A howler of an unpiring decision brought to an end Sangakkara's classy innings against Australia. With him at the crease, Sri Lanka had a real chance of overhauling the mammoth target of 507 Australia had set them. I am sure Rudi Koertzen must not be very popular down in SL right now, but it is a difficult job. How can anyone, standing 20 metres away, make inch-perfect decisions all the time about whether a little ball - travelling at 100 mph, bouncing, swinging and seaming off the pitch - managed to graze the edge of a blurry bat travelling as fast? Add to that the noise levels in a stadium and the mental pressure and well, it seems a wonder umpires get as many decisions right as they do!
Which brings me to the long-festering question of using technology in cricket. There are basically two reasons given by detractors against the use of video replays for crucial decisions:
1. It is against the "tradition" of the game.
2. It will be too time-consuming due to stoppages in play.
The first is unscientific hogwash that I won't even waste my time with. As for the second, it is true that television replays for every close decision could obviously slow things down a lot. I have been of the view for some time that both the batting and fielding captains should be allowed a couple of appeals every day of a Test, requesting a video replay to confirm or overturn a decision. And this could include pitching in line decisions for LBWs, clean catch decisions, out on a no-ball decisions and anything else that can be reasonably judged better by video replays than the naked eye.
Tennis is a much faster-paced game that places a far greater premium on time between points/games. If they can implement a couple of challenges every set, I don't see any reason besides the ego of the officialdom for not implementing a similar system in cricket.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Saturday, September 22, 2007
A wake-up call for cricket?
I have always believed that international cricket, in its present state, is a highly sub-optimal game. Tactics are largely routine and slow to evolve. Many might disagree with me, but I also feel the game's deficiencies in capability and innovation are glorified behind the veneer of "tradition" and similar balderdash.
This is where I believe Twenty20 WC has been a wonderful fillip for the game. And I am not speaking just about the fact that the perception of achievable run-rates in one-day games will now set up camp in an entirely different ball-park. No, I speak about a whole new mindset that was previously missing from the game.
Of course, Twenty20 probably requires only a fraction of the character and skills that regular versions demand. However, I am glad that teams have been forced to think differently. It is the mental aspect of cricket that fascinates lovers of the game, so it has been refreshing to see each team trying to maximize its potential and for once, captains having to think on their feet.
It is good to see that cricketers whose opinion matters are already warming up to the challenge. Said Adam Gilchrist today: "I've been wrestling back and forwards with it ... I do think it's going to improve one-day cricket. I'm not sure it'll do much for Test cricket, but Test cricket's still a pretty good product .... I think it's very much a positive for the game."
Australia and South Africa have already shown the way forward in the one-day game with their brand of "brave cricket". However, there are three crucial aspects of the Twenty20 game that intrigue me :
A greater than ever demand for flexible skills.
The necessity of maintaining momentum.
It is crucial for the batsmen, bowlers and captains to make quick tactical decisions. And the penalty for letting the game drift along is as bad as making a wrong decision.
So given the above, it will be interesting to see if Twenty20 takes the one-day game in a direction akin to "total cricket", for both batsmen and bowlers. To quote the definition of a "total" sport : It consists of [players] being extremely tactically aware, allowing them to change positions at high speed—in its simplest terms, every player is comfortable in any other position. It also puts high technical and physical demands on the players.
I am aware that the above is not a very good analogy, since each cricketer brings his own special set of skills and qualities, more so than football. But that should not be an excuse for, say, an international bowler being unable to swing the ball both ways at will. Or a batsman being either a good judge of a single or a big-hitter, but not both.
Will we ever see such skilled cricketers who will make every four-ball that was played out as a dot count? Or play at such levels of efficiency that every misfield might threaten to cost a game? Achieve such fitness levels that games might turn around a slack piece of work in the outfield or a lazily run brace where three runs are on offer? I know it is humanly impossible to get there, but I would like to see the game at least start moving in that direction.
This is where I believe Twenty20 WC has been a wonderful fillip for the game. And I am not speaking just about the fact that the perception of achievable run-rates in one-day games will now set up camp in an entirely different ball-park. No, I speak about a whole new mindset that was previously missing from the game.
