Some men prefer to follow a predictable path and their stories tell of a slow rise to the top and an equally measured decline. To that end instinct is subdued, contention avoided and risk reduced. That has been altogether too dull for Ganguly. Throughout he has toyed with his fate, tempting it to turn its back on him so that once again he could surprise the world with a stunning restoration. Something in him rebelled against the mundane and the sensible. He needed his life to be full of disasters and rescues, and comebacks and mistakes and memorable moments. To hell with the prosaic. At heart he is a cavalier, albeit of mischievous persuasion.
Maybe I have read Roebuck too much. Maybe too many cricket articles are coming out today compared to the frequency of cricket articles in the past where weekly sportstar and daily The Hindu was the standard serving. But it is nauseating to hear the same thing being said about cricketers again and again and again. And half of it isn't about cricket. If its Ganguly, there are a few standard things Roebuck says about him- removing shirt in Lords, making Steve Waugh wait for toss, and century in Brisbane. With Kumble its "fighter". With Dravid its "technique". With Laxman its wrists. There is definetly more to the game and these cricketers than these standard cliches. I wonder what Laxman, Dravid and Kumble are thinking when they read Roebuck. Is it too much to expect cricket writers to write about cricket? Can't they write about real stuff? What the hell is this?
He did not give much ground to the modern game, with its fitness and diving and running between wickets and morning training and all that rot. It was brave of him to remain apart, for it left him exposed to ridicule, forced him to justify himself. But Ganguly was not scared of the pressure. Perhaps he needed the extra pressure the way a veteran car needs a crank. And, just in case, he had the populist touch. If Anil Kumble was the colossus, Sachin Tendulkar the champion, Rahul Dravid the craftsman, VVS Laxman the sorcerer, then Ganguly was the inspiration.
[bold emphasis in quoted para is mine] Here, he is explaining someone's inability to dive and field as a "brave" deliberate thing. I hope Gaundamani watches cricket, reads Roebuck and says "Ithellam avanukke theriyaadhu da nayee". Looking at the way his recent articles describe the game and its players, I wonder if he is watching the same game I watch. He seems to be explaining a game in the parallel world where collossuses, craftsman, sitthal, maesthri, kundu oosi vikkaravan, sarayam kaacharavan are playing cricket. I recognize that he is now being paid by Indian media and *has* to jalra. But athukaaga ippadiya. You should read his stuff in Sydney Morning Herald. He doesn't write cricket anymore. Total fantasy fiction stuff.