But first....the best laid plans can go awry anytime. And they often do so right when you don't expect it. Hold on...didn't I just make that point earlier? Well, here's more proof. And it doesn't get much bigger than this. Forget the British BS about him being the 'white Pele' and making cases for Germany'06 to be a Mexico '86. The boy is a genius and that is undeniable. His possible loss is as much an English disaster as a disaster for the World Cup spectacle. Wishing him a quick recovery....
Moving on...Now, comes another incident showcasing British BS. After months of interviewing, the English Football Association (FA) while under intense pressure to appoint an English successor to Sven Goran Eriksson, offer the position to Luiz Felipe Scolari, a Brazilian. While there is some murmur and protest about his nationality, no one questions his impeccable resume.
24 hours later, Scolari announces to a stunned press conference that he has declined the offer to take up the position citing press intrusion as the reason. He makes it clear that he would have loved to have taken up the position, but wouldn't do so after getting a fair sample of what his life would be like after accepting the post. Apparently, within 24 hrs of the news of his appointment being leaked out, there had been an article comparing his relationship with his wife to Eriksson's relationship with his. I haven't a clue as to what the compelling reason might have been to do publish such an article.
So, what happens next? The next day's headline in every major publication is about how the FA has handled the whole affair in a very clumsy manner! Not a single article that I have looked at offers an apology to the FA/Scolari for the harassment. Another development is to install Steve McLaren, the provider of euphoric moments for English football this season, as firm favourite to be next English coach. However, first page is accorded to a story carrying reports of McLaren's affair with his secretary that happened a year ago!!!
If anyone can explain to me that all this isn't about "A story, Any Story", I request you to come forward and help me out.
Saturday, April 29, 2006
Saturday, April 22, 2006
Concerted, Coordinated, Synchronized
By no means is the first incident spectacular, thrilling or even interesting (to the reader). However, if you have the same opinion about the second one, you're just letting the good things in life pass you by.
Yesterday, B and I, drove to C's place to pick something up. Situation demanded that we drive our own cars, and situation further demanded that the something that needed to be picked up, needed to be driven back to my place in C's pickup. So, there we were, three of us, each with our own vehicle, ready to drive back to my place. C indicated that he would lead us to the freeway taking an easier route (which B and I did not know), after which we had to take over since C did not know the route to my place. The idea was to stay in visual contact with each other through the drive to avoid any frantic calls on a mobile phone.
From C's place, we had to negotiate quite a few STOP signs and a couple of traffic lights before we got to the freeway. Inspite of a few cars getting between the three cars at various points, through some routine manoeuvers, we managed to enter the ramp in the order C, B and I. Now, we had about 5 miles of freeway to pass before taking the exit to my place. Being a Fri evening, none of us were in any mood to spend too much time on this effort. So, as soon as we got onto the freeway, B charged past C and sped away. Taking the cue, I shifted lanes, passed C and set off in pursuit of B, while maintaining a watch on C. C got the message loud and clear and kept up comfortably. All this at a very routine 75 - 80 mph. There was quite a bit of traffic, thus requiring intermittent lane changes. And as the middle man, I was very aware of the positions of B and C.
Whenever B changed lanes, I followed suit. It was not necessary, but at that point, I was already aware of the co-ordinated movement that we were producing and wanted to maintain it. C did the same to ensure proximity. Proceeding in this manner, we reached the destination without a blip. At the end of this distinctly mundane affair, I felt a certain elation that lingered well into the evening. It got me thinking...
Early Saturday, I managed to catch some of the the Premiership action thanks to Fox Sports Network. Even as I was watching the game between two midtable teams as a complete neutral, I found it hard not to jump out of the couch every time a slick passing move culminated in a shot on goal. The game ended nil-nil but the 40 mins spent watching it sure brightened the weekend. Having had to recently defend football's austere scorelines to a suckup for instant gratification, I thought some more...
Often, the highlights of a football game consist of a couple of brilliant touches followed by that all-important almighty kick that sends the ball into the back of the net. A virgin viewer is enthralled by this piece of action and gets hooked on to the game. I remember lapping up '120 top goals of the year' telecast on Star Sports. Another highlight of the game is that inch perfect pass (for those who are not aware, that is David Beckam's claim to fame on the field) that feeds the striker who lurks in the D.
