Fix the ODI imbalance

I have always been an avid cricket fan since my childhood, though partial to Test Cricket even today, as there was only Test Cricket during my formative years, and when I took up Cricket seriously.

 

I adapted to the One Day Cricket but am skeptical about the T 20 Format.

 

There are many things wrong with the shorter versions of the Game. Let us leave the T 20 for now and focus on the ODI, as the World Cup is around the corner.

 

What has gone wrong with the ODI Game in the last couple of decades?

 

It has become too Batsmen Friendly - Too many field restrictions, Shorter Boundaries, Strict rules on Wides, Bouncers, Free Hits, Heavy Bats and White Balls that doesn't offer help to either seamers or spinners have taken the charm out of the game. Due to the T 20 influence, batsmen take more risk, and bowlers main objective is to somehow finish their quota of 10 overs with 60+/- 10 runs in an Innings. All the restrictions are on the bowlers and the fielders, and none on the batsmen. He can switch hit, mis-hit, reverse sweep and do whatever he wants, but if the bowler strays down the leg side by a millimeter, he is punished. Absurd.

 

The way out? 

1. Push the Boundaries back as much as possible, with a minimum of 85 yards on the sides and 100 plus on the straighter side. This shall also neutralize the negative effect of the modern heavy bats to some extend. This will also encourage spinners to bowl a more attacking orthodox line, using flight as the main weapon, instead of pushing the balls through flat and fast. We want to see bowlers akin to L Sivaramakrishnan (1985) or Mushtaq or Warne bowl aggressively again.
2. The ridiculous leg side wide has to go. If a batsman cannot put bat on the ball landing an inch outside the leg stump, he needs to find another vocation.
3. The Wides should be on either side, only for balls that cannot be reached by the bat in a normal swing.
4. Any bouncer that goes above the height of the head on a normal stance can be called a wide.
5. No Free Hits. You cant punish a guy twice for the same offence. He is penalized a run, cant take a wicket of a no ball (other than run out), and has to re bowl the ball. Why give a free hit then?
6. LBW rules to be made liberal. It is too complex now. We were taught that a batsman is out LBW, if the ball hits the pad, and in the absence of that, it would have gone to hit the stumps. The operative question should be "Would the ball have hit the stumps?". It should be only that, and nothing other than that. Scrap the ball pitching outside the leg or hitting outside the line rule.
7. Keep the 10 over limit for the bowler, but allow 1 over extra for each wicket taken by a bowler. This will encourage the Captain to set attacking fields for his best bowler/s in the hope that he can squeeze 2-3 overs extra from them. This will reduce the dependence on the 5th bowler, who more often than not is a trundle and should not even be bowling in nets - Raina, Rohit, Bopara, Duminy, Bailey are classic examples of bowlers who should not be given a bowl under any circumstances in International Cricket.
8. Many may not agree to this, but it is time we restrict the night cricket to T 20 and get back to day cricket with Red Ball and White Dress for the ODIs. I know we are even talking of night cricket for Test Matches. Anyway, the Cricket revenue comes from TV audience and not from in stadia collection. Reverting to Red Ball will eliminate the necessity for operating with two white balls, as is being done today, which is a big handicap for the spinners. The Red Ball does more in the Air and Off the Wicket and also affords considerable purchase for the Spinner. Once cant just tonk the ball around as they do with the White ball these days. This will ensure the return of traditional batsmen to the ODI Scenario, as against the mindless sloggers who go by the name of batsmen.

Cricket is, and should be, a battle of wits between the Batsmen and the Bowlers. What we have today is a game that is too loaded in favour of the Batsmen. No one wants to see sides scoring 350 plus in 50 overs and then it being chased down with ease. A good 183 being defended to win the World Cup is also exciting!!

A must read for all the Teachers

This is purported to be a letter written by Abraham Lincoln to his Son's Teacher. Irrespective of whether he actually wrote this or not, this is a must read for any teacher, especially in today's world where the teacher-student relationship has taken a turn for the worse, and students don't seem to be getting the right value system from the teacher.

