Part one can be read here: Cricket and the Indian Woman–Part One
 

I have written about women who don’t know cricket but talk about it and about women who know that their interest in the sport is actually their interest in men. I shall now write about their social position in the context of the sport. Surely, they are not equals to men.

There are women who don’t like the sport and they don’t feign interest in the sport. They don’t buy tickets to go to cricket stadiums or spend hours watching live telecasts. Then there are women whose interest is solely sexual. What bonds both the types is the subservient position that this sport has given them. Globalisation and relaxation of morals has exposed several cricketing countries to India’s sexual insecurity and her attitudes towards women.

And Indian women don’t seem to mind if they know about their stature.

They are relegated to looking pretty on television, talking about male adrenaline and asking the male ‘experts’ questions about playing techniques; the women are not experts themselves.

Women who can talk about cricket (Anjum Chopra, prolific) are not media darlings like the spaghetti and noodle strap-wallas. They are not asked to promote cricketing events; at least not in the same stead as the models in mini dresses. So along with fairness cream ads and ‘item-numbers’ in movies, cricket reinforces stereotyping of women. The social position of women as aides to men is redefined every time the woman is seen as doing nothing greater than gushing over cricketers.

Last year, foreign women were brought to India to work as cheerleaders in the IPL tournament. Indian women are generally not seen as promiscuous unlike foreign women. So they were not approached to wear tiny clothes and dance every time a batsman hit a ‘sixer’.

Foreign cheerleaders (bottom) are doctors, lawyers and even students who have to earn their education and livelihood. Their bodies are supple and dances are sexy. They are not seen as scandalous in their countries. Indian cheerleaders (top) are untidy imitations grappling with fear of a conservative society.

And then the fairness cream ads have ensured that men salivate over white skin and women aimlessly apply loads of cosmetics on their skin. So, Indian women were sidelined in favour of the foreigners. The cheerleading act was criticised but men drove in large numbers to watch the dancing girls or stayed glued to the television sets waiting for the camera to show them semi-naked bodies. On one hand the white girls were being criticized and on the other hand men were whistling with joy.

The cheerleaders from foreign countries are much more honourable than the Indian women in context of the sport.

They are lawyers, nurses, sportswomen and even students who have to earn money to make it through college. They wear the tiniest dresses to excite the men and bring in more crowds. No Indian women can imitate them or take on their role without some scandal and societal problems.

The ‘white’ cheerleaders are equal to men in the sense that they can openly admit that they see sport (any sport) for the handsome men. Many Indian women would be considered shameful for expressing their sexual nature and most women in rural India would accept their desires in private or only in comfortable male company.

In addition, women in India are exposed to images of foreign women thronging football stadiums and enjoying themselves. In India, it is nearly impossible for them to enter the stadium if it is packed with men; most of them fear sexual assault.

Unlike the women in Europe who can go to stadiums with lesser fear of being attacked by men and who can wear the clothes of their liking, women in India have to take on the mantle of respect and conservatism. Men are the shouters, the aggressors; women have to be quiet and cheer or stand and clap but not as much as the man.

Not possible in Indian stadiums: It is not safe for women in India to attend packed cricket stadiums without fear of sexual assault

This may sound as an example of misogyny. If so, then women don’t seem to mind it. Actresses profess their admiration for cricketers but the journalists never ask them any tough questions. It is understood that women’s knowledge about cricket is limited and they are not to be expected to observe the sport closely.

Women are thus an accessory; they are an ornament to decorate the sport and provide it with glamour; attract men who don’t like the sport and serve as a tool to a sex starved male population. In essence, they are bought as a commodity through good money and sold as unintelligent temptresses, thereby re-enforcing the decisions of Indian men to discount the intellect of women.   

As long as the woman understands that she is masquerading as a cricket lover and walking the ramp with cricketers solely for money, there is little problem for her psyche.