There is another play in this game that often, does not find itself on the highlights package (unless it results in a goal) . That happens during a counter-attack, when the ball is picked up by a midfielder or better, one of the central defenders. At which point, the wingers on both the flanks are already tearing down the field with unrestrained aggression. The forwards too get their momentum going goalward. From this moment on, with the opposition scurying back to position ready to disrupt this symphony, it is all about imagination and creativity allied to the breathtaking skills lying at each man's feet. As the midfielder skips past his marker and ventures deep into enemy territory, the forward senses blood. He pushes further and further while careful not to fall foul of the offside trap. The wingers too are embarking on a mazy run trying to create space. Just when it appears that the midfielder has nothing to offer and is about to send out a pass to the left more in hope than anything else, there is a blur to the right wearing the same jersey and somehow, the ball is already at his feet. Surprise lasts for half a second (lasts longer for the viewer), with the defender already ready to show who's boss, but the ball is delicately threaded through the non-existent space to the forward, who has timed the run past his marker with millisecond precision. The ball at his feet, the goalkeeper and the goal at his mercy, he sends it on its way with precisely calculated speed and swerve. Alas, just to send out a loud and clear "If only it were that easy" message, the ball hits the inside of the post, rolls across the face of the goal and is picked up by the defender. The collective sigh of the crowd hangs in the air for the next 20 seconds and not a soul is in his seat. Neither am I. There is something about concerted, coordinated, synchronized movement...
Gather a couple of pals, strap on your seatbelts and experience it yourself. DRIVE SAFE!
Yesterday, B and I, drove to C's place to pick something up. Situation demanded that we drive our own cars, and situation further demanded that the something that needed to be picked up, needed to be driven back to my place in C's pickup. So, there we were, three of us, each with our own vehicle, ready to drive back to my place. C indicated that he would lead us to the freeway taking an easier route (which B and I did not know), after which we had to take over since C did not know the route to my place. The idea was to stay in visual contact with each other through the drive to avoid any frantic calls on a mobile phone.
From C's place, we had to negotiate quite a few STOP signs and a couple of traffic lights before we got to the freeway. Inspite of a few cars getting between the three cars at various points, through some routine manoeuvers, we managed to enter the ramp in the order C, B and I. Now, we had about 5 miles of freeway to pass before taking the exit to my place. Being a Fri evening, none of us were in any mood to spend too much time on this effort. So, as soon as we got onto the freeway, B charged past C and sped away. Taking the cue, I shifted lanes, passed C and set off in pursuit of B, while maintaining a watch on C. C got the message loud and clear and kept up comfortably. All this at a very routine 75 - 80 mph. There was quite a bit of traffic, thus requiring intermittent lane changes. And as the middle man, I was very aware of the positions of B and C.
Whenever B changed lanes, I followed suit. It was not necessary, but at that point, I was already aware of the co-ordinated movement that we were producing and wanted to maintain it. C did the same to ensure proximity. Proceeding in this manner, we reached the destination without a blip. At the end of this distinctly mundane affair, I felt a certain elation that lingered well into the evening. It got me thinking...
Early Saturday, I managed to catch some of the the Premiership action thanks to Fox Sports Network. Even as I was watching the game between two midtable teams as a complete neutral, I found it hard not to jump out of the couch every time a slick passing move culminated in a shot on goal. The game ended nil-nil but the 40 mins spent watching it sure brightened the weekend. Having had to recently defend football's austere scorelines to a suckup for instant gratification, I thought some more...
Often, the highlights of a football game consist of a couple of brilliant touches followed by that all-important almighty kick that sends the ball into the back of the net. A virgin viewer is enthralled by this piece of action and gets hooked on to the game. I remember lapping up '120 top goals of the year' telecast on Star Sports. Another highlight of the game is that inch perfect pass (for those who are not aware, that is David Beckam's claim to fame on the field) that feeds the striker who lurks in the D.
