Desicritics Section: Sports

That Sinking Feeling

thedeskjockey — Wed, 4 Mar 2009 06:39:11 EST

A day after the terrible attacks on Sri Lanka cricketers in Pakistan, the emotion has perhaps settled a little, but the strange sense of hopelessness has not. As I sit today reading through the details coming in through various outlets, it feels that there is no way you can be ready for this despite 60+ years of terrorism. And while I grow weary at the renewed finger pointing across the border (haven’t we had enough of that in the last 4 months?), a couple of things don’t make sense to me at all

1) Why would the terrorists, who have unashamedly killed innocent women and children before, have any qualms about killing high profile cricketers? If their intent is to destabilize the ruling powers, anyone is fair game. So where does the confidence on cricketers being safe, come from?

2) Why is it important to stage cricket games to prove a point? When did cricketers become diplomats or statesmen for their countries? And what if the tour had gone without incident? All it proves, and has proved in the past, is that the security was tight or the terrorists didn’t think it worthy enough of their time. It doesn’t automatically make Pakistan a safer place, nor does it force other countries to reverse their decisions. This leaves the door open to just one disturbing possibility – money.

The Indian team luckily or prudently decided not to tour Pakistan. And the thought of seeing Tendulkar’s and Dhoni’s name substituted for Samaraweera and Paranavithana fuels the worst of what-if fears in us. However, the biggest losers in this are Pakistan cricket and the state of Pakistan as a whole. And somehow, I feel sad for the people living in the country; saddled with the worst of regimes, facing the worst of uncertainties, and living in fear of the worst of the backlashes from the rest of the world.

Several years back, when I was still in university, I had the pleasure of having a Pakistani as my neighbor. Now like the average Indian who viewed their country through the same blood tainted lens the politicians paint for us, I was a little vary and perhaps remained even a little distant to him. However like all guys in general we bonded one day over a glass of vodka (which I was surprised that he was willing to drink despite his religion), a guitar and a lot of good food. And while discussing various topics in general, we inevitably came to the subject of tensions between our countries. And he made a few points that touched me immensely. He said, “I am proud to be a Pakistani, yet there is no one who appreciates that”. “People here in the US have sympathy for the Iraqi, muted admiration or fascination for the Iranian and are just in plain awe of the Indians and Chinese. But when I mention that I am a Pakistani, they reserve their contempt masked by patronizing dismissal only for us”. And he continued by saying that one day, he wanted to see his own country stand tall for its achievements and not its dubious relationships. He said that the average Pakistani is yearning to be a citizen of the world and not unofficially belong to the official “Axis of Evil”. And finally I asked him if he would ever marry an American and he said he would, if she would convert to Islam. What about an Indian? He said he could never return to his country. And that saddened me because I might have given the same answer regarding marriage to a Pakistani. As much as we would like to break our shackles, we still feel incredibly burdened by our past.

That is precisely why I don’t feel the necessity to call out the hollowness of calls to visit the country. Neither do I want to succumb to the urge to wrap this situation in an incredibly funny yet disturbing way. Because the fault does not lie with the people making these calls. Because as much as we are led to believe that Pakistan’s failure lies in harboring and nurturing terrorism, that notion is fundamentally wrong. Their failure lies in its inability to give the average citizen the opportunity to flourish and prosper in this world. Its failure lies in its inability to clearly define a vision for its country. And its failure lies in ignoring the basic pillars that build a successful state of governance – education, infrastructure and economy. By allowing the military to rule the roost at the forefront or behind the scenes, they pretty much guaranteed that they would always make the wrong friends – the Taliban, or make friends for the wrong reasons – the USA.

And not all countries are completely successful at containing terrorism and unrest. India’s extreme economical progress masks a lot of its own problems with the Hindu fundamentalists and Naxalites. Even the USA with all its mighty technology and prosperity could do nothing to contain the widespread crime, rioting and looting in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Eventually, when you remove hope from a person, he/she very rapidly descends down a path of destruction. Now apply that to a significant majority of a country’s population and you get one giant terrorist state.

In the wake of these attacks, it is obviously easy to want to isolate Pakistan from the rest of the world. However an isolated Pakistan is not only ripe for the taking for the likes of JeM, LeT, Harkat and the Taliban, but it also means that India would become the new Israel – having Pakistan, Bangladesh, China and Sri Lanka as our neighbors.