Not quite 'homely': Former Indian captain Anjum Chopra will play her fourth successive World Cup this year. She is also a panelist on a cricket discussion show.

The problem here lies in the mindset of men who look at these women as show-pieces and don’t see that she is simply performing to earn money. The image of women as ‘cricket trophies’ is problematic for them in the male-dominated Indian society. It may not be a major problem for the woman if she is aware of her role in the sport and accepts it with the understanding that she has talents beyond serving as a temptress. The woman should be able to maintain her self outside the glamour of her job.

There is something for us to admire in the cricketer crazy women who watch the sport for the men alone and don’t pretend any affection for the sport. Once again, this is healthy because the woman is in control of her mind and desires. It is the woman who does not understand the gamut of their desires and the lies of advertisements that needs to be watchful.

I would like to end with a stark example of cricket consumerism that involves the nation’s heartthrob M S Dhoni. But first you should know that Sachin Tendulkar is married to a woman who is older to him and who is professionally a doctor; hardly a suitable combination for most Indian men.

The media and many Indian women went gaga over Dhoni and ignored a statement that talks about the idea of women in Indian society

“My ideal woman’ is someone who is caring, understanding and ready to compromise. Basically, I would like someone homely.”

Share This Story

More »

Kartikey Sehgal

Women’s interest in cricket is a sudden development, propelled mostly by the advertisements projecting cricketers as demigods. In the year 2003, model and actress Mandira Bedi became popular for hosting a cricket-discussion program during the World Cup cricket matches.

Her immense popularity had little to do with her knowledge about cricket and more with the plunging neckline of her saris and the unavoidable amount of cleavage on exhibit.

Passionate about cricket? Mandira Bedi has succeeded in adding sexual interest to the sport. And only that.

Today, women are seen cheering for their favourite players on television and attending cricket-celebration parties at pubs and restaurants where they join the men in post-cricket drunken revelry. And these women don’t watch women’s cricket.

They do not know about the captain of the Indian women cricket team and they don’t cheer for them at pubs and discos. Advertisers spend lesser money on women’s cricket because most women don’t bother to attend the matches and there has never been a strong demand for women cricket.

Fact: Most women don’t know the sport. And their cheering and fan-following has more sexual tones than any proof of their love for the sport. This is perfectly healthy. However, it is a problem if these women start commenting on cricket and assume the role of critics. They are fooling their self and adding to their misery. They may feel left out during cricketing discussions because their knowledge is immature.

Women are watching cricket because men watch it a lot. And watching cricket brings attention to women. It is enough for most women to know the names of the players and which player is ‘hot property’. Cricketers parade on ramp shows and women accompany them or foreign models dance around them. These women don’t know the meaning of a reverse-sweep. They don’t know if the batsman’s strength lies in his front-foot strokes or his back foot-drives. They don’t even know the meanings of drives and hooks. They will parade around the cricketer because he makes lots of money and is seen on television. And standing next to a cricketer would give the models lots of attention. These advertisements tell the women sitting at home that cricketers are successful people because they play cricket; never mind their stature in the sport, their technique or their skills. 

Advertisers are selling cricket and women are being naïve in accepting the advertisement.

Not celebrated by Indian women: Jhulan Goswami is recognised as the fastest bowler in women's cricket. She was recently appointed as the captain of the Indian team.

Now say the advertisers decide that women ought to be educated about the sport to sustain their interest. They hire models (Ruby Bhatia, Mandira Bedi) to talk about cricket on television. These models are not expected to know much about the sport. They have been hired so that they can make the men talk about the sport. Also note that actual women-cricketers are not asked to do this job, ostensibly because they do not project sexiness.

Once again, there would be women who wouldn’t watch the cricket chat programs to learn about the sport but would wait for something ‘exciting’ to happen in the sport. This is healthy; the women know what they want from the sport and they are not feigning any extra interest in the sport. But there would be women who would hear opinions about the sport from the models and the experts who talk on television.