There is another play in this game that often, does not find itself on the highlights package (unless it results in a goal) . That happens during a counter-attack, when the ball is picked up by a midfielder or better, one of the central defenders. At which point, the wingers on both the flanks are already tearing down the field with unrestrained aggression. The forwards too get their momentum going goalward. From this moment on, with the opposition scurying back to position ready to disrupt this symphony, it is all about imagination and creativity allied to the breathtaking skills lying at each man's feet. As the midfielder skips past his marker and ventures deep into enemy territory, the forward senses blood. He pushes further and further while careful not to fall foul of the offside trap. The wingers too are embarking on a mazy run trying to create space. Just when it appears that the midfielder has nothing to offer and is about to send out a pass to the left more in hope than anything else, there is a blur to the right wearing the same jersey and somehow, the ball is already at his feet. Surprise lasts for half a second (lasts longer for the viewer), with the defender already ready to show who's boss, but the ball is delicately threaded through the non-existent space to the forward, who has timed the run past his marker with millisecond precision. The ball at his feet, the goalkeeper and the goal at his mercy, he sends it on its way with precisely calculated speed and swerve. Alas, just to send out a loud and clear "If only it were that easy" message, the ball hits the inside of the post, rolls across the face of the goal and is picked up by the defender. The collective sigh of the crowd hangs in the air for the next 20 seconds and not a soul is in his seat. Neither am I. There is something about concerted, coordinated, synchronized movement...
Gather a couple of pals, strap on your seatbelts and experience it yourself. DRIVE SAFE!
Friday, April 21, 2006
When scripts fail
Two men. Long, distinguished careers. Legends of their times. Loved by their supporters.
Wrong side of 30. Slower reactions. Failing instincts. Degrading skills.
Ready to retire, they set the date with a farewell home game in mind. BOTH didn't 'play' to see the day.
Alan Shearer! Sanath Jayasuriya!
Wrong side of 30. Slower reactions. Failing instincts. Degrading skills.
Ready to retire, they set the date with a farewell home game in mind. BOTH didn't 'play' to see the day.
Alan Shearer! Sanath Jayasuriya!
Friday, April 07, 2006
Some good news....actually, make that great news!
Marat Safin says that his victory over Gasquet was his best since Aus Open 2005!!! He's never been an image conscious boy and so, quite often, after a victory, he has been known to come to a press conference and utter that he played rubbish. Thus, when he mentions that it was his best since Aus Open 2005, BELIEVE HIM!
I saw him play at the NASDAQ-100 recently, and while he did manage to win a couple of rounds, he didn't convince anyone. But now, with him defeating Gasquet, that infinitely talented youngster (my tip to be the next big thing, bigger than Nadal), in a high quality match, it is time for the real tennis to begin.
Mind you, never ever believe his "I'm going to commit myself to tennis blah blah". Coz, he is never going to (not anytime soon atleast). He is as kamikaze as Agassi was. And that's endearing.....and FRUSTRATING as HELL!!! You never know what you are going to get when he walks on court, but if you notice a sparkle in his play in an early round, might as well get the tickets for the entire tournament. Good chance that he will light it up. His 'brilliance' does not come with a 'every time' stamped on it, but then if/when he is in the mood, his matchup with Federer on any hard/clay court, will be of a quality that the world has seldom witnessed. While it won't offer the serve-volley contrast of many of this game's celebrated rivalries, it will serve up a sumptuos 5-course meal of returns, groundies and a few net forays.
Here's to good 'tennis' times!
I saw him play at the NASDAQ-100 recently, and while he did manage to win a couple of rounds, he didn't convince anyone. But now, with him defeating Gasquet, that infinitely talented youngster (my tip to be the next big thing, bigger than Nadal), in a high quality match, it is time for the real tennis to begin.
Mind you, never ever believe his "I'm going to commit myself to tennis blah blah". Coz, he is never going to (not anytime soon atleast). He is as kamikaze as Agassi was. And that's endearing.....and FRUSTRATING as HELL!!! You never know what you are going to get when he walks on court, but if you notice a sparkle in his play in an early round, might as well get the tickets for the entire tournament. Good chance that he will light it up. His 'brilliance' does not come with a 'every time' stamped on it, but then if/when he is in the mood, his matchup with Federer on any hard/clay court, will be of a quality that the world has seldom witnessed. While it won't offer the serve-volley contrast of many of this game's celebrated rivalries, it will serve up a sumptuos 5-course meal of returns, groundies and a few net forays.
