BEING AN ARMCHAIR cricket critic has its advantages. By default, you have the licence to criticize anyone and everyone. There is no room for rhyme or reason. The archetypal critic takes great glee in ripping the fabric of cricket and the players to shreds. When a winning streak rolls on like a juggernaut, a critic habitually makes a mockery of the opposition’s credentials to belittle the win. The moment the steamroller derails from its normal course, meticulously sharpened knives are employed with renewed vigour — attributing the failure to all and sundry. Selective criticism can get a bit tedious. But, constructive criticism on the contrary can be a thought-provoking process.

It doesn’t take any special skills to be a casual critic. But the opposite applies to serious critics. One prerequisite for a good critic is the extraordinary ability to crack the code and get to the bottom to make meaningful criticisms. Without this, the observations can be specious. This is the bane of armchair critics, who believe that all good comes to those who moan. Most events, happenings and situations in life require a viewpoint. Some are solicited while a critic’s prime task is to churn them out at will without any need for an invitation. Like an uninvited guest, they make their bothersome presence felt and enlist the services of time to propagate their self-imposed grievances. For a critic, perception is a path to imperfection. Satiation is nothing short of seeking out the imperfections in life.

Prudence would dictate we shouldn’t pay any attention to critics. The sad fact remains that you cannot ignore them either. They are ubiquitous and omniscient. Befriending a critic would, after a fairly short tenure, amount to being offered to be slaughtered for the cause of intolerance and annoyance. Isn’t it easier to be a spectator and feign absolute knowledge of the nuances of the game rather than be good enough to be actually participating in such a high-profile and demanding sport? What if India only mustered 77 runs in the final 22 overs of the 3rd ODI? It hasn’t been the norm, has it? What if Powar physically appears to be having a girth that would make a budding sumo wrestler proud? Surely, Powar, despite his not-so-typical constitution, could give a lot of critics a dash at the sprint. What if Rao bats like if he were opening the innings in a match devoid of restrictions on time and overs? What if Rao makes Kaif look like Sehwag in a hurry? Surely, such inadequacies can be accommodated. A team of 11 can afford one weak link. If Big Brother could spawn such balderdash utilizing the negative effects of over a dozen misfits, a team could certainly accommodate one misfit. Can they not?

To misquote Ann Landers, “Asking a sportsman what he thinks about critics is like asking a lamp post how it feels about dogs.” What Ann doesn’t make transparent is whether she prefers dogs to critics. Like a navigator who can’t drive and insists on actually pointing his fingers on the map — rather than assisting with some vocal instructions — a critic can demonstrate behavioural tendencies that would attract nothing less than a smack in the face. Yet, how devoid would life be without the probing attention of critics. The Iron Lady Maggie once remarked: “If my critics saw me walking over the Thames, they would say it was because I couldn’t swim.” If it weren’t for the critics, the Iron Lady would have not unwittingly come out with something as interesting as that quote. In fact, if she had walked over the Thames, some of her staunchest critics would have harboured thoughts of helping her on her way into the deep end of the Thames.

Losing is not fun. Ask Sehwag. His ODI career has been characterized by a brilliant innings approximately once every dozen outings at the crease. Imagine what a let down it would have been for him to watch Sarwan steal the limelight and overshadow his rare periodic stellar of an innings. For the critics though, yours truly included, it was a kick in the proverbial for having the audacity to write him off. On the other end of the scale, in terms of weight in case you were wondering, lay Agarkar. Has he belatedly realized his potential and started making up for the numerous ineffective performances he dished out during the past few years? Whatever it is that transformed Agarkar into a miserly strike bowler would have shocked not just the critics, yours truly included again, but would have probably dumbfounded his esteemed self as well. He must be at his wits end figuring out the transformation and one would hope that the critics wouldn’t spoil the fun with their customary rants against him and by revealing their findings on his newfound form.

A win for India in the next ODI at Trinidad would pave the way for eulogies galore for Chappell & Co. Au contraire, a loss would stoke the ever rampaging fire bellowing out from the critics. Anyone with a semblance of cricketing sense would acknowledge that cricket is much easier to play from the sidelines. Let’s hope the critics have a minimal role in the forthcoming matches and enjoy cricket for what it is. Even a match-fixer would have hesitated to conjure up three last over finishes on the trot and that says something about the sheer quality of cricket between the two sides. It’s good to have an occasional moan. It’s sheer folly to make it a habit. Here’s hoping the pontificator doesn’t fall a victim to it in the near future.