Television offers mostly opinions and not much wisdom about the sport. The experts contradict themselves and the viewer does not know about the back-foot punch that is discussed on the shows. As such, to know the sport, actual practice and demonstration along with a regular and a keen interest in the sport seem imperative. I have met women who don’t have much idea about the sport except from what they hear and read from media.

A woman told me that she loved M.S. Dhoni because he looks good and also because he played well. However, she was unable to tell me what she liked about Dhoni’s batting. She did not know what the term ‘average’ meant in cricket. She wrongly associated it with the average age of the players. [Average: Number of runs scored per match]

Another girl said that Sachin Tendulkar has never really won matches for India. She heard it on some television news channel. She didn’t know how matches are to be won. “You play well and you win matches for India.” I asked her if Sachin’s position as a middle order batsman would help him finish matches and raise his personal scoring average. She was clueless. The women mentioned are educated and have opinions on several women-related issues. Neither of them had seen Ricky Ponting bat but knew that he is good player based on newspapers and television channels.

A telling sign of their understanding of the sport is their judgement of Rahul Dravid. The middle-order batsman is considered a role-model for players who wish to perfect their batting technique. Many men, fed on the modern wham-bam cricket, don’t like him because he doesn’t play ‘fast’, i.e. score his runs quickly. Women don’t like him because they have heard that men are losing interest in him. However, I did come across some women who like Rahul. He is a “sincere character” and “a gem of a person”. He is “quiet and non-aggressive” and a “thorough gentleman”. These women were not able to explain what they liked about his batting. They saw in him a man they may like to know; or a man who could be short-listed as “a husband material”.

Apart from troubling the cricketing sensibilities of men (and women), such women also reveal their unsurety; probably their need to hide their enchantment with sportsmen and to appear wise about the sport.

Despite the technological and informative era, women are misled by advertisements and useless shows on cricket that have permeated television and are, in fact  surrogates of advertising.

Less advertising money means less women fans for the Indian Hockey Team

It would be fair to say that such human behaviour applies to many other sporting and non-sporting fields. But note that the Indian hockey team has fitter and stronger players than the Indian cricket team and very few women see these men as pin-ups. Advertising (including surrogate) impedes the pure exposition of sexuality, and this exposition is healthy and essential for human beings. Women’s preferences are being dictated by advertisement in every sphere, including cricket.

My references to women are not restricted to any collective based on class or aptitude. Most women and men watching and adoring cricket is an extension of their sexual nature. It is not a judgement or a statement on the gender. Sexual nature is manifested in most of our decisions. It includes the decision to read this story on this website. 

Part One ends

Share This Story

More »

Ananth Venkatesh

[Australia enjoyed unquestioned supremacy in international cricket. However, the resurgence of the South African and the Indian cricket team and the retirement of the finest Australian players has caused the downfall of Australian cricket. Currently it is grappling with consistency and defending increasing accusations of sledging and rudeness
Know more about cricket, here]

The success of South Africa (SA) in the 5-match one-day series against Australia along with its resplendent accomplishments in the preceding 3-Test series is a testament to the effectiveness of the overall structure of the country’s cricketing establishment.

The central selection committee chaired by the distinguished Mike Procter, the headship of the CEO Gerald Majola, the proficiency of the self-assured SA coach Mickey Arthur, the on-field leadership of Graeme Smith and the modestly productive Johan Botha and the indefatigable commitment by the SA contingent manufactured a dazzling phase for the Proteas ‘down under’, which will not be forgotten rapidly by the connoisseurs of cricket. The emergence of two players from previously disadvantaged communities, Lonwabo Tsotsobe and Jean-Paul Duminy, is evidence of the success of the transformation policy, which should hearten the hearts of the coloured communities in SA.
 