Here's to good 'tennis' times!
Saturday, April 01, 2006
Sergi says so...
BBC Sport, once in a while, gets a former/current player to answer questions for the readers. McEnroe, Wilander, Evert and co. have been given the honour previously. About a week ago, I noticed that Sergi Bruguera was put in the hot seat this time around.
Sergi wasn't exactly a fan favourite (outside Spain) at any time during his career. Wasn't his fault really. It's just hard to develop fascination for a player that loops the ball over the net the whole live long day. Mind you, I am not accusing him of lack of skills, just a lack of romance. Personally, I was never happy that he blocked Jim Courier's way to a third consecutive French Open in 1993. Anyway, he didn't figure in the top echelons of the game for a very long time for me to hold anything permanent against him.
So, this Sat morning, I woke up and looked up BBC Sport for the latest EPL results. There was a lot of good news there. ManU continued to surge and surprisingly (happily for me), Chelsea didn't score a 1-0 win and instead drew 0-0. The reason for that was soon apparent when I saw that Liverpool had scored two. Obviously, Liverpool had complete access to the pool of two goals that they share for the week. So, overall, good day so far!
As I was ready to look up the the other news, something by the side caught my eye. I read it again to make sure that I was reading right. The headline read 'Federer far better than Sampras'. Okay I know, it isn't exactly a revelation. However, its always good to hear more and more people say it (Sergi says so, in this case). Here I am, getting ready to bash thrash and kick out at my favourite punching bag, but I don't want to be completely biased. So, let me state straight up that it can never be an insult to come out unfavourably in a direct comparison to Roger Federer. Mr.Sampras, you're okay for the moment!
However Sir Sergi (yeah, I just knighted him!) goes further.
'Federer has a better forehand, better backhand, better returning, touch and feel'. Again, common knowledge and well documented!
And then comes something that is well known, but to my inherent dislike, not well documented. 'Sampras had the better serve. That was 90% of his game'. Ohhhh, that's coming out in bold in the best seller of 2040, "SPORTS - since 1994", authored by you-know-who :D:D
Many of the legends of this sport, Lendl, Borg, to name just a couple have their bogey Slams....Wimbledon and the US Open respectively (On a personal note, Agassi is conspicuous in this list by his absence :D:D:D). And it always cracks me up when some 'experts' mention that the French was Sampras' bogey. Get real people! When the US Open is mentioned as Borg's bogey, it refers to the fact that Borg had all the skills to win the Slam but ended up not winning it. And to support the claims, Borg lost FOUR times in the finals there (I think that it was either McEnroe or Connors that he ran into during every single one of those finals). Lendl, after having a complete aversion to grass, dedicated himself to winning Wimbledon and ended up with 2 runner-up plates as well as being a 5 time semifinalist (Applause please..). Hence, to put Sampras (a career clay record of 90-54) in this list has to evoke some laughter in anyone who is student of the game. The only great that Sampras compares with favourably on clay is Boris Becker (ZERO career clay court titles), who was foiled in one clay court final by the man Sampras himself.....LOL...that must have been some tournament! Anyway, is it mere coincidence that at Roland Garros, a place that does not lend itself to serve-putaway tennis, Sampras owns a 24-13 record? Mind you, a big serve still wins you those so called 'cheap points'. It's just that the cheap points don't constitute a majority of the points. OOPS....Achilles heel!
Thus, it becomes hilarious when people put Sampras at the top of a list that contains Rod Laver and Bjorn Borg amongst others (I am not well read about the achievements of Don Budge and co). Laver managed to lose six years of his prime and ended up with 11 Slams. And he also had the small achievement of winning the Grand Slam TWICE! Not even a women's tennis player has done it twice (I mention this because women's tennis until recently would have the same two fighting it out in every final, thus having a good chance of winning each Slam in a year). And while Bjorn Borg didn't win the US Open, which was played on grass at that time, he won Wimbledon and the French in the same year for three consecutive years. Mind boggling just to think about it!
Sampras is great because he made the most of his talents, and it is not his fault that he came up at a time when serve ruled the game (though, I fault him for playing the brand of tennis that pushed me to watch a re-run of our 1983 Cricket World Cup win for the zillionth time when the Wimbledon final was on). However, he fell woefully short of conquering his biggest challenge, while previously, men (and one man might possibly join them soon) have conquered every challenge that this game has to offer. Let's not demean them by short-sightedness/ignorance.
