studied with me and who worked with me, who never reached the heights they could have and should have. It was not merely luck that explained it. There were other issues. Harsha mentions attitude and work ethic. He contrasts Vinod Kambli with Sachin Tendulkar. I however think that is too simplistic. I believe, emotional intelligence and the ability to network and form successful relationships by reading the political equations right is a sine qua non in the times we live in. This possibly explains the success of a Saurav Ganguly. Dravid had the attitude and the work ethic. He also and a modicum of talent and an astute and technically refined cricketing brain. He was also a well behaved professional who could never be faulted for his behavior. Yet he lacked the political savvy and the emotional intelligence that Ganguly had. Ganguly therefore, was a much more effective captain and player than Dravid, in spite of serious drawbacks in his technique and even in his attitude and work ethic. Dhoni is another example of excellence and success.He has only limited talent, but is very adaptive and strong when it comes to emotional intelligence, networking and reading the political equation right. He staved off challenges from Virender Sehwag and Yuvraj Singh and still calls the shots. He also has the unique advantage of a cool temperament and is never seen as egoistical in his dealings. He seems to be unconcerned about results and seizes opportunities. Luck also seems to be on his side :)
The moral of the story seems to be as it says in the Bhagvat Geetha:
A) Attitude
Karmanye vadhikaraste ma phaleshu kadachna
Karmaphalehtur bhurma te sangostvakarmani.
which means
You have a right to perform your prescribed duty, but you are not entitled to the fruits of action। Never consider yourself the cause of the results of your activities, and never be attached to not doing your duty.
As Harsha says .. we need to focus on the process and getting it right, the results take care of themselves. Have a goal and a plan of action to achieve it. The focus should be on executing it and in the now. The end result will take care of itself. "Get the runs and the dollars will come " !
'Living the moment' , 'enjoying what you do' and 'being in the now' , the journey is as important as the destination are all offshoots of this premise:)
B) Having a mentor and a Godfather.
Harsha does not say this. I am mentioning this from experience. Sachin had Gavaskar as a mentor and Mark Telly of World tel, who managed his career. Arjuna had Krishna. Most industry leaders have had a godfather or a mentor who pulled them along. Politics is inevitable. Even if you mind your own business, you end up being a political factor: Finding someone to look up to and ensuring that you work for him is a career strategy that may yield dividends in the long run. Irrespective of the company, it is the boss who can make or break your career and affect your life day in and day out. Never loose a good boss if you find one. Make sure he grows and you should grow too.:)
C) Networking:
Many call this being a "team player". Playing the 'non-striker' and taking your 'catches' when the team is bowling and making the "other guy look good" is a currency to use and something to focus on. Negotiators call this the win - win equation!! Striking this equation is easier said than done and that is where people skills come in. The trick is in ensuring that you are not taken for granted and can call in the social debts when required. Having such social investments, results in being able to influence behaviour and results in social power and effectiveness :)
D) "Living life on your terms" is a nice line in an advertisement. It does not happen in life. Get real. Compromise or Cooperate, is the name of the game ("kindly adjust")and the smart ones know where the line should be drawn so that success is not traded for ethics, self -respect and happiness. Breaking the law in pursuit of success is a folly some make, regret it and they pay for it all their lives and sometimes with their lives. Being reasonable, flexible and adapting to situations is the mantra here and keeping the ego out of the equation, helps.
Lastly actions speak louder than words and therefore it ends here
Why do sportspeople cheat
Sporting heroes build their careers, their lives, on reputation. Of athlete as fighter, athlete as adventurer, athlete as risk-taker, but a man or woman doing so always within the rules of their sport. When the boundaries around those reputations begin to fray, we are faced with the same old, weary questions. Guilt and innocence. Reason and impulse. It's what was asked of Hansie Cronje or Mohammad Azharuddin or Saleem Malik, even of Mark Waugh and Shane Warne. Why? Whatever the hell for? What on earth were you thinking?
We want to know what leads men of such skill, achievement and fairly firm financial ground, to make choices that, before they are unethical, are so utterly illogical.