                            Jean-Paul Duminy

The duel between the Kangaroos and the Proteas, always intensely competitive, which commenced in the daunting Perth in December, was beforehand labelled as an intriguing contest. Australia, severely enfeebled by the voluntary departure of several brilliant players like McGrath, Martyn, Gilchrist, Warne, Langer, etc, were nevertheless expected to demonstrate their forcefulness in familiar home conditions. But ever since SA mauled the Australian self-belief at Perth in the first Test by surpassing the seemingly impenetrable target of 414 runs, the future seemed bland for Australia.

The self-belief of SA rescued them from a perilous predicament in the Melbourne Test as an incredibly unruffled Duminy, a coloured South African, and the tail-enders constructed a stunning recovery, which saw SA move from 141/6 to 459. The faster bowlers embodied their fearsomeness, headed by the tirelessly determined Dale Steyn and Makhaya Ntini. Their potency amazed many Australian batsmen, who simply did not possess the wherewithal to counter the SA bowlers’ efficiency.

The SA batsmen imposingly countered the collective armoury of the Aussie bowlers.

AB de Villiers, who has intensified his valuableness for SA since debuting in December 2004, contributed crucially to the SA chase of 414 by hammering a magnificent century. Duminy portrayed fidelity to his pre-series billing as a promising player. His glorious calmness characterized his 166 in the Melbourne battle.

Smith, of course, managed SA inspirationally in all the three Tests, contributing colossally with the willow, only to be mournfully interrupted by a vicious short ball delivered by Johnson in the Sydney encounter. The hit forced him to retire hurt but he arrived hugely handicapped in the second innings of the Sydney Test with the endeavour to save SA from losing the inconsequential third rubber. Smith carried with him a persistently painful ‘tennis elbow injury’ into the series. Indian cricket aficionados will find the term tennis elbow familiar as it afflicted the genius Tendulkar as well.

The Australians performed with insipidness in certain phases of the Test series, which contributed to their defeat. The replacements for the retired stars couldn’t deliver noticeably lethal performances. Ponting, who batted credibly, found the assignment of captaining a rather inexperienced Australia without the veterans difficult. Johnson was the only bowler who bowled lethally.

The One Day International (ODI) series presented Australia with a wonderful opportunity to regain their lost pride. Eventually, it turned out to be disastrous for them. The SA one-day side, which is by no means deadly and is in the process of rebuilding, proved to be mighty for the Aussies. The fabulous Duminy, the explosive de Villiers, the traditionalist Amla, the reformed Gibbs and the blaster Albie Morkel played pivotal roles in the ODI series. Morné Morkel demonstrated his considerable improvement as a player. Wayne Parnell and Tsotsobe typified their skillfulness in the ultimate ODI. Steyn was terribly penetrative and deserves to be supplied the tag of the ‘Man of the Tour’.

The rejuvenation of Australia will take many months and they certainly aren’t unconquerable anymore. But the incontrovertible powerlessness of Australia shouldn’t deflect our attention from the fabulousness of the performance of SA, the deserving victors, the loss in the 2-match T20 series notwithstanding.
 

                        Ricky Ponting: Trying Times

Share This Story

More »

Ananth Venkatesh

Adam Gilchrist

Contests between South Africa (SA) and Australia in cricket have historically been colossally competitive, considering that these two nations are proud of their sporting culture. The ongoing three-Test and five-match ODI series of Australia against SA promises to be exhilarating and delightful for the purist cricket lover.

With 20-20 menacing the two conventional formats of the game, Tests and One Day Internationals (ODI), the confrontation between the two Southern hemisphere rivals is surely going to thrill cricket connoisseurs worldwide. 

Notwithstanding the unsurprising ascendancy of India in Tests and ODIs lately, the rivalry of ‘Safs’ and ‘Kangaroos’ has traditionally satiated the appetite of authentic cricket fanatics in the globe. 