Sergi wasn't exactly a fan favourite (outside Spain) at any time during his career. Wasn't his fault really. It's just hard to develop fascination for a player that loops the ball over the net the whole live long day. Mind you, I am not accusing him of lack of skills, just a lack of romance. Personally, I was never happy that he blocked Jim Courier's way to a third consecutive French Open in 1993. Anyway, he didn't figure in the top echelons of the game for a very long time for me to hold anything permanent against him.
So, this Sat morning, I woke up and looked up BBC Sport for the latest EPL results. There was a lot of good news there. ManU continued to surge and surprisingly (happily for me), Chelsea didn't score a 1-0 win and instead drew 0-0. The reason for that was soon apparent when I saw that Liverpool had scored two. Obviously, Liverpool had complete access to the pool of two goals that they share for the week. So, overall, good day so far!
As I was ready to look up the the other news, something by the side caught my eye. I read it again to make sure that I was reading right. The headline read 'Federer far better than Sampras'. Okay I know, it isn't exactly a revelation. However, its always good to hear more and more people say it (Sergi says so, in this case). Here I am, getting ready to bash thrash and kick out at my favourite punching bag, but I don't want to be completely biased. So, let me state straight up that it can never be an insult to come out unfavourably in a direct comparison to Roger Federer. Mr.Sampras, you're okay for the moment!
However Sir Sergi (yeah, I just knighted him!) goes further.
'Federer has a better forehand, better backhand, better returning, touch and feel'. Again, common knowledge and well documented!
And then comes something that is well known, but to my inherent dislike, not well documented. 'Sampras had the better serve. That was 90% of his game'. Ohhhh, that's coming out in bold in the best seller of 2040, "SPORTS - since 1994", authored by you-know-who :D:D
Many of the legends of this sport, Lendl, Borg, to name just a couple have their bogey Slams....Wimbledon and the US Open respectively (On a personal note, Agassi is conspicuous in this list by his absence :D:D:D). And it always cracks me up when some 'experts' mention that the French was Sampras' bogey. Get real people! When the US Open is mentioned as Borg's bogey, it refers to the fact that Borg had all the skills to win the Slam but ended up not winning it. And to support the claims, Borg lost FOUR times in the finals there (I think that it was either McEnroe or Connors that he ran into during every single one of those finals). Lendl, after having a complete aversion to grass, dedicated himself to winning Wimbledon and ended up with 2 runner-up plates as well as being a 5 time semifinalist (Applause please..). Hence, to put Sampras (a career clay record of 90-54) in this list has to evoke some laughter in anyone who is student of the game. The only great that Sampras compares with favourably on clay is Boris Becker (ZERO career clay court titles), who was foiled in one clay court final by the man Sampras himself.....LOL...that must have been some tournament! Anyway, is it mere coincidence that at Roland Garros, a place that does not lend itself to serve-putaway tennis, Sampras owns a 24-13 record? Mind you, a big serve still wins you those so called 'cheap points'. It's just that the cheap points don't constitute a majority of the points. OOPS....Achilles heel!
Thus, it becomes hilarious when people put Sampras at the top of a list that contains Rod Laver and Bjorn Borg amongst others (I am not well read about the achievements of Don Budge and co). Laver managed to lose six years of his prime and ended up with 11 Slams. And he also had the small achievement of winning the Grand Slam TWICE! Not even a women's tennis player has done it twice (I mention this because women's tennis until recently would have the same two fighting it out in every final, thus having a good chance of winning each Slam in a year). And while Bjorn Borg didn't win the US Open, which was played on grass at that time, he won Wimbledon and the French in the same year for three consecutive years. Mind boggling just to think about it!
