Us vs Us
Sports loyalties run deep, intertwining with personal histories, regional or collegial pride, and sometimes even familial traditions. The passion for a particular team can become an integral part of one’s identity, shaping social interactions, rituals, and even life decisions. But amidst these fervent allegiances, there lies a philosophical inquiry: Is it possible to engage with a sport without pledging allegiance to a particular side?
Just a question that I ask myself. And no, I am not trying to answer this question through this post.
Watching sports without picking favorites raises the fundamental question: What drives our fascination with sports if not the emotional investment in the outcome? Is it the artistry of athletic prowess, the strategic ballet unfolding on the field, or the communal experience of shared exhilaration and despair?
Perhaps, for some, the allure lies in the purity of competition itself, divorced from the tribalism of team loyalties. There’s an appreciation for the raw display of skill, the tactical maneuvers, and the sheer athleticism on display. For these sports fans, the outcome becomes secondary to the beauty of the game — a spectacle to be admired irrespective of who emerges victorious.
Yet, for others, which may be the majority among the sports watching crowd, the absence of allegiance may signal a lack of genuine passion for the sport. Can one truly be called a fan if they remain indifferent to the fortunes of any particular team? The fair-weather fan, drifting from one bandwagon to another based on fleeting success or convenience, may be deemed a transient observer rather than a devoted aficionado. Their allegiance, if any, seems contingent upon the whims of fortune rather than an enduring connection to the sport itself.
Beyond all that, there’s something magical about sports that transcend boundaries, cultures, and generations — when sports fans with ingrained loyalties to a particular team find themselves following a sporting event that has managed to transcend boundaries, forcing them to be drawn to the sporting event for the purity of the competition itself.
This does not happen often in the sport of cricket. But today was one such day for many cricket fans like me. A day when a certain part of me felt questioning another part of me.
I have talked about cricket and my love affair with the sport in the past. But to put this in context for some of my new followers here on Medium (Thank you for the follow), let me just say that for me, this love affair with cricket began in the bustling streets of India, where I grew up playing the sport at various levels since I was eight years old. From creating cricket scrapbooks with newspaper clippings to following the Indian team across various tournaments, my loyalty to Indian cricket has been unwavering even after I migrated to the USA. But today’s match at the Nassau County International Cricket Stadium in New York presented a unique challenge — one that threw my loyalties into a whirlwind of emotions.
When Home Meets Adopted Country
Today, for the first time, I found myself in the middle of a loyalty tug-of-war. Team USA, a relatively new entrant in the cricketing world, faced the seasoned Indian team in an international setting for the first time. With many players of Indian descent donning the USA jersey, including key players like Saurabh Netravalkar and Monank Patel, the captain, who did not play today due to an injury, the match felt like watching family members on opposite sides of a battlefield.
For the uninitiated, there is a Cricket World Cup happening right now and the tournament is being hosted by the USA and the West Indies. Team USA has been doing exceptionally well given their rawness in these settings and they even upset Pakistan, a very strong team, last week.
The dichotomy of emotions was palpable from the get-go. I rooted for India out of an ingrained habit, a sense of belonging that has been built over decades. Yet, as an American, there was a budding excitement to see Team USA, my adopted country’s representatives, hold their ground against a cricketing giant.
Take for instance the dismissal of the Indian team captain Rohit Sharma in today’s match. He was dismissed in the bowling of Saurabh Netravalkar, after getting caught by Harmeet Singh.
Now what if I told you that all the three players once played in the same Mumbai club — Payyade?
And that Harmeet and Rohit went to the same school in Borivali.
And that Saurabh Netravalkar and the star Indian batsman Suryakumar Yadav played a lot together during their U15 days in Mumbai.
And that the Indian all rounder Axar Patel and the USA captain Monk Patel come from the same small town in India. Nadiad, Gujarat.
And that Monank Patel has also played with Bumrah during his U15 and U19 days.
This moment encapsulated the essence of my split loyalties. Here were friends turned rivals, making history on the field.
A Psychological Quandary
Navigating these emotions brought me face-to-face with intriguing psychological dilemmas. Do we naturally lean toward our roots, the team we’ve emotionally invested in for years? Or do we force ourselves to align with our new home out of a sense of duty and patriotism? The match oscillated between moments of joy and anxiety, especially when the USA bowlers put the Indian batsmen on the back foot, making the victory seem uncertain. I have quite an unconventional take on the concept of patriotism itself but I will stick to the conventional definition for the sake of this post.
The concept of patriotism was at odds with my passion for cricket. This is perhaps true to many cricket fans with similar background. India’s victory, which saw them chase down 110 runs with ease (although not as comfortably as the scorecard might make you believe), brought relief but not the euphoria that usually accompanies such wins. Conversely, USA’s spirited performance, including Nitish Kumar’s thrilling knock and Netravalkar’s early wickets, that too priced ones of Virat Kohli and Rohit Sharma, evoked pride and excitement. Their valiant efforts made me believe, even if briefly, that they could pull off an upset.
Speaking of Nitish Kumars — the way they perform, they promise a lot and offer you hopes. Don’t they? You expect that they would stay till the end. Then something changes and they leave you mid-way in a state of disarray. What’s up with these Nitish Kumars?
Oops...
I digress. (Catch the drift?😀)
Interestingly, every discussion with friends during the match today turned into a fun psychological exercise. The term “we” became ambiguous. Were we referring to Team India or Team USA? Context was our only guide. This element of unpredictability added another layer to the already complex web of emotions and split loyalties.
The Reconciliation
By the end of the match, I realized that reconciling these split loyalties is not about choosing one team over the other. It’s about appreciating the game in its entirety, celebrating the sport that brings people together even when it pits them against each other, and most importantly, encouraging and offering our support to newer teams, for only with more support and fan-following, these new teams will be able to continue to compete at this level for a long time.
While my heart remains with Indian cricket, my newfound admiration for Team USA adds another facet to my identity as a cricket fan.
Living in a globalized world, many of us will likely face similar dilemmas. And maybe, just maybe, it’s okay to have split loyalties in sports. After all, they enrich our love for the sport and make every match or a game a little more special.
Here’s to cricket, the game that never fails to surprise us, challenge us, and bring out the best in us — sometimes all at once.
Go Team USA!
Go Team India!
