In the end, mandatory platitudes
It was an edit that might have been written two weeks ago and dusted off for use. I shall not quote from it.
You don`t say!
Darius Nakhoonwala
Given that the cricket World Cup final was played on a Saturday and the result was known on Sunday, and given that " jeetenge or loosenge" we are cricket crazy, one would have expected all newspapers to write an edit on Monday morning.
But not all did. The Telegraph wrote on Tuesday - it is much more quickly off the mark, though, when Saurav Ganguly gets himself into trouble - as did the Deccan Herald which seems not to have read the Hindu edit because both had almost the same heading ( Awesome Australia and Awesome Aussies).
Clearly, the edits had been cleared on Saturday evening for Sunday night and no one thought it worth the bother to write one on Sunday evening. Readers? What`s that, mate?
The Business Standard was the first off the mark. It wrote on Sunday itself even before the result was known, covering itself by not saying mentioning the Australians at all and focusing on the tournament instead. But it did say what needed to be said, namely, that "holding the tournament in the West Indies made very little sense…. the timing of the matches was such that even the most die-hard fans in south Asia would not have watched the whole game. With India and Pakistan out only the insomniacs watched the second innings and that too rarely till the end."
The Pioneer also had a thoughtful edit and dwelt on the tournament itself. "It was a typically confused end to a disappointing and, in one case, even tragic tournament. From Brian Lara to Sachin Tendulkar, Stephen Fleming to Shaun Pollock, this World Cup marked the farewell of modern giants from cricket`s biggest stage. Fate owed them a better goodbye."
The Indian Express called it a "farce" but did refer to these greats. "This summertime carnival in the West Indies was always expected to be a season of exits" including "how cruel some of the exits turned out to be (Bob Woolmer primarily)." The rest of the edit was a meandering, stream-of-consciousness ramble, written quickly to be rid of a tiresome chore.
The Telegraph sang Australia`s praises but made an interesting point. " It can be said without undue exaggeration that Ricky Ponting and his men have taken away something from the proverbial uncertainty of cricket." How very true because the Aussies always seem to win. But having made that nice little point, it slipped off into the usual mediocrity of conventional wisdom.
The Deccan Herald had nothing sensible to add and having not written on Monday may as well have not written. No one would have missed it. The Asian Age focused on Indian cricket. It was an edit that might have been written two weeks ago and dusted off for use. I shall not quote from it.
The Hindu also wrote a run-off-the-mill edit. "Notwithstanding Adam Gilchrist`s 149, an innings of gladiatorial severity and breathtaking audacity… it was a tournament nearly undone by the murder of Pakistan coach Bob Woolmer.., rendered forgettable by the high proportion of one-sided games and the organisers` short-sighted disregard for Calypso culture".
Moral of the story: if you want an edit on cricket, get the cricket correspondent to write the first draft. If he is not around, get the sports editor. And if even he is not available, talk to a few people before firing off an edit. And, even it is difficult, remember one thing: there is a reader out there.
Darius.Nakhoonwala@gmail.com
Subscribe To The Newsletter