Sampras is great because he made the most of his talents, and it is not his fault that he came up at a time when serve ruled the game (though, I fault him for playing the brand of tennis that pushed me to watch a re-run of our 1983 Cricket World Cup win for the zillionth time when the Wimbledon final was on). However, he fell woefully short of conquering his biggest challenge, while previously, men (and one man might possibly join them soon) have conquered every challenge that this game has to offer. Let's not demean them by short-sightedness/ignorance.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
The discussions have begun
Stung into action by the Cricket needs it's Essence blog, Cricinfo is getting together some smart minds in the game to talk about whether it is time to redress the balance between bat and ball, what can be done etc etc :D Here's the link. Sambit Bal is scheduled to write the final piece. You can be sure that it will be worth the wait.
CLARIFICATION: Due to the obvious sarcasm, I thought that there was no need to be sarcastic while stating that one of my previous blogs has spawned the discussion on cricinfo. However, this friend of mine, Rasan, a PhD student, called me up at close to midnight and asked me about how I managed to get the attention of the editors of Cricinfo :-o So, due to fear of someone else also thinking along those lines, and worse suing me for writing so, I need to issue this following clarification. 'The discussion on cricinfo is an independant idea and not inspired by my blog' (atleast, not that I know of ;) )
CLARIFICATION: Due to the obvious sarcasm, I thought that there was no need to be sarcastic while stating that one of my previous blogs has spawned the discussion on cricinfo. However, this friend of mine, Rasan, a PhD student, called me up at close to midnight and asked me about how I managed to get the attention of the editors of Cricinfo :-o So, due to fear of someone else also thinking along those lines, and worse suing me for writing so, I need to issue this following clarification. 'The discussion on cricinfo is an independant idea and not inspired by my blog' (atleast, not that I know of ;) )
Saturday, March 25, 2006
The NUGGET's gone!
As it happenned, once, during the golden years, when ViM, FSN, MoGa and myself were discussing some of our important achievements until that point, ViM proudly announced that even in a crowded video store, he could get one of those guy movies (just to clarify....more girls than guys in the movie :D) with his subtlety. While FSN and MoGa also managed to flaunt their expertise in this area, I sat there, quiet and unable to look them in the eye. Naturally, this was noticed and led to an investigation. Turned out that while I had scrutinized and reviewed every movie that was ever borrowed, I had never ever done the dirty work myself. This obviously did not go down well with these you've-gotta-earn-your-bread folk. And at the end of the discussion, ViM, in his position as the unelected leader, thundered that if I had any semblance of pride, I should not watch one until I got it myself. So, there I sat, humiliated and humbled, in the midst of these giants of the trade.
Naturally, ViM's order has been disobeyed over the years. Not because I lack a semblance of pride, but more because, some things are more important than pride! Anyway, life has been good since (in every possible way), without cause for much complaint. However, the accusation of being a parasite has always remained a nugget deep down.
Last week, this friend of mine, Sekh, having finished his Masters and having gotten an offer, thus having nothing to do until work started, came down for a vacation and stayed over for a week. Since I was unable to take time off work, he spent the day watching movies and cooking dinner for my roommate and myself. After watching my collection of the good and the guy ones, he insisted that we go to Blockbuster and get a couple (a good one and a guy one) for Friday.
We decided upon 'The Rookie' as the movie for that night and continued looking for a second one. Which is when it occurred to me that now might be the time to flush away that nugget forever. Also, taking the plunge for the sake of Sekh (Since he was the one that wanted to borrow one. I know my way around the internet! Sorry Sekh, HAD to rat you out) made me feel 'martyr'ish. So, taking the case from him after he had pondered 15 mins over the different titles available, I proceeded with short hesitant steps toward the counter. For Chrissakes, it was a girl at the counter!!! I was ready to give up and ask Sekh to do the dirty work himself. Somehow, I gathered my courage, decided on a Now or Never approach and stood in the line.
When it was my turn, I walked up to her, while trying to keep my eyes straight and passed on the 2 cases in my hand (obviously The Rookie was on top). Once I handed it over, there I was, ready to sink into the ground at the hint of a giggle from her. It never came. She was a total pro. Got it from my hands, read the titles, located the DVDs, placed them in the cases and handed back to me within 2 mins. And all with a neat smile. I felt exonerated...
Naturally, ViM's order has been disobeyed over the years. Not because I lack a semblance of pride, but more because, some things are more important than pride! Anyway, life has been good since (in every possible way), without cause for much complaint. However, the accusation of being a parasite has always remained a nugget deep down.