He will have to learn, I know,
that all men are not just,
all men are not true.

But teach him also that
for every scoundrel there is a hero;
that for every selfish Politician,
there is a dedicated leader…

Teach him for every enemy there is a friend,
Steer him away from envy,
if you can,
teach him the secret of
quiet laughter.

Let him learn early that
the bullies are the easiest to lick…
Teach him, if you can,
the wonder of books…

But also give him quiet time
to ponder the eternal mystery of birds in the sky,
bees in the sun,
and the flowers on a green hillside.

In the school teach him
it is far honourable to fail
than to cheat…

Teach him to have faith
in his own ideas,
even if everyone tells him
they are wrong…

Teach him to be gentle
with gentle people,
and tough with the tough.

Try to give my son
the strength not to follow the crowd
when everyone is getting on the band wagon…
Teach him to listen to all men…

but teach him also to filter
all he hears on a screen of truth,
and take only the good
that comes through.
Teach him if you can,
how to laugh when he is sad…

Teach him there is no shame in tears,
Teach him to scoff at cynics
and to beware of too much sweetness…
 
Teach him to sell his brawn
and brain to the highest bidders
but never to put a price-tag
on his heart and soul.

Teach him to close his ears
o a howling mob
and to stand and fight
if he thinks he's right.
Treat him gently,
but do not cuddle him,
because only the test
of fire makes fine steel.

Let him have the courage
to be impatient…
let him have the patience to be brave.

Teach him always
to have sublime faith in himself,
because then he will have
sublime faith in mankind.

This is a big order,
but see what you can do…

He is such a fine little fellow,
my son!
                                    - Abraham Lincoln

Go for Specialists any time

The Industrial Era saw the predominance of the Specialists in the workplace. The focus was on maximizing the production, which required in depth knowledge of the task on hand and the technical skills that go with it.

 

Later on, at some stage, there was a gradual shift to the generalists. Maybe the development of Management Science had something to do with it. People were cross trained so that we had jacks of all trades, who were masters at none, running the organizations for a long, long time.

 

This was the norm not only in the Private Sector but also in the Government sector. The IAS officers of India managed everything under the sun, from Districts, to sports, to Industry, to mining, to Nations Finance and even were the preferred choice to head Public Sector Organizations. A guy, who was a middle level IAS officer in the Agricultural Ministry would be posted as head of State Road Transport Corporation. Is it any wonder most Public Sector Undertakings have gone down the drain?

 

We have seen the strange scenario of IT companies recruiting Engineering students, en masse, irrespective of their stream of education in the College? After a few years, a mechanical engineer, so selected will be totally unfit to take up a job in the field of Mechanical Engineering. Education and job has absolutely no relevance, leading to the chaos that is seen in the organizations these days, and also one of the biggest reasons for employee attrition.

 

I was reminded of the above, while reminiscing about the World Cup past. No team that depended on bits and pieces players (with the freak exception of India in 1983, whose victory was an absolute fluke) have won the World Cup. West Indies of 1975 and 1983 had a legendary batting line up, backed by a set of world class fast bowlers. You wouldn't want to be chasing any target against Roberts, Holding, Garner and Marshall. The very thought scares you. 

 

Australia, winners of 1987 had a strong batting line up Boon, Marsh, Jones, Border, Valetta, two world class all rounders in Steve Waugh and Simon O'Donnel, and the bowling was led by McDermot, Reid and May. Both Waugh and Simon could get into the team as either batsman or bowler alone, and can never be considered as also ran players.

 

Imran's Pakistan won the 1992 world cup with a quality balanced team - Aameer Sohail, Rameez Raja, Javed, Salim Malik, Inzamam, Ijaz Ahmed as batsmen, wonderful all rounders in Imran Khan and Wasim Akram, backed by Aquib Javed and Mushtaq in the bowling department. Add to it the fighting wicket keeper Moin Khan. All specialists and no wonder they won the cup hands down.