And that possibility is a lot more disturbing than the current state of affairs.

Indian Cricket - Wear Red Underwear to Win?

Ankur Bhatia — Tue, 3 Mar 2009 05:10:21 EST

Sky Blue or Deep Blue? Does it really matter? After a long time the Indian Team 'looks' good on the field and its all thanks to Nike who have managed to create a kick ass jersey which is striking and stylish. The new deep blue jersey was in the making for about 18 months and it was made keeping in mind the requests of the players to keep it light and well ventilated. But apart from it these advantages (and of course it being less prone to dirt like Dhoni said) does it really make any other difference.

Team India lost the first two matches that it played with the new jersey but it is just absurd to blame the new jersey for it. And the media is primarily to blame for it. They are the ones who brought this rubbish thought out in the open. I mean India lost the first match and suddenly the media were looking for someone to blame. Why? because our team is just about to become no. 1 in the world and that's why they can't play badly. So it has to be the new Jersey. And its even more absurd to have colour therapists sitting in the studios of news channels discussing the ill effects of the deep blue colour. " It is a dark colour which brings down your pulse rate and you stop becoming aggressive, they should wear a colour which increases the pulse rate and makes them aggressive" Hello? We lost the match because we were over aggressive. And the icing on the cake was the therapist asking the Indian Team to wear Red Underwear as it will make them aggressive. Yes, Its true and I saw this myself.

Just going by pure facts, the sky blue Indian Team didn't even make it to the second round of the 2007 world cup, the dark blue Sri Lankan team won the 1996 World Cup and the New Zealand team for years had the All Black Jersey. South Africa for years has been wearing a darker shade of green, and even Pakistan shifted from their light green of 1992 world cup to a darker Green. And to think, the media would have all these stats memorized.

Another thought that can be taken is, If India had won the two Twenty-20 matches, would the media have credited the New Jersey for it? I mean if the colour of a Jersey was gonna dictate how the team performed then why bother playing?

Who ever has the better Jersey, Wins.

Sania Mirza & Mahesh Bhupathi Win Australian Open Mixed Doubles

Aaman Lamba — Sun, 1 Feb 2009 01:43:12 EST

The Indian tennis firmament seems to be shining brighter this year, first with Yuki Bhambri's win at the junior Australian Men's event and now with Sania Mirza-Mahesh Bhupathi winning the mixed doubles event at the Australian Open.

They won the finals against Nathalie Dechy (France) and Andy Ram (Israel) 6-3, 6-1. This was their second consecutive year in the finals, and followed a rather lacklustre year for Ms. Mirza. Their opponents were unseeded, and the match was won handily by the duo. This is the seventh Grand Slam title for Mahesh and the first for Sania. He lost the Men's Doubles finals

The excitement continues at the Rod Laver Arena in Melbourne Park with the Men's Finals between Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer, their first face-off on hard courts, coming on the heels of a tense semi-final match for Nadal against Fernando Verdasco that last over five hours.

The wins of Bhupathi-Mirza and Bhambri will enthuse the sport in India but also bring into scrutiny the negligent attention given to Indian tennis by the Sports Authority and other bodies.

Update: Rafael Nadal defeated Roger Federer in the Men's Finals through a five set 7-5, 3-6, 7-6 (3), 3-6, 6-2. Ths was the fourth consecutive loss for Federer against Nadal and a four and a half hour long match.

At the awards ceremony, where the cup was given away by Rod Laver, Roger Federer could not hold back his tears, leading to Nadal consoling him, and saying, "Roger, sorry for today. I really know how you feel right now. Remember, you're a great champion, you're one of the best in history."

Hitting the Summit

BangaloreGuy — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 12:46:27 EST

If you're a cricket writer worth your salt, then by this time you would have written about Australia's loss of form, and also somewhere pondered about the impending competition between Indian and South African teams for the number 1 slot. There would be case studies on the different aspects - with some like Ian Chappell describing Indians as slightly ahead because of their balanced bowling attack vis-a-vis the South Africans as also the captain, Dhoni. There would also be some other chaps who would celebrate rise of South Africa more than India purely because it puts cricket's no1 somewhere in the "white" folds.