Last week, this friend of mine, Sekh, having finished his Masters and having gotten an offer, thus having nothing to do until work started, came down for a vacation and stayed over for a week. Since I was unable to take time off work, he spent the day watching movies and cooking dinner for my roommate and myself. After watching my collection of the good and the guy ones, he insisted that we go to Blockbuster and get a couple (a good one and a guy one) for Friday.
We decided upon 'The Rookie' as the movie for that night and continued looking for a second one. Which is when it occurred to me that now might be the time to flush away that nugget forever. Also, taking the plunge for the sake of Sekh (Since he was the one that wanted to borrow one. I know my way around the internet! Sorry Sekh, HAD to rat you out) made me feel 'martyr'ish. So, taking the case from him after he had pondered 15 mins over the different titles available, I proceeded with short hesitant steps toward the counter. For Chrissakes, it was a girl at the counter!!! I was ready to give up and ask Sekh to do the dirty work himself. Somehow, I gathered my courage, decided on a Now or Never approach and stood in the line.
When it was my turn, I walked up to her, while trying to keep my eyes straight and passed on the 2 cases in my hand (obviously The Rookie was on top). Once I handed it over, there I was, ready to sink into the ground at the hint of a giggle from her. It never came. She was a total pro. Got it from my hands, read the titles, located the DVDs, placed them in the cases and handed back to me within 2 mins. And all with a neat smile. I felt exonerated...
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Even a Rasna needs its ESSENCE
Pearls of wisdom can emanate from the unlikeliest of sources. That's what I realised when I came across this one by Nirmal Shekhar. Usually, I prefer to avoid his articles, simply because I do not want my blood pressure shooting up after reading about Sampras' supposed greatness in the middle of a report on cricket. Anyway, this time around, due to sheer negligence, I started reading this one and and ended up being rewarded (Diligence pays. YES. But now, so does negligence..plus you can be lazy while being negligent!!!)
The whole world has been going ga-ga about THAT MATCH and how it was the greatest one ever played. It definitely was one of the greatest due to the sheer improbability of the scores and the final result. It's a no-brainer actually. While discussing it that day, I stumbled with words to express the awe I felt when I saw the scorecard. Also, I found myself enthusiastically, first explaining cricket and then, the significance of this match to a few individuals (usually, I just wave them off dismissively and affix the label 'childhood kadalai' to those desis that do not know cricket). Eventually, after the euphoria died down, I found my thoughts turning another way.
Here are a couple of scorecards (one, two) from matches belonging to a different era of ODIs. I did not witness either of them. Yet, the records of both these matches used to show up in most of cricket's batting related statistics prior to 1996. After this recent batathon, I found myself thinking about how I was fascinated by the numbers of those matches when I started following cricket. However, now, I find it hard to remember the number of times that India has crossed 350. I think 'Familiarity breeds contempt' explains it. And I have NO DOUBT whatsoever that 10 years down the line, a 400 plus score would be as regular as a 300 is these days....if the current trends of favouring batting persist.
Not that I know what the perfect balance is. Personally, I prefer 225 - 260 thrillers. But I know that this hypothetical optimal score stems from the fact that I grew up to this game seeing such scores. I am sure that an individual who started watching the game in the 70s wouldn't be happy with bowlers being hit for 4 to 5 runs per over or actually, might loathe the one day form of cricket altogether. My only counter to that (I have to counter it since I love ODIs) would be to play the 'audience wants it' card. Which would lead to a breakdown of my entire argument since any cricket-educated individual can fairly point out that we have decades to go before hitting the barrier of 1800 (36 runs per over :D), until which any crisis talk can wait!....STUMPED !!!
Hence, unsure of my own reasoning on this issue, I deliberated and almost gave up. Enter Nirmal Shekhar (of all people!). He says 'A sport can lose its essential greatness over generations without ever losing its mass appeal'.....and I fall to my knees thanking him. I would replace the 'essential greatness' with 'essence' but he captured it right there. As we move to 400 and then 500 scores, where is the contest between ball and bat (which is INARGUABLY the essence of this game)? The convenient 'audience wants it' card does not hold anymore, does it?
