Under the Rainbow: Cricket

A commendable decision

Mon, 25 Feb 2008 16:51:35 GMT

BCCI's decision to spend Rs. 50 crore of the money earned from IPL auctions to sponsor the training of potential medal winners of the 2010 common wealth games is very commendable.

So long, we have been very critical of BCCI's selection of players, internal politics, auctioning of teams and players. This step will definitely boost their image if they keep up their promise. Also, since BCCI would evaluate the potential medal winners, one would only think that the best players are identified and sponsored.

What the other games need now is some jazz. I mean, they have to be made presentable by giving a make over. Yeah, that’s a little controversial 'coz sport is a sport, not cinema or modeling. But then again, if cricketers can look glamorous and Sania can inspire many to take up tennis, doing the same to other sports would be for the benefit of the sport alone. Not only will the sport be inviting many youngsters, if they can promote themselves well, they could get some sponsors who'd stick to them if they performed. And thus, dependency on BCCI can be reduced. The way it looks now, this single decision from BCCI could change the face of sports in India if handled right.

Popularity pays

Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:41:43 GMT

...style pays, visibility pays, arrogance pays, performance doesn't, neither does consistency. How else do you explain Mahi "auctioned" for thrice the price of Mr. Consistent, Anil Kumble who has more than 600 test wickets in his pocket, is only second in the world to take all 10 wickets in a test innings and is an architect of many Indian winnings in his career? How else do you explain Andrew Symonds walking away as the second most costly player? How else do you explain Yusuf Pathan being equal to Dilshan and Younis Khan put together? How else do you explain Robin Uthappa earning more than Shaun Pollock, Shane Warne and Muthaiah Muralitharan?

As always, I was talking to Shash's dad about these players being auctioned over dinner. He is one of the few people I enjoy talking with because he has some really interesting thoughts and different takes on everyday issues. He said, "You know how horse racing works? There is always a winning horse and people place a lot of money on it. Everything is fine for the bookies as long as the horse doesn't win. However, the owner of the horse has much to lose. If it does win, the owner laughs his way to the bank but the bookies are in trouble because they will have to return the money to the 'investors'. So, the bookies or fellow competitors either abduct or harm the horse. Sometimes, they even kill the horse with the help of the jockey or stable boy. Looks like cricket, in the 'able' hands of IPL, film stars and corporate houses, is heading the same way".

While, the situation might not be that grim, it is thought provoking. We know that the contract is for a period of 3 years. What if the player goes through a long bad patch during these 3 years? What if any of the IPL teams do not pick him up when the next auctions happen for whatever reasons? Robin Uthappa said "On a serious note, we play cricket because we love the game. Whatever comes with it are its perks. We work hard, so whatever is destined to come our way will come our way. We don't go after it." I do not agree with that because if that were true, cricketers would be seen more on field than they are on TV everyday holding a drink or riding a bike or selling a hair gel/cream.

My point is, cricket might become like modeling, you know, like a short career to make quick bucks. So, you come as 20 something, may be lesser, hit a few sixes, make a lot of money by being auctioned and then disappear into oblivion. The Times of India today had a similar cartoon. The father of a new born baby gives a bat to his son and tells his wife "After 19 and half years he is going to earn crores of rupees". Of course, if it inspires players to stick to the game and talk with their bat and ball along with making the money, that'd be great. I really hope that happens.

However, the good thing is IPL has asked the team owners to have a minimum of four under 22 players. That should give the young ones a good exposure playing with senior international players. Since a lot of money has already been poured in to buy the teams and the players, I hope some of it goes to the betterment of cricket stadiums. I also hope that the game goes to smaller towns and quality stadiums are built there. Isn't that how the game is going to grow and reach more people? I also hope desperately that this fever spreads to other sports so they don't continue to feel neglected.

Questions for down-under

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 05:34:29 GMT

Alright, so the ICC asks players to take note of Harbhajan row. As usual, I have some questions:

1.This is something that’s been bothering me ever since the whole battle began. Exactly how is 'monkey' racist?
If we believe (since it has been proved) that we have all 'evolved' from monkeys, how is it racist? I mean, by this logic, the whole world is filled with humans who were once monkeys. Although the homo-sapiens have improved on the looks front, they have never really given up the behavioral traits.

2.If I were to call someone an Australoid, then it might become racist 'cuz then I am commenting on the general features of a person of a particular geography. But then again, it might not.

Early 20th century anthropologist Carleton Coon wrote in the 1930s that within the Caucasoid race there is a "third division [Mediterraneans which]... included... southern India" but remarked this group had "facial features of a Veddoid character which in some instances suggest Australoid affinities.” He further elaborated that in India there are "Veddoids... individuals who are to all extents and purposes Australoid."

3.It is very clear now that the whole thing was misinterpretation of what was said. What started as a congratulatory pat on the back, went on to threaten the tour, all because one man who had no business in this back-patting thought the back-patter was intimidating his team mate. So, he provokes the back-patter. And why is the provoker let off without the slightest warning? Oh yeah, isn't sport is all about getting into the psyche of the opponent?

4.Why is the winning team captain not punished for urging the umpires to warn the 'racist' when the umpires were not even sure what was transpiring? And worse, none on the field knew what was said and what was heard. You can see it all here.

5.Why weren't the so called witnesses, who swore they had heard the dreaded word in the first hearing back out in the second, yet went scot-free? I mean, isn't time of any value?

6.How come Peter Roebuck who called for the winning captain's neck for his on field behavior make a right about turn after the second hearing and accuse ICC of being weak kneed? Hasn't he seen the evidence that was broadcast through out the day on all news channels?

7.Why isn't the new judgment reflective of the old referee's capabilities? After all, he was strongly convinced that the 'racist' had said the alleged word.

8.And the biggest question nagging me, why would someone feel so offended when called a monkey and not so much when his mother is abused with dirty words? Is slang a good enough justification?