Passionate fans - Good or bad?

Younis Khan, vice-captain of Pakistan's cricket team, recently turned down an offer from the Pakistan Cricket Board to be the team's captain. And one of the main reasons he said no thanks was because he was upset at how home fans have treated the team since it returned from the World Cup, where Pakistan was eliminated in the first round. Said Younis:  ''I am still hurt and upset at the sort of hostile reception we have got since returning from the World Cup. I have always given 100 percent for my country. But when your family gets threatening calls and our effigies are burned and our pictures put on donkeys, then I can't lead the team in such circumstances.''

In India, some players' homes had to be guarded in order to prevent fans from burning them down after the team didn't advance past the first round. Players' effigies and posters featuring team members also were burned, and players were ripped apart in the media. In Hyderabad, India, a man died from a heart attack after watching India lose to Sri Lanka.

In India and Pakistan, cricket players are virtually worshipped, and when the teams do well, they are praised. But when they disappoint, fans don't handle it well. Compare this to other countries and it's not the same. A broadcast journalist recently said: "When India and Pakistan's teams aren't doing well, the fans curse them. In the West Indies, when the team isn't doing well, the fans ignore them.''

So my question is: Which is worse, extreme fanaticism or indifference? For many of the people in India and Pakistan, the cricket team is all they have to root for. These people live vicariously through the team and experience their highs and lows. One can argue that fans who burn posters of players when their team loses are simply showing that they care. There's an old saying among celebrities: "It's better if people talk bad about you rather than not talk about you at all." So which is the lesser of the two evils?

I welcome comments on this subject, and one more topic. Broadcaster and former Australia captain Ian Chappell blasted the Sri Lanka team the other day for resting top bowlers Muttiah Muralitharan, Chaminda Vaas and Lasith Malinga (he's injured) for a match against Australia that was somewhat meaningless because Sri Lanka had virtually clinched a semifinal spot. Some suspect Sri Lanka rested the players so Australia's batsmen couldn't familiarize themselves with them, just in case the two teams met in the semis or finals. Was this a good tactical move or bad sportsmanship? Australia posted a lopsided win, and Chappell felt that by not playing its strongest lineup, Sri Lanka robbed fans of what could have been a competitive match. Chappell also suggested the ICC should intervene.

Your thoughts are welcome. 

Comments

[exile]

Interesting subjects. On Sri Lanka v Australia, I think a lot of the blame can be laid at the feet of the ICC for creating such a boring tournament with so many meaningless games in the round of 8. Why should a team play its best players if it's already advancing? It's ridiculous to have two of the top teams meeting towards the end of the round of 8 and because of tournament structure, the match is almost meaningless.
Regarding the Pakistani team (and others, in cricket and other sports, around the world), wow. To be honest, at its most extreme form I don't think I'd even call it real fandom. It's like the problems Europe has had with soccer hooligans. The most hardcore hooligans have more in common with an American gang member than, say, a Dolphins season ticket holder. After a certain point it gets to be less about supporting a team and more about having an identity and something you feel like you can control in your life. Add extreme poverty and it must become even more intense.