Similarities between cricket and politics

THE EDITOR, Madam:

The bowler who is running up to the wicket with the ball in his hand is a politician. The ball represents the people and the batsman who is tapping away at the crease is also a politician. The fielders who are scooping out there in the field are the bowler’s comrades as well as the wicket-keeper. The referee is also the people.

In both cases, the ball becomes the exploited servant of both parties. For, when the bowler releases the ball, if the people are hit for a six, it adds more mileage to the batsman’s team winning the game. The onus is therefore placed on the opposing side to use the people, which is the ball, against the batting team who occupies office. Therefore, the political bowler tries to manipulate the direction of the ball against the batting side. So he runs up with the ball a second time, twirling the people deceptively against the team with the bat – and, when the ball/ the people, eventually hits those stumps in several directions, the campaign scores against the batsman who hesitantly walks away from office.

In both instances, the people, or the ball, are merely bondsmen and women who propel a side to victory by scoring against the opponent. In politics, the people are always at the disadvantage of the players - for, when a fielder catches the ball and tosses it triumphantly in the air, it is the opposition who celebrates as the people are caught.

For the batting side to rejoice, the same ball would have to be hit into the pavilion, where, although the power may lie in the people, that ball is compliant to the manoeuvring team. A ball suspending in mid-air can either be caught, to the disappointment of the opposition, or securely hit to the delight of the fat lady who eventually sings.

Yet, to be fair to cricket, it is a far more honourable game than politics, for, while cricket emphasises the importance of life skills and experiences, the other reinforces strife.

HOMER SYLVESTER

Elmsford, New York