Of course, Twenty20 probably requires only a fraction of the character and skills that regular versions demand. However, I am glad that teams have been forced to think differently. It is the mental aspect of cricket that fascinates lovers of the game, so it has been refreshing to see each team trying to maximize its potential and for once, captains having to think on their feet.
It is good to see that cricketers whose opinion matters are already warming up to the challenge. Said Adam Gilchrist today: "I've been wrestling back and forwards with it ... I do think it's going to improve one-day cricket. I'm not sure it'll do much for Test cricket, but Test cricket's still a pretty good product .... I think it's very much a positive for the game."
Australia and South Africa have already shown the way forward in the one-day game with their brand of "brave cricket". However, there are three crucial aspects of the Twenty20 game that intrigue me :
So given the above, it will be interesting to see if Twenty20 takes the one-day game in a direction akin to "total cricket", for both batsmen and bowlers. To quote the definition of a "total" sport : It consists of [players] being extremely tactically aware, allowing them to change positions at high speed—in its simplest terms, every player is comfortable in any other position. It also puts high technical and physical demands on the players.
I am aware that the above is not a very good analogy, since each cricketer brings his own special set of skills and qualities, more so than football. But that should not be an excuse for, say, an international bowler being unable to swing the ball both ways at will. Or a batsman being either a good judge of a single or a big-hitter, but not both.
Will we ever see such skilled cricketers who will make every four-ball that was played out as a dot count? Or play at such levels of efficiency that every misfield might threaten to cost a game? Achieve such fitness levels that games might turn around a slack piece of work in the outfield or a lazily run brace where three runs are on offer? I know it is humanly impossible to get there, but I would like to see the game at least start moving in that direction.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
A kidney for a kidney
Bob Woolmer, cricket coach of Pakistan, former coach of South Africa and Warwickshire, is no more. The tragedy occured on the night of Pakistan's shock exit from the World Cup and although the cause is unknown, the stress due to trying to coach an incorrigibly indisciplined mob is not unlikely.
For someone not from the Indian sub-continent, it is hard to imagine the fervor that cricket generates in the region. Billions of dollars and massive yajnas before every major tournament are par for the course. Greedy and soul-less media, cricket boards salivating at the prospects of frenzied sponsorship and a general lack of sporting heroes makes cricket-crazy zealots out of people who struggle to put bread on the table for their family.
There were newspaper reports of a man who wants to sell his kidney so that he can afford to see India play the World Cup in the Carribean. As my friend Vikas puts it, when you have people willing to sell their kidneys to watch the game, these same people would also be willing to maim a player for poor performance.
We all need to realize it's just a game. It is not worth burning down players' houses or angry mobs baying for the blood of non-performers. It is not endemic to just Pakistan - Indian fans are not any better off, nor is our team's history resplendent with professionalism. I just wish people had some perspective over what is important in life.
But let us take this moment to celebrate Bob Woolmer's passion for his coaching. He was a true pioneer, he gave the world its first taste of top-notch fielding in the form of the South African team of the nineties. With his famous laptop, he brought statistical analysis of individual players and teams to a sphere still dominated by a mindset that frustratingly refuses to adopt modern sporting standards. He transformed coaching from mere idealism to a science, where opponents need to be out-manoeuvred at every stage of the game using consummate knowledge of past trends and astute observation of the current situation.
He was a visionary, a professional to the core. We are left to lament the day he decided to take up the challenge of coaching Pakistan, but I hope his memory will lead Indian and Pakistani fans to incorporate some sense of realism in their spectatorship.
(Photograph source: Sydney Morning Herald)
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Horatio Nelson redux
Israeli defense minister Amir Peretz turns a blind eye to Gen Gabi Ashkenazi's troop manoeuvres at Golan Heights. Only, Nelson's blindness won Copenhagen, Peretz's myopia got Qana.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Veep, the Hawk
I always thought Cheney was an exceptional hawk, but is it the reality of the now that keeps reinforcing my perception of political figures? Here is a news article I was reading:
Cheney attacks China's aggression (Feb 24, 2007)
Dick Cheney condemned China's military build up and its recent shooting down of a satellite yesterday, branding Beijing's actions as "not consistent" with peaceful intentions. .... His comments in Sydney marked the toughest anti-China rhetoric used by the Bush administration since ....
