March 22, 2006
Nothing new
In the last test match againast England, India did what it knows best.... crumble under pressure. Nothing new about it.
August 03, 2005
Another loss.
Another loss for Indian Cricket team as Jayawardene powers Sri Lankan win. This time, we had no excuses. The venerable captain was back after serving his suspension. He made 51 and joined the 10,000 run club. Sri Lanka was pushed in a corner and were 95 for 6 at one time. Jayawardene just turned the match around with grit and determination. It must have been a great innings to watch.
July 30, 2005
Indian Cricket team
Here is the current roster of Indian Cricket team:
# *Rahul Dravid
# Sourav Ganguly
# Virender Sehwag
# VVS Laxman
# Yuvraj Singh
# Mohammad Kaif
# Jai P Yadav
# Suresh Raina
# Venugopal Rao
# +MS Dhoni
# Anil Kumble
# Harbhajan Singh
# Irfan Pathan
# Zaheer Khan
# Ashish Nehra
# Lakshmipathy Balaji
1. What is Ganguly doing in the official team when he is banned from playing by the ICC?
2. Ever since I remember, the Indian cricket team contained one or two or sometimes even more players from Mumbai. They have always played major roles in successes and failures of the team. In the current team, there is not even one player from Mumbai. Is it because suddenly there are no good quality players from Mumbai or is it politics?
May 06, 2005
Bowling for Democracy
This article appeared in NY Times, a couple of days ago. A historical perspective on cricket. Thanks, Mayuresh for the forward.
Click on the following link to read it...
Bowling for democracy
The New York Times
TUESDAY, MAY 3, 2005
Cricket, the quintessential English game, is nonetheless one of the most international of sports. It is a dominant game in more countries than any other sport except soccer, in lands as varied as Australia, India, Pakistan, South Africa and the Commonwealth Caribbean. But a glance at the global map of cricket poses a remarkable cultural puzzle.
Why, on the one hand, does the game flourish in lands like Pakistan and India, where a hard-fought series can transfix two nations and even lead to improved diplomatic relations? And why, on the other hand, is cricket not much played in other former British colonies like Canada - or, for that matter, in the United States, with its heritage and "special relationship" with Britain?
The puzzle only deepens when one considers that cricket was once popular in both Canada and the United States. It rivaled baseball for most of the 19th century, with as many stories in the sports pages of The New York Times until 1880. Indeed, the world's first international test match was played between Canada and the United States in 1844. So the puzzle is not so much why it was never adopted in North America, but why in the early 20th century it was subsequently rejected.
Many popular explanations are flawed. Climate has nothing to do with it; cricket emerged as a summer game, and is easily played in North America during mild weather. North American multiculturalism is hardly a factor, given the game's popularity in the multicultural societies of the Caribbean and South Africa. Ethnicity cannot be the answer: There was a far greater proportion of English in North America than in India or the Caribbean. Why is it, then, that hockey and baseball eventually trumped cricket in Canada and the United States?
Cricket lost ground in North America because of the egalitarian ethos of its societies. Rich Americans and Canadians had constant anxiety about their elite status, which prompted them to seek ways to differentiate themselves from the masses. One of those ways was cricket, which was cordoned off as an elites-only pastime, a sport only for those wealthy enough to belong to expensive cricket clubs committed to Victorian ideals of sportsmanship. In late 19th-century Canada, according to one historian, "the game became associated more and more with an older and more old-fashioned Anglo-Saxon elite."
This elite appropriation played into the hands of baseball entrepreneurs who actively worked to diminish cricket's popularity. A.G. Spalding, described in the Baseball Hall of Fame as the "organizational genius of baseball's pioneer days," was typical. "I have declared cricket is a genteel game," he mocked in "America's National Game," his 1911 best seller. "It is. Our British cricketer, having finished his day's labor at noon, may don his negligee shirt, his white trousers, his gorgeous hosiery and his canvas shoes, and sally forth to the field of sport, with his sweetheart on one arm and his cricket bat under the other, knowing that he may engage in his national pastime without soiling his linen or neglecting his lady."
Baseball, in contrast, was sold as a rugged, fast-paced, masculine game, befitting a rugged, fast-paced economic power. Americans of all classes swallowed the chauvinistic line. It was also great business for Spalding. By inventing elaborate baseball gear, he created a market for his new sporting-goods company.
In the remaining British colonies, however, the opposite happened. In these rigidly unequal societies the colonial elites and their native allies never had any anxieties about their status, and the British actively promoted the game - first to native elites, then to the masses.
In India, the wealthy Parsis first took up the game in emulation of their British masters. Soon, royalty throughout the subcontinent adopted it. English-style grammar schools were an important source of exposure to upwardly mobile native men. In the Caribbean, grammar schools made the imperial game a core feature of their education and made competition possible between different classes and ethnic groups without disrupting the social fabric.
