Cricket - A Stupid game

They say Test cricket is real cricket. Thirteen hapless fellows dressed in the most unglamorous of all - white - coloured full clothings, running five days from morning to evening for a result which most often than not is a draw.

The worst part is to see entire day the bowler go back to his run-up after delivering a ball. I mean seriouly what are you supposed to do during that? Watch him? Watch him what? Walk? I mean there are breaks in every game in the world. In basket ball there's the timeout. In football there's halftime. What are you supposed to do during that. But then thats once or twice in an entire game, what is one supposed to do when this happens after every fucking ball. Anyways ok, so you decide to just do nothing and simply watch him. You can see him thinking, his face in deep thoughts (his butt if you are on the wrong side) - of possibly what went wrong with the previous ball and how he can bowl the next one. And then he bowls it with all his well-thought ideas and with all those considerations of line, length, bounce, swing, grip, power etc and the batsmen simply lifts his bat to let it go. That is a dot ball. The spectators are supposed to watch it. And enjoy. If this happens six times in an over its a maiden. A maiden over is death - death by boredom. And batsmen who incur this wrath on the spectators more often are considered to be technically sound. All-time great test openers will tell you that the best way to handle bowling is to wait for the bad balls. This implies that the spectators will also have to wait for the bad ball ( and hope that the batsmen succeeds in hitting it and the fielder doesnt stop) to enjoy that little bit of excitement in the game. Geoferry Boycott/Sunil Gavaskar's great advice to opening batsmen - Give the morning's two hours to the bowlers. And what about the spectators in stadium? They should give the morning's two hours - to sleep.

Technically sound batsmen either leave every ball outside the stumps or offer a light stroke or a pad for a ball that is on the stumps. Their fans should enjoy this. Enjoy the various ways they leave/pad the ball. Two of the most famous of those - One for the spinners - outstretched with a leg in the crease while the other landed as far as possible like a dancer(I call this the Nataraja pose), and the other - straightbat with standstill for a moment after the shot (for the photographers....you see)- the freeze pose.

Cricket- I always thought in the entertainment market, was like an investment where you have to invest lots of time and be patient and the investment pays(if at all) only at maturity. You have to wait before you get to experience (any) excitement. There is a possibility of excitement at the climax(slog overs) but you will have to bear till we reach there. You have to bear till the batsman "gets his eye-in" and the bowlers "get into rythm". You have to be patient. Thats the key - patience. The batsmen have to be patient and wait for the bad balls. The bowlers have to be patient and hope for the batsmen to commit mistake. The spectators have to be patient for any of this to happen. Cricket - for sure - is a "test" of patience. No wonder only nine countries could pass this test of patience in the 150 years of existence of this game. And most of the nations were the hapless slave colonies who had to toy with their masters choice of sport for them. The game became populare there as it gave them the only oppurtunity where they could hope of outdoing their rulers. The country with the most followers for this game is India - a champion-hungry nation of a billion people with not even a single individual Olympic gold medal in 60 years of its existence. And just four instances of individual podium finishes.

A game has to ensure level playing field so that a players skills are tested fairly and its this factor alone that decides the better of the two. There is no other game in the world where win is so heavily dependent on factors other than skill. Toss, Pitch, Dew, Wind, Overcast sky, umpiring errors, rain, grass can change the fate of the game irrespective of how good a team is. In India's games, if its a spinning track, India will win, if its a greentop India will lose. Groundsman can decide the series. Whats the need for playing then- just to see how they lose or win and by what margin?

A game is also a test of skills, strategies. Ask any all time great players and they will share the secret of their lives with you- albeit the same secret. To be a successful bowler you have to ensure line-and-length, while to be a good batsmen you have to wait for the bad balls. Boy - what a hell of a strategy!!!

I always wondered who test cricket is really for. Entertainment value and target audience are factors considered when any game is conceived. Who then were the possible spectators that the inventors had in mind when this game was created. A game that is played from 9 am to 5 pm for five days. Businessmen are busy in their shops and factories. Salaried in their offices. Children in their schools, youngsters in college. This only leaves retirees, old men and women and housewives who are free during this time for five days. Were they for whom this game was designed to be watched. Generally test matches are scheduled such that the last two(supposedly more exiting) days fall on week-ends, so was this game to be watched only on the last two days. No wonder the term "highlights" has become so famous in the cricketing world. This is a selective package of the shots and wickets of the entire days play. If I got to meet the creator of this thing- highlights- I will kiss him hard- for relieving this world of so much of pain.

Rain is the biggest spoilsport in cricket. Innumerous games have been wasted because of rain. And even if it rains for a day, its enough to ensure that there will be no result of a 5-day test. So this game was meant to be played for only 8 months of a year in monsoon countries. Rest of the days the cricketers have to take rest and so should its followers. Needless to say this game can also not be played in countries with unknown rain patterns or where it rains entire year.

The Umpire is the most poor chap on the field. The ball is bowled/thrown so fast - beyond the limitations of the naked eye - that half of the times he has no clue and ends up giving wrong decisions - for run out, lbw, nicks. So they brought in a TV umpire for decision-making. This made the onfield unpire look upon as only a cap-holder. So there were petty attempts at reviving his authority - that the bowler has to appeal to the umpire for nicks - however thick or obvious. That certainly is a joke of a rule.