Australia has, however, for the most part, dominated in their contests against SA. Nevertheless, SA has displayed its strength occasionally as was evidenced by their triumph in their last five-match ODI against the Aussies in March 2006. That series will be remembered forever owing to the palpable extraordinariness in the performance of SA against the Aussies in the ultimate ODI, which witnessed the Safs hunting the gigantic Australian tally of 434. 
 
SA has a stable team thanks to the pertinacity of the national selectors, chaired over the past  1 ½ years by the ex-convener Joubert Strydom. The stabilisation process, which entailed placing trust in the capabilities of certain batsmen and bowlers by giving them a decent amount of participation in international matches, has succeeded. 

The bowling attack comprises an assortment of dissimilar fast bowlers. Dale Steyn has amply illustrated his skill and fearsomeness with the ‘red cherry’ in the past one year and Morné Morkel, in spite of worrisome inconsistency, is a resplendent discovery for SA. The federal selection committee needs to be lauded for persevering with him. 

Dale Steyn

Makhaya Ntini, who lost the tenacity in his bowling earlier this year, has recently regained the robustness that has embodied his bowling ever since his arrival on the cricketing landscape.

Lonwabo Tsotsobe, after perpetrating pleasurable performances for his province in the internal cricket competitions of SA, has deservedly gained an opportunity to demonstrate his efficiency. 

Paul Harris has certainly not been an unplayable spinner but has quietly performed his tasks in a reasonably effective mode. He exists to contain Australia. His batting too has improved. But he is feeble when compared to other bowlers in the team.  

The batting of SA, which has proved its forcefulness persistently since the T20 Cricket World Cup (CWC) last year, is going to be the fulcrum about which the entire team should revolve. Graeme Smith, the able leader of the pack, and Neil McKenzie, who with his pleasant batting technique has enraptured his home supporters, have metamorphosed into a rather insuperable opening combination. These two, and not Jacques Kallis, are going to be the bedrock of the SA batting line-up. 

Graem Smith

Smith, who definitely does not apply a fail-safe technique, has matured resplendently since he debuted in March 2002. His determinedness as the SA captain has enabled him to become a respectable chief. 

The old-fashioned Ashwell Prince, about whom queries were raised unreasonably by detractors, has also been a remarkable batsman for SA. AB de Villiers has become a dependable No. 6.
 
Australia, without invincible stalwarts like McGrath, Warne and Gilchrist, will not be as formidable as in the past. But even the current squad possesses effectiveness with the ball and a plenitude of coruscating batsmen. The defeat against India in Oct-Nov would have made the Aussies even more determined in their goal of defeating SA. 

The performance of the Aussies against the relatively emaciated NZL would have encouraged them immensely. The Aussie pacers put up a neat portrayal. At home, anyway, the Aussies have been a formidable unit since the early 1990s, not losing a single Test series since the 1992-93 loss to WI.

Cricket lovers hope that the acrimoniousness that prevailed in 2005-2006, due to the racial vilification of some SA players by Aussies and expatriate South Africans in the grounds, does not mar a potentially thrilling series.

Share This Story

More »

Photo: S Subramanium, The Hindu

[Anil Kumble, one of India's greatest Test cricketers and inarguably its most prolific match-winner, announced his retirement here at the Ferozeshah Kotla on Sunday.] Source

Anil Kumble remained true to the tradition of ‘beautiful’ bowling. The tradition speaks that the bowler must aim to put the ball in the right spot. The batsman must adjust himself to play the ball. It was also expected that the batsman would play a proper cricketing shot. Cricket was graceful and batsmen would mind if they got runs the ‘wrong way’.

Cricket changed. Batsmen decided to do away with grace and play to score runs quickly.

Anil didn’t change. He put the ball in the right spot and expected to trouble the batsman. The batsman lifted his bat and hit the ball anywhere in the field to score runs. The audience clapped and the batsman scored many more runs against Anil.

Anil made some changes in his bowling technique. He bowled some googlies and varied his bowling pace, but didn’t distance himself from his earlier style.