The game is thriving at present, so, why bother is a fair reply. Afterall, filling up stadiums is never a problem in the subcontinent (the breeding ground of the very problem that I am discussing) and the money is flowing in like never before. Then again, it should be noted that the 'thriving' refers to the aforementioned and not the quality of the game.
By no means is juggling and balancing the three (quality, spectators, money) an open and shut case. Nevertheless, the lack of intelligent debate on the same is alarming. I hoped and continue to hope that this match sparks off heated discussions and a few radical decisions to ensure that the bowler breed remains in existence. A few players (Barry Richards among them) have spoken about it and supposedly Shaun Pollock of the bowler breed weighed in with a 'great game!......to watch from the pavilion' remark. All I wait for is a gem from Bhogle or Brijnath or if we are all very lucky, from Rahul THE ONE Dravid himelf!
PS: Nirmal Shekhar, In the very unlikely event of you reading this, this should not be misconstrued as a surrender. That would not happen until you can explain the existence of Roger Federer in context of your hundred times repeated 'Sampras is a once in my lifetime player' :D
The whole world has been going ga-ga about THAT MATCH and how it was the greatest one ever played. It definitely was one of the greatest due to the sheer improbability of the scores and the final result. It's a no-brainer actually. While discussing it that day, I stumbled with words to express the awe I felt when I saw the scorecard. Also, I found myself enthusiastically, first explaining cricket and then, the significance of this match to a few individuals (usually, I just wave them off dismissively and affix the label 'childhood kadalai' to those desis that do not know cricket). Eventually, after the euphoria died down, I found my thoughts turning another way.
Here are a couple of scorecards (one, two) from matches belonging to a different era of ODIs. I did not witness either of them. Yet, the records of both these matches used to show up in most of cricket's batting related statistics prior to 1996. After this recent batathon, I found myself thinking about how I was fascinated by the numbers of those matches when I started following cricket. However, now, I find it hard to remember the number of times that India has crossed 350. I think 'Familiarity breeds contempt' explains it. And I have NO DOUBT whatsoever that 10 years down the line, a 400 plus score would be as regular as a 300 is these days....if the current trends of favouring batting persist.
Not that I know what the perfect balance is. Personally, I prefer 225 - 260 thrillers. But I know that this hypothetical optimal score stems from the fact that I grew up to this game seeing such scores. I am sure that an individual who started watching the game in the 70s wouldn't be happy with bowlers being hit for 4 to 5 runs per over or actually, might loathe the one day form of cricket altogether. My only counter to that (I have to counter it since I love ODIs) would be to play the 'audience wants it' card. Which would lead to a breakdown of my entire argument since any cricket-educated individual can fairly point out that we have decades to go before hitting the barrier of 1800 (36 runs per over :D), until which any crisis talk can wait!....STUMPED !!!
Hence, unsure of my own reasoning on this issue, I deliberated and almost gave up. Enter Nirmal Shekhar (of all people!). He says 'A sport can lose its essential greatness over generations without ever losing its mass appeal'.....and I fall to my knees thanking him. I would replace the 'essential greatness' with 'essence' but he captured it right there. As we move to 400 and then 500 scores, where is the contest between ball and bat (which is INARGUABLY the essence of this game)? The convenient 'audience wants it' card does not hold anymore, does it?
The game is thriving at present, so, why bother is a fair reply. Afterall, filling up stadiums is never a problem in the subcontinent (the breeding ground of the very problem that I am discussing) and the money is flowing in like never before. Then again, it should be noted that the 'thriving' refers to the aforementioned and not the quality of the game.
By no means is juggling and balancing the three (quality, spectators, money) an open and shut case. Nevertheless, the lack of intelligent debate on the same is alarming. I hoped and continue to hope that this match sparks off heated discussions and a few radical decisions to ensure that the bowler breed remains in existence. A few players (Barry Richards among them) have spoken about it and supposedly Shaun Pollock of the bowler breed weighed in with a 'great game!......to watch from the pavilion' remark. All I wait for is a gem from Bhogle or Brijnath or if we are all very lucky, from Rahul THE ONE Dravid himelf!
PS: Nirmal Shekhar, In the very unlikely event of you reading this, this should not be misconstrued as a surrender. That would not happen until you can explain the existence of Roger Federer in context of your hundred times repeated 'Sampras is a once in my lifetime player' :D
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)