The game itself partly facilitated this process. Cricket requires no contact between players, and its strict and complex rules, dress code and officiating largely eliminate any risk of embarrassment in play with those of different ranks or castes. So did the careful allocation of positions; less glamorous roles like bowling and fielding were assigned to social inferiors while those of specialist batsmen and team captain were reserved for elites.
What broader lessons might the history of cricket have for the globalization of Western cultural practices? It shows that such practices can be promoted or discouraged from the top down; it is not necessarily a bottom-up process, as is commonly believed. Nor does such downward dissemination require the point of a gun. The passion for cricket in places like Pakistan and India also shows that a complex Western cultural practice can be adopted in its entirety by very different cultures, even when highly identified with its country of origin.
Might the same be true of other Western cultural practices, like democracy?
(Orlando Patterson is a professor of sociology and Jason Kaufman is an associate professor of sociology at Harvard.)
March 28, 2005
Bah...
Tendulkar becomes India's highest run-scorer
What is the use if he couldn't save India from a pathetic loss?
Disgusting
India lost the last test match to Pakistan in Bangalore by 168 runs. It was just disgusting. Pakistani batsmen were playing as if the Indian bowlers were a bunch of school kids and our stalwarts except Sehwag, couldn't even play through the day to end the match in a draw. Kumble could score 37 and Tendulkar, Dravid and Laxman together make 37 and Ganguly was out on 2. Smacks of match-fixing. Or was it some political play? Be nice and don't beat Pakistan, our loving brothers, in two test series in a row.
Whatever it was... it was fu(&ing disgusting.
October 29, 2004
India loses the test series against Australia
How pathetic!!! Is there something wrong with the scorecard of Indian second innings? The bottom half of the batting order scored more runs than the top half. Interesting, eh?!
India 2nd innings (target: 543 runs) R M B 4 6 A Chopra b Gillespie 1 16 0 0 V Sehwag c Clarke b Warne 58 94 8 0 *R Dravid b Gillespie 2 6 0 0 SR Tendulkar c Martyn b McGrath 2 14 0 0 VVS Laxman c McGrath b Kasprowicz 2 9 0 0 M Kaif c Gilchrist b Kasprowicz 7 8 1 0 +PA Patel c Gilchrist b Gillespie 32 53 6 0 AB Agarkar not out 44 61 8 0 A Kumble b Gillespie 2 17 0 0 M Kartik c Gilchrist b McGrath 22 27 4 0 Z Khan c Martyn b Warne 25 17 2 2 Extras (lb 2, nb 1) 3 Total (all out, 53.3 overs) 200
April 01, 2004
Sehwag's triple century
First of all, congratulations to the Indian team for a great win. It took 2 overs on the morning of the 5th day to take the last wicket to officially complete the match.
About the first ever triple century (309) by an Indian cricketer in a test match....
- The fact that he scored it against Pakistan in Pakistan made it even better. ;)
- Viru hit a six when he was on 295 to cross the 300 mark. He must be crazy or has balls of steel to try such a bold shot. During the last series in Australia. He got out on 195 while trying the same stunt to hit a six to cross the 200 mark. Amazing...
- Pakistani team missed multiple opportunities (7-8) to dismiss him, twice in one over.
March 31, 2004
Mission Victory: almost complete
Kumble takes India to brink of historic win
Indian team is so close to winning the first test match with Pakistan. It may end on the first ball of the last day. Impressive performance by Kumble and what about that triple century by Sehwag.... Excellent.
March 24, 2004
YEEESSS!!! Finally....
Finally, it is time to celebrate for the Indian Cricket team. It is such a sweet sweet victory. Congratulations!!!!!
December 15, 2003
India in solid position Won!!!
Indian cricket team is in a good position at the end of 4th day's play. Ajit Agarkar took his 6 wickets (his first 5 in an innings) in Australia's second innings to end it with a total of 196. Thanks to fine batting by Dravid and Laxman in the first innings even after Sachin and Ganguly getting out on 1 and 0, that Austratlia didn't end up with a very big lead from first innings. Indian openers held ground with 37 for 0 at the end of the day. On the last day they need only 193 to win with all 10 wickets in hand. There is no way they can't make this target unless it rains and washes out the day's play. If they end up losing here, I'll stop following Indian cricket. It is a promise!Impressive bowling by Agarkar. 16-2-41-6. He usually bowls well but, not consistently. In one-day matches, he bowls one or two maiden overs in the first spell, but then, his second spell is usually horrible and ends up with stats like 10-2-60-*. His performance has been improving over time. He is 26 years old, not very young. But, still has a few good years ahead of him.
Updated on Dec 16th: India did manage to win the match. Horray! Rahul Dravid delivered another solid performance in the second innings and received a much deserved 'Man of the Match' award. As per my promise, I'll not stop following Indian cricket.
