Devaluing runs

A very significant aspect of cricket is that the playing conditions are not standardized - the grounds come in various shapes and sizes. The pitches vary from ground to ground, at times 2 pitches on the same ground differ significantly from one another. It is an outdoor sport, so the weather too plays a crucial role. The combination of the nature of the pitch and the weather conditions are crucial factors to decide whether to bat or bowl first if one wins the toss. This variance of conditions is one of the beauties of cricket.

Unfortunately, since the mid 2000s, the line between cricket as a sport and cricket as an entertainment has blurred. The variance of playing conditions has minimized, especially in India. Day after day, flat batting pitches with an easy bounce are doled out. In order to make it an entertainment sport, the board, the broadcasters, the stadium authority as well as the sponsors want maximum runs to be scored on a given day. Batsmen have never had it so easy. In fact, before the 3rd India vs South Africa ODI, the groundsman at Ahmedabad openly admitted to have prepared an 'entertaining' wicket.

Even till the late 1990s, a 300+ score was very rare. Now teams regularly cross 400. A bowler with an economy rate of 5 is considered brilliant. I remember Waqar Younis being criticized 10 years back for having an economy rate as "high" as 4.6.

So what has happened? Have the batsmen suddenly improved or the bowlers suddenly become inferior? No - the runs have become devalued. In economic terms, there has been an inflation as far as runs are concerned. The value of a 250 runs in 50 overs in 1995 is the same as the value of 325 in 2010. This is indeed sad for cricket as a sport if its main currency - the runs, have lost their value a bit.

The money-minded jerks who rule cricket ought to know that this strategy will only provide short-term gains. Over time the 4s and even the 6s will lose their significance! Cricket will fall into a decadence which will be difficult to get out of!

I suggest we introduce more variance in pitches in favour of the bowlers. I've seen low-scoring matches to be nail-biters in the past, I see no reason why they still can't generate as much interest. Even low-scoring T20s will be a thrill to watch. Seeing a batsman surviving and making runs by facing a hostile spell of bowling on a pitch with demons has its own charm.

Let us not create an overkill by having flat batting wickets on small Indian grounds which have an electric fast outfield! Let us give due respect to the cricketing currency of runs.

Tiger Woods vs A Patronizing Society

Hypocritic prudes - that is what we all are across the globe. We all either squirm or keep ourselves entertained with the latest gossip when it comes to the raunchy sex lives of celebrities. I'm not against reporting such news and bringing it to the public domain. What I'm against is our pretentious moral reaction to those events.

So what if Tiger Woods like threesomes? So what if he cheats on his wife? Are we as a society so purely bathed in holy milk that we can sit and pass judgements? He hasn't committed crime against the society by straying from his married life. I simply do not understand why his fans should castigate him. He still remains one of the greatest golfers of all time!

Unfortunately, in our country and even the so-called 'liberal' west, people love to take a moral high ground and any sexual activity outside the marriage is considered sacrilegious. If people didn't give a damn, Woods wouldn't have lost the Gillette, AT&T and numerous other contracts. His actions created a negative brand association.

Seeing him apologizing on TV made me squirm. He need not have done that. If he really felt sorry, he should just have apologized to his wife. Why is he apologizing to his fans? Maybe he wants to win back those lucrative sponsorship contracts!

Perils of Debating in Schools

Debate:
–noun

1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.*

2. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.*

It is amply clear that a debate, unlike a discussion is always about 2 opposing viewpoints. It is generally conducted in front of a third party who takes a final call as to which viewpoint is more convincing. The parties participating in the debate usually never agree or take a middle path on any issue as their agenda is to keep driving home their point of view in front of the third party.

Training for debates is good if you intend to join politics or want to become a PR executive representing a company's financial as well as legal interests. In politics, you debate in front of voting citizens and in PR, you normally debate in front of policy makers or consumers or a legal panel. The debate participants cannot afford to take an opposite stand from the party or the company they represent in this case.

My issue with debates is that its training is given from a school level. Students are asked to take a stand first and formulate opinions based on that stand later. Their personal beliefs or viewpoints do not matter. I know of a debate in my school where a non-vegetarian student was asked to support vegetarianism in a debate contest. He also did a good job of it. This must have definitely sharpened his convincing skills but at the same time, the 15 year old must have thought that it does not matter what you actually believe in, what matters is how persuasive you can sound to get ahead in life!

I therefore would encourage group discussions at the school level where a group of students can sit and discuss the topic in question with full freedom to accept and modify opposing viewpoints and at the same time, arrive at a conclusion if possible. At their impressionable age, it will inculcate the values of camaraderie, solution-finding, as well as tolerance.

Debating contests can be held during placements for jobs, especially marketing profiles where a more biased approach is needed while expressing your views in public. Also, by the time these interviews come, the students also reach a level of maturity and understand that sticking to just one particular viewpoint cannot solve all the problems in life.

Ironically, where I come from, debate contests are held in schools and group discussions are held during MBA placements!

Let me go to the extent to say that if opposing political parties are willing to agree on certain issues without rigidly taking an opposite stand, it'll only help the country further and raise the politics to a more civilized level. I don't have much hope from PR guys though!

*-source: www.dictionary.com

Politics of violence

Why are people so stuck in criticizing Shiv Sena and MNS on the basis of 'Politics of parochialism'? Why do they shout repetitive slogans like "Mumbai is for everyone" and "Mumbai belongs to India". Why can't they criticize the 2 parties on the basis of a bigger, more disgusting feature that they have, that is 'Politics of violence'!

When they threaten to disrupt movie screenings, break shops that display Valentine Day's cards, assault mediapersons, beat up people who have come for making a living in Bombay, their message should takes a backseat and their actions should become more noticeable.

This post is with reference to Shah Rukh Khan saying that Pakistani cricketers should have been allowed to play IPL and the Shiv Sena, desperate to get attention, threatening to halt screenings of his movie My name is Khan. I for one am against inclusion of Pakistani players in the IPL too. However, that isn't what I'm talking about now. The bigger issue is threatening a violent reaction when the movie is screened. Even I am against what Shah Rukh Khan said but I will never support the Shiv Sena's methods to protest.

I am willing to go the extent of saying that every political party has a right to have a view which may be provocative and unreasonable to some. MNS has a right to be concerned about local people not getting jobs. Shiv Sena has a right to protest the inclusion of Pakistani cricketers. However their methods are NOT acceptable. The politics of vandalism, hooliganism and mob mentality needs to stop.