If India are to raise their game enough to be number 1 in all forms of the game, they should necessarily be as competitive as the Aussies were - against all teams. The Aussies didnt get to be number 1 by beating the top teams comprehensively and by just beating the lesser ones. The Aussies beat all comers (save India) rather comprehensively. Even if it was Bangladesh, they looked to beat them by an Innings and more in tests, and by hundred runs or more in ODIs - and they frequently did that.

It is this aspect that has to be embraced by any team which wants to be number 1.

Hence, for a team with a stated goal of wanting to be number 1 in Tests and ODIs - the shocking display of not declaring and going after England - on a 5th day with about 60 overs left is not on. The goal has to be always a Win - and when that looks impossible, a draw). A series win of 2-0 looks much better for a team than does a 1-0 - especially against an England team which they'd whitewashed in ODIs.

M S Dhoni missed more than a trick when he said he wanted the Yuvi and Gambhir to get to their centuries. In similar circumstances in Sydney, Ricky Ponting put India in, to play out 72 overs - and aided by some gobsmacking umpiring mistakes, and appeals that bordered on the wrong side of cheating - they did show India up.

It is unfathomable how an England team which got the best of conditions to bat on, and could only muster up 320 or so, can achieve a similar score in the last innings of a Test, with the pressure of losing the game, and perhaps in fading light - at a higher ask.

When commentators speak about Cricket being a mental game, it is to this that they refer. Cricket's a game of confidence - something that stares you in the face, when you look into the Aussie era of the last decade or so - wins from positions where others would cave-in, in fact some of them wins just because Aussies believed in Winning longer than anyone else, epitomising what Alec Baldwin says in Pearl Harbor "Victory belongs to those that believe in it the most and believe in it the longest. We're going to believe"

Chennai Test: Where The Spirit Stays Alive

Adithya — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 08:26:14 EST

Slumdog Millionaire, the movie, starts with a multiple choice question. One of the options is - "It is written. It is destiny."

What happened at M.A Chidambaram stadium, Chepauk, Madras turned out to be quite like it.

The cricket fans of Madras are often referred to as the most sportive and the most intelligent of the lot. Nobody thinks twice or feigns modesty before bringing up the standing ovation the crowd gave the Pakistan team after the match of 1999. The sight of a Pakistan team doing a victory march in an Indian city, speaks volumes about the power of sports. And the heart of the Madras cricket fan.

One man had his dreams turned into nightmare that same afternoon. Sachin Tendulkar, broken back or not, played a masterful innings. A typical effort from him, during an era when he was shouldering India's hopes and he was the only one. What could have been a match winning and career defying knock turned into the most excruciating and regrettable moment of his life in Test cricket. There were some, praising him for the effort and for carrying on without a soul for support. There were many, finding faults in him, for repeatedly failing to finish the job.

Sachin would later come back to Madras and score a century against Australia. It was business as usual. But the euphoria of a match winning knock was missing. The pride of a fourth innings century was missing. The chance to silence his critics once and for all was missing.

Sachin was not the only one missing all the fun. The other guy missing all the fun was the Madras cricket fan. There have been 5 Test matches played in this venue since 2002. And three One Day Internationals. One ODI was abandoned and the other had no result as only about 25 overs could be played. A Test match against Sri Lanka could not be played during the first three days. The Test match against Australia, superbly poised at the end of fourth day, with India all set to win, had its fifth day's play washed out. I still remember going to the match on fourth day, during internal exams at college, watching Damien Martyn and Gillespie grind the bowling attack. Another against South Africa was a boring draw.

The M.A.Chidambaram stadium is not used to such ordinary levels of cricket. It is a historic and famous venue for the kind of cricket played over there and for the fans of Madras. The place was just waiting to witness Test cricket of the finest quality and that is exactly what was handed on a platter in the match against England. A match where the opposition were in full control for the first four days. A match where one single session on the fourth day made a huge difference. A match where four players scored above fifty in a fourth innings of a match. Sehwag's in particular, for laying the foundation.

The script, couldn't be more perfect. Madras was destined to witness one of the highest run chases in Test history and the highest in India. The city and its fans rightly deserved the match of a lifetime, after being treated to very mediocre plays and abandoned games. It regained its glory as the best venue to play cricket on, in India.

Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar, scoring his 41st Test century and the match winning runs, and ultimately burying the demon of 1999, was only the icing on the cake. It was written.

Is Test Cricket Dying in India?

Chandra — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 00:47:26 EST

Congratulations to MSD and team for a well deserved victory over the Aussies. I think we played quite well in friendly conditions and the Aussies did not capitalise on opportunities that they were given throughout the series.

Moving onto the topic of discussion, have you been reading articles (largely in the western media) predicting the death of test cricket in India due to the 'hugely popular' IPL? If you haven't, here is a sample - 1. 2. 3.

The common narrative in all these articles is - Twenty 20 has taken off, stadiums are empty for test matches and the natives have no appreciation for the finer points of Test cricket. They like bang bang twenty 20 cricket over other forms. Being a fan of cricket (any), I found this very irritating. Naturally, I investigated this issue further. Here is what I found -

1. 48 million viewers watched the test series between India versus South Africa. 50 million watched India versus Sri Lanka. Mind you, neither of these teams enjoy the popularity of an India versus Pakistan or an India versus Australia series

2. On the day of the final test match between India and Australia, I was zipping around the city for client meetings. Everybody seemed to be glued to the test match. Either through TVs in their offices or other ways like web, mobile etc. In my office, almost every guy kept an eye on the score during the entire series. Now, that does not appear to be evidence against test cricket

3. I also called a few friends across the country and almost everybody was following the series. Now you can argue all of this is anecdotal information and that we need hard statistics.

Thankfully, the results are in. In the first 18 days of the Australia series, 27 million watched India versus Australia. How different is this from the IPL? 31 million watched the IPL during the first 18 days. In other words, there is hardly a difference between IPL and the popular India versus Australia series.

4. It is irritating to read about how unpopular Test cricket is India. I know that most of these conclusions are based on spectators in our stadiums. One journalist pointed out to the almost empty stands in Mohali to arrive at the conclusion that test cricket was dying in India. Our friend probably did not read this story about half empty Mohali during an IPL match. These journalists also probably missed this story as well. The fact of the matter is that going to a stadium to watch Test cricket is a horrible experience in India. The facilities are poor, no action replays and the tickets are worth more than a month's cable connection. Yes, 30000 people do watch Test cricket at Lords but what million of UK waste their time at work discussing the latest test match? Hardly anybody (They probably do that for Football). Whereas we Indians waste a lot of time at work discussing test cricket at work. (pun intended)

Most of these 'Test cricket is dead' stories are written by Journalists who hate the BCCI. They think that the BCCI wants to kill Test cricket and occupy the world or something like that. The reality is that India played 17 test matches during the last 12 months. One of the highest amongst all teams.

Please attack the BCCI as much as you wish but please leave us test cricket followers alone. This is India and we love cricket, any cricket.

The End of Dadaism

mbjesq — Sun, 9 Nov 2008 11:59:39 EST

Leave it to Sourav Ganguly to go out in a perplexing blaze of nothingness, with a first-ball duck at Nagpur, just as he entered with a perplexing blaze of brilliance, with an opening-innings century at Lords nearly a dozen years ago. Always a bit of drama with Sourav. Okay, more than a bit.

Unless you are a Bengali -- in which case chauvinism blinds you no less in matters of cricket than in any other aspect of life -- Ganguly made life just a little uncomfortable for his would-be admirers. You wanted to give him your unconditional support; but somehow, he never let you. You couldn't help but admire his ballsy incisiveness as India's captain, his often magnificent stroke play (as Rahul Dravid famously said, "On the off-side, there's God, then there's Ganguly."), and his uncommonly articulate post-match interviews. And yet his play never ceased to be infuriatingly selfish, sloppy, and cynical. I have not looked at the statistics, so this is entirely impressionistic, but I think one would be hard-pressed to name a player who got more of his teammates run-out unnecessarily, hit more pointless centuries in losing causes and inevitably drawn tests, or was dismissed so often within a ball after reaching his personal milestone du jour.

His nickname was "Dada", from the Bengali for "older brother". Yet the derivation could just as easily come from the contrarian art movement of the early twentieth century, given the maddening ambiguity of his prolific, yet profligate career.