Never mind the fact that it is China which has, for years, been trying to cajole an adamant USA to the space arms race negotiating table. But let us follow a link below the article for older news. We come to:
Cheney accuses Russia of bullying tactics (May 05, 2006)
Dick Cheney, the US vice-president, yesterday accused Russia of bullying its neighbours and backsliding on democracy in the most scathing attack on the Kremlin by a senior American official since ....
Ah, someone tell Cheney what Mexico and South America think of America's relationship with them. Anyway, we follow another link to an older news item:
We won't let Iran go nuclear, warns Cheney (Mar 08, 2006)
The Bush administration yesterday forced Russia to abandon a compromise proposal over Iran's nuclear programme as it stepped up the pressure on Teheran. In the most hawkish rhetoric from a senior US official in months ....
Of course, since the above article, much has changed in the world and the Iran situation. What has not changed, however, is the abrasive character of Dick Cheney as evinced by press coverage. This Veep is not an easy guy to "out-hawk".
Cheney attacks China's aggression (Feb 24, 2007)
Dick Cheney condemned China's military build up and its recent shooting down of a satellite yesterday, branding Beijing's actions as "not consistent" with peaceful intentions. .... His comments in Sydney marked the toughest anti-China rhetoric used by the Bush administration since ....
Never mind the fact that it is China which has, for years, been trying to cajole an adamant USA to the space arms race negotiating table. But let us follow a link below the article for older news. We come to:
Cheney accuses Russia of bullying tactics (May 05, 2006)
Dick Cheney, the US vice-president, yesterday accused Russia of bullying its neighbours and backsliding on democracy in the most scathing attack on the Kremlin by a senior American official since ....
Ah, someone tell Cheney what Mexico and South America think of America's relationship with them. Anyway, we follow another link to an older news item:
We won't let Iran go nuclear, warns Cheney (Mar 08, 2006)
The Bush administration yesterday forced Russia to abandon a compromise proposal over Iran's nuclear programme as it stepped up the pressure on Teheran. In the most hawkish rhetoric from a senior US official in months ....
Of course, since the above article, much has changed in the world and the Iran situation. What has not changed, however, is the abrasive character of Dick Cheney as evinced by press coverage. This Veep is not an easy guy to "out-hawk".
Thursday, February 08, 2007
The Oil for Blood Program
Oh, check this out. Now it is the Saudis who mastermind the crisis in Iraq using Bush as a pawn? I will rate the creativity of this article at par with Michael Moore, somewhere between those that say it's Iran and those suggesting Satan.
When will people realize that their leaders are perfectly capable of coming up with bloody wars entirely on their own? Maybe that's expecting too much, for rationale is easily sacrificed at the altar of patriotism, whether it be a neocon missive or a liberal blog. After all, these leaders do promise $2 per gallon gas for your SUV (plus or minus a few hundred thousand Iraqi lives, which no article in American press ever deems worth mention). All you have to do in return is vote to keep them in power and get busy looking for the evil powers that enchanted Bush and Cheney's impressionable, innocent hearts into plunging the nation into war. Saud is the flavor of the season, but I must admit my disappointment that the wily Chinese have been kept out of this for so long.
Well Shakespeare's Sister, there comes sunshine and here comes news: there is a world outside America and it is pretty uniformly certain who to blame for the bloodletting in Iraq. Take a guess.
When will people realize that their leaders are perfectly capable of coming up with bloody wars entirely on their own? Maybe that's expecting too much, for rationale is easily sacrificed at the altar of patriotism, whether it be a neocon missive or a liberal blog. After all, these leaders do promise $2 per gallon gas for your SUV (plus or minus a few hundred thousand Iraqi lives, which no article in American press ever deems worth mention). All you have to do in return is vote to keep them in power and get busy looking for the evil powers that enchanted Bush and Cheney's impressionable, innocent hearts into plunging the nation into war. Saud is the flavor of the season, but I must admit my disappointment that the wily Chinese have been kept out of this for so long.