In the case of the Pakistanis accused of spot-fixing, the first responses were predictable. Of young, relatively poorly paid men seduced by the lure of easy, instant cash. Of "belonging" to a "culture" of endemic, unremitting corruption. Of their "backgrounds" - the villages of the developing world.
Yet those are extremely simple sweeps of statement around an act that is beyond being background, class or wealth. In April this year, world snooker champion John Higgins and his manager were secretly filmed on tape talking about matches with the same News of the World sting operator. Higgins was cleared of allegations of being in discussions around "throwing frames" or results but was fined £75,000 and banned for six months for bringing the game into disrepute.
Higgins, who returned to competitive snooker on November 11, came from the "corruption-free" West, from Scotland, and was one of his sport's high earners. Yet he fell into the same trap, set by the samesame issue, and got into talking about a so-called business deal. About, essentially, sport and money. It was exactly what Majeed, the "manager" of the three Pakistanis, was caught doing. Cronje was a devout Afrikaaner; cricket had made Azharuddin famous, rich and much loved; Warne and Waugh belonged to a team culture other nations are still trying to emulate.
Even keeping in mind that the Pakistanis have not been found guilty, the basic question never goes away. What makes some cricketers cross the line? The word most commonly used around discussions of this kind is "greed". Is that what differentiates people and in this case, elite performers? That there are some who, under normal circumstances, can be bought and others who can't?
Mike Brearley, the former England captain and a practising psychoanalyst, believes it is hard to select common features amongst those who succumb to temptations. In a measured email response to ESPNcricinfo, Brearley did not rule out either the culture of corruption or a lack of support for young players as being ingredients. He referred to the doomed fatality of the first step that a cricketer takes when he gives even casual assistance to someone on the wrong side. "Once in (in very small, tiny ways), it is hard to get out (as of the mafia or the communist party)". From an innocuous predetermined no-ball to the ICC tribunal in Doha hearing is not a slippery slope. It is rapidly melting ice.
Greed, though Brearley believes, "doesn't quite capture it, any more than sexual desire captures sexual adventurism and dishonesties". There were, he said, other facets that, when pieced together, lead to a succumbing. Brearley lists them: "the excitement of risk-taking, the omnipotence of believing one can get away with anything, and the filling of the sense of emptiness in one's life".
Like Brearley, Dr Sandy Gordon, professor of sport and exercise psychology at the University of Western Australia's School of Sport Science, Exercise and Health, pointed out that the contexts and environments of the opportunities to take risk differ across teams, individuals, cultures and countries. Gordon, who has worked with many international cricketers and teams over the last two decades, did however say, "Those predisposed to take risks will always be on the lookout for excitement and means of avoiding boredom, and as a consequence [are] susceptible to temptation."
Sport's history is full of those fitting the description. Some of the greatest athletes of the last hundred years - Michael Jordan, Mike Tyson, Diego Maradona, George Best - have crossed over into one of these: drugs, alcohol, gambling, white-collar offences, and violence against women. Former England allrounder Chris Lewis is in jail for smuggling cocaine into Britain.
One of the more unusual terms Gordon used in his responses to ESPNcricinfo was the "derailer". It comes from a psychological questionnaire called the Hogan Development Survey (HDS), used to study an individual's responses under stress.
The derailer refers to traits that belong to the "dark side of personality", which can sometimes take over under pressure and play an important part in decision-making - traits that are normally tolerated, even indulged, as Gordon says, but which, when "tempted with opportunity", can derail. "It's about character meeting opportunity and/or sport revealing character," Gordon said. Temptations come in many disguises; what stays constant, though, is the powerful lure.
The personality types on the HDS scales include "colourful" (seekers of attention, productive, with ability in crises, and possessed of belief in self and ability), "bold" (overly self-confident, arrogant, with inflated feelings of self-worth) and "mischievous" (charming, risk-taking, limit-testing and excitement-seeking). Gordon says "bold" and "mischievous" characters abound in the entertainment industry (e.g. professional sport...) We may often call them "characters" in cricket.