My voice was among those who called for his retirement during the dark days of 2005. I was also among those delighted with the success of his 2006-2008 comeback. It would have been wonderful to have seen him go out as he'd come in, with a blaze of glory. But his golden duck coda seemed well-deserved instant-karma for a cricketer who so often seemed to play only for himself.

Gilchrist, Ponting and Claims of Racism in the Sydney Test Match

Kartikeya — Sat, 8 Nov 2008 05:21:30 EST

I guess it is not remarkable that books by players who participated in the series in Australia earlier this year discuss the events surrounding the Sydney Test Match in detail. What is remarkable is the element of revelation which is implicit in these offerings. Take Ricky Ponting's Captain's Diary for that tour, as excerpted here on Cricinfo. Ponting writes,

"On the night after we made our on-field report about Harbhajan, I had a phone conversation with a senior member of the Indian touring party, who asked me straight to drop the complaint,"

Why is this news? Why is this some sort of conspiratorial revelation? Didn't the Indian Captain, Anil Kumble make it clear that he himself (there can't be a more "senior member" of the side than him - he was captain! - unless Ponting is referring to the Indian team management) spoke to Ponting after the incident?

"On the other events so far, I can only say that I spoke to Ricky that day and having heard from Bhajji and Sachin before that, I was convinced that there had neither been any racist remark made, nor intended. I asked Harbhajan why he started it and he said he hadn’t, Symonds did and goaded, he responded. But he insisted he made no racist comment.

Ricky, meanwhile, was just not willing to listen, nor see my point. When I offered to apologise as Bhajji’s skipper, it was only to smooth things over. At no stage did I admit that he had made a racist remark, in fact, I said he had not.

Unfortunately, these days, when someone apologises, it is seen as either a sign of weakness or an admission of guilt. I am neither unnerved nor are we guilty. In the larger interests of the game, if an apology could help build bridges and smooth things over, then it is better made than left unsaid because of egos."

If Ponting did mention this conversation in his published diary, why is his subsequent conversation with a "senior member" significant? Is it because this "senior member" was ambiguous about Harbhajan Singh's guilt?

What seems to emerge from Gilchrist and Ponting (as publicity for their books) is this apparent belief that Australia were screwed at Sydney, never mind the ridiculous inquiry conducted by Procter (which even Judge Hansen damned with faint praise in his final judgement).

The whole "don't do it again" side of this episode is the most bizarre aspect of it. This allegation of "racism" is bothersome, because it is serious. Does something become a racist taunt simply because Andrew Symonds says it is racist? Let's assume for a moment that Harbhajan Singh did call Andrew Symonds a monkey. Is Symonds's association of that term with racism the fault of the members of Harbhajan Singh's race? Isn't there a difference between Harbhajan calling him a monkey and a white man calling him a monkey? Would it be the same if a fellow Australian with a West Indian heritage called him a monkey? Would that be racist too? Is Symonds claiming some sort of equivalency between Sikhs and the white man?

These are extremely loaded questions, and very complex ones. I do not claim to have an answer to these questions. Neither am i suggesting that simple yes or no answers to these questions suffice. But the one thing that has bothered me about the whole Sydney affair (as aspect which i had refrained from writing about so far) is the fact that everybody seems to accept with absolute certainty that Harbhajan Singh calling Andrew Symonds a monkey would be a racist comment.

And so what if Symonds had explained to Harbhajan Singh once before that being called a monkey was especially offensive because it held racist connotations for Symonds? Doesn't the fact that Symonds actually had to explain this to Harbhajan Singh itself suggest that he understood that Harbhajan probably didn't intend it in a racial way the first time?

Is it seriously the Australian claim, that something Harbhajan said in the heat of the moment, was absolutely and deliberately an intended racist epithet, simply because Symonds may have told him it was so? Doesn't such a claim completely trivialize the serious and offensive nature of racist behaviour - where racial epithets become racial epithets, precisely because they carry with them all the antecedent hostility of one race towards another? Is it seriously the Australian claim that the Sikhs of Ludhiana, Punjab bore any meaningful and consequential (in any serious socio-political sense) racial hostility towards Australians of West Indian descent?