Many teams who think they have no chance of winning "play for a draw" - the phase which means death penalty for the watchers. To play for a draw implies that if a team cant win, they struggle to atleat not lose and try for a draw. Die-hard fans see a silver lining even in this - in a draw - that in fact their is a hidden result in that the weak team has "won a draw" while the strong team has lost because it couldn't enforce a win. A team that plays for a draw asks their batsmen to carry out the aforementioned exercise of leaving or padding the ball. As for the fans they can enjoy the poses.

Religious Reforms in Hinduism

Can a religion's basic belief's be changed. In the 3000 years old history of Hinduism many people have tried to question its core beliefs and convey to its followers a new way of living life without those. More famously Gautam Buddha, Mahavir tried it and the former with quiet a bit of success. While many countries (whose pre-historic religious beliefs are unknown) accepted Buddhism and it flourished and stayed forever. In India thousands of Buddhists shrines were reconverted to Hindu temples and Buddhism was slowly sidelined while Jainism could succeed only in very small patches across the nation. In modern times, these beliefs were questioned by the founders of various Samaj - notably Raja Ram Mohan Roy with his Brahmo Samaj, Swami Dayananda Saraswati with his Arya Samaj and the Prarthana Samaj in Maharashtra. These samaj really died with their founders and any followers after were only nominal.
So Is reforming a religion so difficult?
Changing a religion is difficult by preaching, which these movements have tried. Albeit its unfortunate, but history has shown that change can be achieved by sword though. The success of Islam in the subcontinent has proved this. (Yes, I would say Islam has succedded in India although some would disagree saying India is still a predominantly Hindu country. Just add 16 crore Pakistanis, 14 crore Bangladeshis and 15 crore Muslims in India. The sum is 45 crores, while Hindus in India amount to 90 crores which means Islam has succedded in 33% of the people to leave its Hindu beliefs).
B R Ambedkar questioned, debated, requested to change, and finally out of frustration decided to abandon these beliefs and accept a new way of life. 5 lakh of his followers converted with him. But inspite of being a God for crores of downtrodden people in India, those who swear by his values, those who go wild at the slightest of disrespect towards him - how many of them have really accepted the religious path that he showed. Many of those who vote for parties following his isms, have preferred to still be in the same religion that he opposed.
Will Hinduism ever change then?
Change has occured though - like there are hardly any Satis today. There's no untouchability although people still follow strict caste system- like not marrying outside. Dowry is still rampant and absolutely unashamed about- what with many software engineers bragging about getting two to three million rupees. Many young generation Hindu Indians are ready to marry intercaste but dont actually do so for not going against their parents wishes. This generation will certainly not object to their daughters and sons marrying any good person from the other caste. Caste system may go or atleast the boundaries may blur but it would take an entire generation to phase out (the current parents) to realise that.

Capital Punishment

Should capital punishment be abolished? Abolishing capital punishment has become a status symbol for countries boasting about their high human rights standards. But is it really a benchmark that the citizens are treated fairly. In India the wind is blowing in both direections what with talks of abolishing capital punishment completely and some (LK Advani the PM-in-waiting) arguing for awarding it to rapists- currently they get only a life sentence. Islamic countires with the strictest of laws have the lowest crime rates, while the so called human rights havens are crippled with extremely high crime rates inspite of economic prosperity.

World in 2100

How different would the world be in 2100. Will the theory of the clash of civilisations (Islam Vs West) be only a theory or will it be a reality. Oil has avoided this confrontation till now but will it be the same once the wells dry and the West finds an alternative rendering their Sheikh friends useless. Will China be the World Super Power. Will India be divided with every state being an independent nation.
So how will the world really be in 2100. I was obsessed with this question since my childhood. I generally liked to read books articles which were roughly written in the 1910s or 1890s, not becuase I had any special liking for that era, but only because I was obsesssed with this question. I wanted to know how different the world was 100 years ago and how people(writers) visualised how the world would change in the next hundred years and then I can compare that with how much of that has actually changed to know how far from reality their perception of the future was, and so probably our will be.
I read Savarkar and he predicted India will be a supra strong nation once freed- what with slavery and unfortunate foreign attacks being the only hindrances for a thinking and hardworking populace, a culturally rich society from achieving their own place in this world. It was surprising to see how things were so same then. Some of the things that he desccribed as the problems that we need to change havent changed - India's poverty, social problems like dowry, superstitions, caste and religious strifes.
As for technological progress,we always have been fascinated with the future. But even when the future becomes a reality, we are obsessed with the new future as if we never dreamed about the present. Scientific inventions reach so fast from the labs to the common man,get so easliy spread in the world. In just five to ten years the mobile revolution has seen people from New York to Nairobi carry phones in their pockets and be connected- always. Scientific progress is taken so lightly by people. Kids think gizmos as just another thing. So much so that thinking of the world in 2100, although we would think now be fascinated of what new technological revolutions will the world see, people in 2100 wont give those changes a damn.