He retired from One Day International (ODI) cricket. He found it difficult to bowl in test matches. The Australians don’t move to the back foot to play a cover drive. They simply sweep him or defend the ball.

Today, Anil has retired from Test cricket. In a better cricketing environment, he could have persisted.

****

* Some days back, a television news reporter said that Anil Kumble is a rude person. He talks down to the junior players. M S Dhoni emulates him and just smiles and leaves when greeted by any junior cricketer. The same channel and the same reporter were singing praises of Anil’s determination and gentle demeanour immediately after he announced his retirement from all defined formats of cricket.

* A popular tabloid challenges Anil’s comments on disrespect to senior cricketers. It says that Anil should be grateful that he has been loved and admired for so long and not complain about certain ‘truths’. The truth, as decided by the tabloid, points to Anil’s poor form and low quality cricket. He should immediately leave the team or be sacked. Indian cricket has no place for losers and non-performers. Now that he has retired, be prepared to read praises about the player tomorrow.

* A former cricketer, considered a great, smiled, paused, smiled, and gently stated the truth. Indian cricketers don’t retire; there is lot’s of money in the game. Now that Anil has retired, he will praise his ability to persist under pressure. Anil will now become a gentleman cricketer who always played for the country. Nobody would remind the ‘great’ that he had once vilified this cricketer.

****

Watch out for people praising Anil’s ‘spirit’. They don’t know much about cricket and must say something. Anything.

“What do you think of Anil Kumble’s achievements?”

“Oh, he had a wonderful spirit.”

Share This Story

More »

Kartikey Sehgal

Sreesanth (1,2 ) is more popular than Abhinav Bindra. He is more popular than Pullela Gopichand, the All England  Open Badminton Championships winner. Of course, Abhinav and Gopichand can never match Sreesanth’s salsa skills and his acrobatically constipated face.

Meanwhile, India is celebrating Abhinav’s gold medal in different manners. Some are giving him money; others are naming grounds after him and sending him marriage proposals while a few are planning some controversies around him.

Media Boss: Find out everything. What he eats and with whom he eats. Show him photographs of four actresses and notice which one he looks at first. Then link her with him.

Intern: Sir have you realized that before this we didn’t know who he was and we never covered him?

Media Boss: Tch! You are just an educated novice.

Meanwhile, in a dilapidated slum area somewhere in the country, some erstwhile hockey and football players are celebrating Abhinav’s win with adulterated whiskey.

Hockey Player: Well done Abhinav baby! (hic) You had proper shoes to wear, I am so proud of you.

Football Player: My foot sores still trouble me my friend. Let me put some of this whiskey on my feet. Ah! Thanks

Hockey Player: The government has improved. They are giving him crores of rupees after winning the gold medal.

Football Player: Where was this money when we needed it? When I had to decide between eating my lunch and wearing… aah… I wish I had amputation money.

The President addresses the Nation

President: I hope that all our sharp shooters, underworld gunmen will take lessons from Abhinav and join the proper stream and win us more medals.

A new movie on Abhinav is announced

Director: Yeh kaun hai? (who is he?)

Asst. Director: Sir Bindra hai. (Bindra sir)

Director: Gadhe maine Abhinav Bindra ke liye kaha tha, I S Bindra ke liye nahin. (You ass, I had asked for Abhinav Bindra, not I S Bindra)

Then another movie is announced

Writer: Sir just before he takes his final aim, he will take the name of Gods and Goddesses.

Producer: No, he will go for a loo break where some Chinese Jackie Chans will beat him up and especially in the eye.

Writer: Good idea. He will come out and see less clearly, and then he will take the name of Gods and…

Producer: No no, then we will have an item number, just before the target. The girl will act as an eye healer for Bindra.

“Aa teer chala, aa teer chala. Mere dil mein aag laga”

And finally, the politicians and bureaucrats have their own way of celebration

Sec is Secretary

P.M. is Prime Minister

Sec: Sir, Abhinav Bindra has won gold at Olympics.

