Ashes 2017/18: Is the drama really worth it?

The pink ball swinging and bouncing was the sight I enjoyed the most in the Adelaide Test (2017) with batsmen jumping around the crease. It meant that there was still some cricket to be played in the Ashes. No words exchanged. Just stares. Nasty stares that showed what the game meant for the English. Similarly, at the Gabba, Steven Smith's century celebration showed what it meant for the Aussies. Although the Englishmen haven't been too successful in this series, there have been moments where we felt the Aussies were falling short. This was great cricket without too many words, but the recent press conferences have been flooded with petty jokes, allegations and violations of personal space. Is it worth adding such spice when the cricket is spicy enough?

Recently, Harsha Bhogle said while commentating in the ODI series against Australia, “Spirit of cricket is what each person chooses it to be.” To some extent, I believe that is true but the manner in which a few top sides have behaved in the recent past has been abominable, especially in press conferences. Be it Jimmy Anderson's views on Virat Kohli's batting flaws or Steve Smith's ridiculous laughter at a joke, players need to step up their behaviour not only on the field but off it too. Similarly, the Ben Stokes fiasco almost shaped the Ashes. Without a single ball bowled, the England team were already under the pump and the Aussies used it to their advantage. But the question arises as follows: is breaking a team psychologically the way forward?

On the other hand, there doesn't exist a single player who hasn't exchanged words or sledged to their advantage. There has been a big crackdown on sledging and aggressive behaviour on the field, but players have found ways around it. We saw Jonathan Trott and Graeme Swann leaving the setup due to intense psychological pressure applied by the opposition and perhaps the English camp too. This year, we saw Nathan Lyon openly threatening to repeat the same, something that deserved to cop some punishment. Why not just allow the ball and bat to do the threatening?

Cricket is often called a Gentleman's Game, but I feel that that time has long past with players like Steve Smith, Virat Kohli and Jimmy Anderson wearing their heart on their sleeve and aiming to decimate the opposition through verbal volleys. Maybe it's just me, but I am sure one would rather prefer to see the bat and ball do the talking than the batsman and bowler.

At times, the broadcasters are blamed for turning up the stump mic, catching the verbal back and forths just to boost viewership, but it is the players who should be keeping a check on their words. Recent examples include; Jadeja and Wade's 'light' conversation and Michael Clarke and Anderson's “broken arm” incident. These instances need to be dealt with more severely if we want to keep the essence of our beautiful game alive.

Nevertheless, the question remains, “Is the drama worth it?”