As far as the incident itself goes, isn't there also the small matter of an agreement between Symonds and Harbhajan that they would not talk to each other on the field? Didn't Symonds himself break that agreement first?

Even this discussion on this post, couched as it has been in one question mark after another, is one which i make with a great deal of trepidation, precisely because i consider it to be an absolutely serious charge, not merely because it was made so publicly about an Indian cricketer, but because as someone with some experience of living in cosmopolitan, multicultural environments all my life (just like many of you readers), i am especially mindful, and interested in understanding the idea of racism and prejudice.

Nobody apart from Andrew Symonds heard him say it. Nobody apart from Andrew Symonds was able to recall a single other word that Harbhajan Singh supposedly said to Symonds. So it is far from clear as to whether or not the offending term was actually used. So, maybe Ponting and co. might want to be more humble about their righteous claims.

Ganguly Goes With a Bang

Vivek Sharma — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 11:34:37 EDT

Ganguly dada did it again: produced another knock to remind his critics that he is and will ever be regarded has one of the greatest Indian batsmen ever. But the critics already have their I-pods on, (they are all but knocked out), their eyes are watching other kids and they are only irritated by this undying rubble raiser. The trouble with being an outspoken great in India is that people want to drown you in their own nonsense. In his hour of greatness too, he stands on a podium, waiting for applause.

While applause will come at some hour, maybe when shame and guilt will egg the gathered masses, for now, the hero stands on the podium, not garlanded, not felicitated, but stands there fighting the mosquito noises asking him to leave and go home. But here I will start will loud clap from my corner, and hopefully others will join in:

Dada, for you and your "jazba" (the passion that makes you the man you are)!

To have sixteen centuries, highest number of wins as captain, seven thousand runs in test cricket is no mean achievement. It does not happen everyday. Only Tendulkar, Dravid and Gavaskar have scored more, and among all the batsmen in the top ten list for India, only Ganguly has been in the eye of so many storms. To score more than 11000 runs, take 100 wickets, make 22 centuries, lead your team into World Cup final, requires a Ganguly, the Prince of Calcutta, the man next only to God on the off-side. After Tendulkar, Ganguly is the best ever one day batsman we have ever had, and his records do not display the spirit and fight he brought into the team when he took over as the captain. Even Lara, the greatest left-handed batsmen ever, has been prone to dismal phases, even Tendulkar has had his rough patches, but while their greatness was never doubted, their selection was automatic, Ganguly has had times when he was unrecognizable, covered by mud, blood, spit, dirt and sweat.

When he lay writhing near dead in a cesspool of criticism, when selectors, veterans favored obituaries over eulogies, Ganguly busied himself in domestic cricket, waiting for that chance to reassert that a great fighter never fades and never destroys himself by the doubts that lies in the mind of others. As a man who failed and fought passionately, and celebrated his successes with a torn shirt, beating his chest like a tribal, as a legend who refuses to fizzle out, Ganguly is a saga that will ever inspire me personally, and hopefully many among our midst.

Ganguly has the capacity of creating intense emotions in the cricket maniac country. He is judged and smudged by the audiences that include:
* The Halwaais whose best catches are of chappatis thrown from one hand to another.
* The streetwallahs, whose experience of glance amounts to leering at women walking by.
* The barbers, who think they know how to cut.
* The partymongers, who believe they have mastered the art and style of dealing with bouncers.
* The drivers, who know how to drive to any corner of labyrinths called cities in India.
* The beggars on riversides, who dive without fear, and pluck out coins at speed that could help them win a medal, if there was an Olympic event like that.
* The bureaucrats who understand the concept of slip extremely well, the clerks who know how to guide the buck, the businessmen who know how to steal a single (from the beginning of a number like 10000 that was their due as taxes).
* The students, many of them have never scored half century, let alone a hundred. * The students who accept every failure and never fight back, never learn how to rise against adversity, never strive to achieve event a momentary state where anyone would be roused to say, "that's brilliant!"
* The politicians, who think positions, seats in academia or government or industry, are to be distributed not according to the talent or the proven ability but in a way that makes greatest number of voters happy. The oldies (>65 year old) who rule the country and never think of retiring, think that the seniors (i.e. 35 year old) should retire to make way for youngsters (~30 year old).