P.M: Woh kaun Hai? Sonai ji ka dost to nahin na?
(who is he? Not friend of Sonia ji I hope?)

Sec: Nahin Sir, lekin abhi shayad ban jayega.
(no Sir, but now he might become)

P.M: Kitna gold jeeta? Discount pe mila?
(how much Gold did he win? He got some discount?)

Sec: Nahin Sir Gold Medal mila, jitne par.
(no Sir he got a gold medal, on winning)

P.M: Wah wah, kitni achchi baat hai. Hamare naujawan bahar jaate hain, jeet ke aate hain, sabko harate hain, wah wah.
(Wow, wow, such a nice thing. Our youngsters go out, win and come back, defeat everyone, wow wow)

Sec: Bilkul Sir, badi achchi baat hai.
(Absolutely Sir, it’s a very good thing)

P.M: Kitne run banaye?
(how many runs did he make?)

Sec: Haanji Sir?
(Yes sir?)

P.M: Kitne run banaye?
(how many runs did he make?)

Sec: Sir, woh… shooting ke liye prize mila.
(Sir, er… he got the prize for shooting)

P.M: Yeh foreign wale bhi bade ajeeb hote hain. Pehele rote hain ki school aur college main shooting hoti hai, aur phit usi ke liye prize bhi dete hain.
(These foreigners are also very weird. First they cry that there is lots of shooting in schools and colleges, and then they give a prize for the same)

Sec: Sir yeh Air Rifle shooting hai.
(Sir this is Air Rifle shooting)

P.M: Phir to jeetna hi tha. Chori aur murder aur shooting main hamse achcha koi nahin. Veerappan bhi achchi shooting karta tha.
(Then victory was certain. Nobody is better in robbery and murder and shooting than us. Veerappan also was a good shooter)

Sec: Sir yeh sport hai..
(Sir this is a sport…)

P.M: Oho! Legal shooting hai yeh? Achchi baat hai. Well done.
(Oh my! This is legal shooting? It’s a good thing. Well done)

Sec: Sir 10 lakh deden?
(Sir should we give 10 lakh?)

P.M: Haan dedo.
(Yes give)

Sec: 15-20 kar dete hain
(Let’s make it 15-20)

P.M: Theek hai. Aisa karo 30 dedo, taaki baad main yeh na kahen ki hamne sports ke liye kuch nahin kiya.
(ok. Make it 30, so that in future they don’t say that we didn’t do much for sports)

Sec: Yeh theek hai Sir. Hum kahenge ki hamne 30 lakh de diye. Ab Bindra ki marzi un paison se woh kya kare.
(this is fine Sir. We’ll say that we gave 30 lakh. Now it is up to Bindra what he does with that money)

P.M: News waale kya keh rahe hain?
(what are the news people saying?)

Sec: Sir woh keh rahe hain ki ab desh ke log sir uncha karke chalenge.
(Sir they are saying that now the people of this nation will walk with head held high)

P.M: Kyun? Rape aur murder khatam ho gaye?
(Why? Rape and murder are over?)

Sec: Nahin Sir, woh kehte hain ki gold medal ka matlab hai ki desh ka naam uncha ho gaya hai. Hum number one ho gaye hain.
(No Sir, they say that gold medal means that nation’s name has risen. We have become number one)

P.M: Kaash woh Abhinav Singh hota. Toh sab phir kehte ki Singh is King!
(I wish his name was Abhinav Singh. Then everybody would again say that Singh is King!)

Share This Story

More »

Kartikey Sehgal

The young waves thrash and splash but it’s the bigger old waves of the sea that steer boats, rouse storms and carry the force and thunder of experience.

Sourav Ganguly, Rahul Dravid and Sachin Tendulkar have played masterful innings in the ongoing IPL tournament. They have, yet again, awakened the masses to the nuances of timing and stroke-play. Their batting may not have always led the team to victory, but it’s their character and dogged persistence that adds colour to the game that is monotonously unpredictable.