Well Shakespeare's Sister, there comes sunshine and here comes news: there is a world outside America and it is pretty uniformly certain who to blame for the bloodletting in Iraq. Take a guess.
Monday, February 05, 2007
India rising on the Western horizon
I came across an article by Steve Herrmann on how Western news organizations, BBC in particular, fit into the Indian news scenario. As an Indian living abroad and a self-confessed news freak, I can vouch for the fact that BBC's reporting on Indian issues is head and shoulders above other foreign news agencies.
That said, I reckon more thought needs to go into BBC's journalism, especially when it comes to cultural sensitivities. For instance, all its articles on violence in Kashmir end with the perfunctory "Kashmir is the only Muslim majority state in Hindu-dominated India". While it is true that Kashmir being a Muslim majority state is the primary reason Pakistan contends for the province or separatists demand independence, description of India as Hindu-dominated in this context is over-simplification at best and blatantly false propaganda at worst. India is a secular country, with deeply enshrined principles of religious freedom and tolerance in its constitution. From the point of view of India, Kashmir is a territorial dispute and not a religious one. It is like concluding any article on England's pitiable tour of Australia with "Sajid Mahmood is the only Muslim in a mostly Christian English cricket team" - while factually correct, it is not the reason England is being walloped.
I am not aware of any Indian news outlet which confuses these issues except trashy mouthpieces of right wing fundamentalist organizations like VHP or Bajrang Dal.
Again, any article on the economic growth of India invariably contains the clause "350 million Indians live on less than $1 a day". While it is true, I think the statement is inserted in BBC's articles for its shock value to Western audiences more than conveying anything about poverty in an Indian context. I bet that statement will be diluted beyond repair if it is added that one can buy three square meals a day in India for less than $1. My contention is not that those 350 million are well-to-do in any sense of the term, just that it is a useless statistic. There are so many other indices of India's economic disparity that are far more relevant, such as the 47% children under five who are malnourished or the 72% households without proper sanitation.
I understand that reporting on a foreign country, especially one as culturally mystifying as India, can be rather difficult. But one can't be the world's premier news agency and still give that excuse with a straight face.
That said, I reckon more thought needs to go into BBC's journalism, especially when it comes to cultural sensitivities. For instance, all its articles on violence in Kashmir end with the perfunctory "Kashmir is the only Muslim majority state in Hindu-dominated India". While it is true that Kashmir being a Muslim majority state is the primary reason Pakistan contends for the province or separatists demand independence, description of India as Hindu-dominated in this context is over-simplification at best and blatantly false propaganda at worst. India is a secular country, with deeply enshrined principles of religious freedom and tolerance in its constitution. From the point of view of India, Kashmir is a territorial dispute and not a religious one. It is like concluding any article on England's pitiable tour of Australia with "Sajid Mahmood is the only Muslim in a mostly Christian English cricket team" - while factually correct, it is not the reason England is being walloped.
I am not aware of any Indian news outlet which confuses these issues except trashy mouthpieces of right wing fundamentalist organizations like VHP or Bajrang Dal.
Again, any article on the economic growth of India invariably contains the clause "350 million Indians live on less than $1 a day". While it is true, I think the statement is inserted in BBC's articles for its shock value to Western audiences more than conveying anything about poverty in an Indian context. I bet that statement will be diluted beyond repair if it is added that one can buy three square meals a day in India for less than $1. My contention is not that those 350 million are well-to-do in any sense of the term, just that it is a useless statistic. There are so many other indices of India's economic disparity that are far more relevant, such as the 47% children under five who are malnourished or the 72% households without proper sanitation.
I understand that reporting on a foreign country, especially one as culturally mystifying as India, can be rather difficult. But one can't be the world's premier news agency and still give that excuse with a straight face.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