We, Indians, who have not learned how to praise unless foreigners bestow awards on our kind. We, Indians, who know how to lead a man to disgrace, maybe form a mob to beat him to death, but we don't know how to hoist a hero on our shoulders and carry him around the city in triumph. We carry only hardened criminals around like that. We can worship only movie stars, we can suck up to only politicians, we can praise only the dead. We, Indians, who don't know how to value our heritage, our language, our environment, our laws, we, Indians, who defile everything original and pious, we Indians who are happy with zero or at most three medals in Olympics, we Indians who have let millions perish without food and opportunity for earning any, we Indians who let our daily life be mediocre and full of "chalta hai" (let it be) attitude, we Indians who just criticize and never do the effort it takes to actually change or better anything.

Go Dada go! You did more than one could ask of you. But we have let bigger men go, we have allowed bigger calamities to happen. You have succeeded and done well, we have loved and hated you for many things in last two decades, and we have celebrated and berated you. Nevertheless we will remember you. Imagine what we are capable of and know, we have treated you exceedingly well, and forgive us, like an indulging, grand hero does.

In your death on the battlefield, in your retirement, in your calling it a day, lies your future redemption and future praise. But that never guided or deterred you. So go in victory, go with your head held high, go with a celebration through your strokeplay, go with mute admiration of millions of us spread around the globe. Go Dada go! As you go, give us that smile again, raise your helmet once more, pound that fist once again, and once again, jump with that tight fist raised high...

Cricket Eclipsing Commonwealth Youth Games

sufferingsocrates — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 15:17:59 EDT

Now that Sachin has crawled over Lara's world record, India celebrates another individual achievement.A player, who I would have loved to love, but absolutely hate when on the field for his penchant for records, and his struggle to even achieve them, beginning with the world record number of centuries (his 35th way back in 2005). Unlike the most simple batsman the world has seen in Virender Sehwag, who believes a ball has to be hit, even if the batsman is on 199 or 299, Sachin always watched and crawled his way to his milestones.

Just look at his record in the past 3 years :

Since and including his record breaking matches (record no. of centuries, and record runs)

Matches : 28*
Innings : 49
Runs* : 1850
Average in this period : 41.11

Without including his record breaking matches (record no. of centuries, and record runs)

Matches : 26
Innings : 46
Runs* : 1637
Average in this period : 38.96

Sachin's record during this period has fallen from 57.06 to 54.02. Clearly, an average of around 40, with 5 centuries in 3 years does put him in the company of fab four and not the elite list of a Ponting or Lara. No wonder, questions over his retirements have been coming from all corners and will continue to do so until he hangs up his boots.

Sachin may have achieved his highest milestone, but he can never ever dispute his miserable record at winning games for India, even after India had Dravid, Laxman, Ganguly and Sehwag in the ranks in the past decade. Nineteen years of great batsmanship, but with only 2 centuries worthy of being called match winning ones (155 in 1998 against Australia, 126 against Australia in 2001) in his entire career of 39 centuries. In this moment of cheer which many in India would be celebrating, I find it difficult to be part of this. Sorry Sachin. This record, was just another milestone for another ad spree, eh ?

With his subtle outburst of stones into milestones, he has admitted what many critics were always thinking. Sachin is a man for records. And that's what he has played for through his life. So, will the media now start calling the fab four as fab 3? BECAUSE Sachin has something which the others don't hold? Well, whatever I say, India still remains hype driven and Sachin's milestone is all over the press.

Does the media or the rest of the nation know that there is a Commonwealth Youth Games (CYG) going on in India? How many know that India is way ahead in the medals tally in the CYG currently underway in Pune? No mean feat this, with other giants like Britain behind India in medals tally. Does India realise what this means to Indian Sport and the Commonwealth Games in 2010? Indian media should grow up and not just complain about the IOC and its bureaucracy. Instead the media should highlight the CYG, just like they did the Olympics, and urge India, the IOC, SAI to look forward to the Commonwealth Games in 2010, and make India a sporting superpower. If India and its media do not grab this CYG moment of glory, 3 medals at an Olympics may remain as India's best medal haul for many more Olympics to come.

Note : All the above cricketing details are pertaining to Test Matches Alone. Stats Courtesy : HowSTAT!