Most cricket lovers should agree that Saurav Ganguly has played one of the best innings of IPL when he led Kolkota to a win over Punjab. It was an innings of strife and struggle. Sourav found it very hard to connect the bat to the ball and was lucky to get away a few times. He misses several chances of scoring boundaries and had to be content with singles. His victory over this struggle makes his batting special.

Sourav didn’t lose concentration or composure. He didn’t play rash shots like his team mates. In the crucial final overs, he took complete charge of the field and the game. None of his shots were struggles. Calm and confident; he was the hero of the day.

Compare Sourav to the ‘young’ Yuvraj Singh. Yuvraj is brash as a captain and a player. He looks frustrated and never short of ill words for his team mates. Importantly, he lacks the cricketing spirit that Sourav possesses. Unlike Sourav, Yuvraj has not improved his batting. He is a misfit in Test matches and survives in the one-day team due to his occasional match winning runs and his good fielding.

Yuvraj’s team, Punjab, beat the Mumbai team in their recent match. He yelled at his players for every mistake and glowered and huffed. Mumbai’s captain Sachin Tendulkar was calm under pressure and dignified in his conduct. He chided the players for their performance off the field and inside the dressing room. He also played an innings of splendour. Avoiding the rash shots, he improvised on the regular cover drives and glances. It was the calmest innings of IPL and made Mumbai’s loss look pitiful.

Another victim of ‘olden duck’ philosophy of Indian cricket is Rahul Dravid, who plays better cricket than Dhoni and Yuvraj Singh. His craftsmanship is a treat for the senses. He played magnificently against the tough Jaipur team and announced his talent that was surprisingly, very surprisingly, under the scanner. Dravid may not be the best captain and may be reserved in his decisions and planning, but he deserves to be playing every form of cricket.

And why not?

What is so special and different about the young (below 30 in Indian parlance) players? Their talents do not supersede the talents of the three finest players of Indian cricket. Dhoni is struggling despite some quick runs. Yuvraj is tense and out of focus. This must be a temporary phase for them. But it as temporary as Rahul’s and Sourav’s form for which they were dropped from the national team.

Share This Story

More »

Kartikey Sehgal

Sachin Tendulkar and Kumara Sangakkara have recited the success for 20-20 cricket. Imagination and innovation.

20-20 cricket is not conducive for young players. It is a game for players who can innovate upon proper cricketing shots. It is advantageous to Adam Gilchrist, Shane Warne and Sachin Tendulkar and tough for Parthiv Patel and Rohan Raje. The younger lot has every reason to feel disillusioned with the pace and practice of this game.

Experienced cricketers like Shivnarine Chanderpaul and Jacques Kallis are facing the problem of motivation and adjustment. Otherwise, they should easily deal with the pressures of the game and perform better than the ‘young guns’. Rahul Dravid recently scored big runs against the Rajasthan Royals at a strike rate that crossed the 200 mark.

Players are short of peace and confidence in this version. The mantra is to dispatch the ball to any place of the ground and garner runs. Bad shots are lauded by the crowd and the players, if they result in some runs for the team. However, in the process, the player feels upset. His disappointment is overcome by the cheers. Thus, after every bad shot, he seeks approval his team and the boisterous crowd.

This process has a shelf life. The player yearns for a forward defensive shot and a proper hook shot. He starts playing with dexterity and elegance. If he fails to score runs this way, he is conveniently replaced by another who is hungry for team and crowd support. Our player then sits in the balcony and watches his replacement play bad shots. After some matches he becomes disillusioned and confused. He can either play cricket as he knows it, or he can play bat and ball and earn some cheers.

Who then, is the winner in 20-20? It is the player who has committed umpteen mistakes in Test cricket and One Day Internationals and can expertly avoid them while playing innovative cricket.

Share This Story

More »