The Herschelle Gibbs-Mickey Arthur war of words, or rather contest of chapters in their new books, is, if nothing else, a reflection of the constant tussle between such characters and their circumstances. Some "characters" in a team may just be trouble-makers, who get into drunken brawls, smoke marijuana, chomp on cricket balls, run into problems with match referees, get into fisticuffs with team-mates. Individuals on the "bold" and "mischievous" scales, Gordon says, are more prone to making "intuitive decisions motivated by pleasure. They can over-estimate themselves and their ability to get away with ill-advised risks. In addition, they typically fail to learn from or admit their mistakes and can also intimidate others, be demanding, aggressive and overbearing." The most intimidating personalities in a cricket team are most usually, its captain or its star performers.
The skirmish between "character and opportunity" is, researchers say, a component of competitive sport today. Dr Maria Kavussanu of the University of Birmingham's School of Sport and Exercise Sciences has done extensive studies on "sports morality" to understand why athletes - young, old, amateur, professional - cheat, break rules or are physically violent on rivals.
| "[It is about] the excitement of risk-taking, the omnipotence of believing one can get away with anything, and the filling of the sense of emptiness in one's life" Mike Brearley on some of the reasons why sportsmen stray | |||
When caught, athletes use what Dr Kavussanu calls "moral disengagement". It is a handy defence mechanism that has eight psychological fallbacks that form the range of excuses whenever rules are broken - be it by way of red cards in football, illegal equipment in Formula One, insider betting and fixing in cricket or tennis, or just positive dope tests. Among these crutches are the old favourites "Everybody does it", "I was just obeying orders" and "We did it for the team's sake", which are essentially an abdication and a passing on of responsibility.
Tiger Woods described what life was like inside elite sport: "I thought I could get away with whatever I wanted to, deserve to enjoy all the temptations around me. I thought I was entitled. Thanks to money and fame, I didn't have to go far to find them." That was his answer to the questions "Why?" "Whatever for?" "What were you thinking?"
In a team sport like cricket, it is what Maqbool "Max" Babri calls a squad's "micro culture" that can kick in strongly, one way or another. Babri, a psychologist who worked with the Pakistan team before their 2009 ICC World Twenty20 win, says teams need role models within their own structures. It could be a senior figure - the coach, say, whose role is not merely that of a technical instructor but also "counsellor and psychotherapist, who players can go and talk to without fear".
The coach's role is that of the adult figure among a group of young, ambitious, high-strung men on a high wire of ambition and expectation. The rest of every individual's "micro-culture" - family, schooling, peer group - adds up to his eventual personality. Babri says. "If I was treated badly, I will treat people the same way. If I don't receive respect, I can't give it."
The speed and intensity with which derailers in personality kick in could depend on the micro-cultures. Which is why, to give an example, the list of the NFL players accused of assaulting women is still growing. Or why cyclists keep testing positive for drugs. Or why bookies believe they can still approach cricketers.
Elite sport contains characters Gordon calls "narcissitic personality disordered", who believe that their "exalted status, based on personal performances" makes them "entitled to do and say whatever they please. The consequences of their behaviour are rarely considered until someone else brings it to their attention." Or when they get caught.
Kavussanu argues that the status of sport in society adds to the athlete's sense of entitlement. "When people play sport, it is as if that is doing something that is not the same as everyday life... maybe that is why people are more forgiving towards professional athletes." The bubble in which elite athletes now live is protected not merely by their agents, managers and bank balances but by the blind adoration of their fans. It probably accounts for why Mohammad Azharuddin is now a Member of Parliament and why Warne and Ajay Jadeja are now experts on television, holding forth about spirit and conduct.
As sport grows in public appeal, global spread and financial strength, it contains very few counter-balances against temptation or even unquestioning celebrity worship. Those who are meant to be what Gordon calls the "cultural engineers" of national sports bodies, "have allowed, even facilitated, too many crises to go through to the keeper."
It is why the ICC's first-ever suspension over the spot-fixing scandal was significant. Its future course of action in policing cricket and punishing those found guilty contains meaningful consequences for the sport as a whole.
In this tussle between the dark side of personality and the pull of culture, character and opportunity, Brearley offers a simple and pertinent observation. To us, to fans, to everyone who lives surrounded and held in thrall by the world of sporting celebrity, the man with the famous "degree in people" wrote: "It is often hard to know with conviction about individuals that one comes to know well."
Also read psychologist Rudi Webster's column on what prompts human beings to cheat