 

Srilanka won 1996 using their batting might - Jayasurya, Kaluwathirana, Gurusinghe, Aravinda Desilva, Tilakaratne, Mahanama and Arjuna Ranatunga could chase any target down. But don't forget, they had a good bowling attack in Murali, Dharmasena and Vaas, but still the depended on their batting.

 

Australia dominated in the next three world cups and had a phenomenal batting line up led by Gilchrist, Waugh, Hayden and Ponting. They also had McGarth and the redoubtable Shane Warne in their ranks.

India in 2011 again depended on their strong batting - Sehwag, Sachin, Gambhir, Raina, Kohli, Yuvraj and Dhoni. This covered up for their relatively weaker bowling led by Zaheer and Harbhajan. But since the tournament was in India, batting dominated.

The interesting take away from the above is that it doesn't pay to take generalist bits and pieces players, if you want to win the World Cup. England had tried this with disastrous results in the past, and continue to do so. Ditto New Zealand, though they have had a rethink this time around.

History is against it. They why-oh-why is India carrying these below average neither batsman nor bowler players like Stuart Binny, Axar Patel, Ravindra Jadeja or even Ravichandran Ashwin. And we don't have a strong batting as a cover for them.

I don't see us going beyond Quarter Finals, and we don't deserve to, on form or on talent or on selection.

The most balanced side is South Africa. They have quality batsmen in AB Devillers, Amla and De Plaussis, and a world class bowling attack led by Steyn and Mornie Morkel and a wily coach in Kirsten. My money is on them. This is their best chance to win for a long time, and I hope they do.

And on form, New Zealand could be a finalist.

 

 

 

Natural Flair vs Coached Skills

I play quite a few games. Though not endowed with natural athletic abilities, even as a youngster (and definitely not now, when I am over weight by a mile!) I always had a very good hand eye co ordination, backed by a thinking brain, which made me a decent player in any game played with a racquet or indoor games that need skills, like Carroms.

 

I self taught myself on most of the games, with the sole exception of Cricket. I had attended numerous coaching camps, and have been coached extensively as a youngster, and was a decent bat.

 

I did learn to play Tennis, Badminton and Table Tennis on my own, as also Chess and Carroms.

 

Recently, I noticed with amusement that my approach to other games, self taught, with respect to Cricket, was totally different.

 

I am a dour, defensive, technically correct batsman, who rarely takes a risk nor do I hit the ball in the air. Safety first is the motto. Perhaps I watched Test Cricket growing up and idolized Gavaskar or perhaps I was Coached as per the MCC Coaching Manual.

 

In contrast, I have a totally different approach to other games. I love going for impossible shots, or to hit the ball at acute angles, and am least bothered if the ball goes wide a bit, as long as the shot was executed as I wanted. I throw caution to wind while playing tennis, and try atrocious drop shots or dinky lobs or  backhand flicks that have a low margin of error. It is art for the sake of art. I back my natural hand eye coordination and court sense to pull these off.

 

Recently, I was playing caroms. I fluff the easiest of straight coins, while pulling off difficult cuts and third pockets with ease. I didn't have a follow for the red, but had two coins touching each other on the right of the centre in the board, and also had a relatively easy back shot option. I noticed a small chance of cutting the outer of the two coins to the left top pocket, told my playing partner I was going for it, and pulled it off as I wanted, with the bonus of the second coin going in at the left hand bottom pocket, which was not planned at all. I whooped in joy, and the opponents were downcast with eyes popping. It made my day. It is for moments like these that I play.

 

So does this mean that formal coaching kills creativity and risk taking? I have reason to believe so. Look what has happened to the Brazilian team. The Brazilian teams prior to 1986 were a treat to watch, playing flowing football and they could conjure up magic out of nowhere. During the last 25 years most of their players have migrated to the more regimental European league and this is being reflected in their football which is a mix of rigidity and staleness. And with a dour coach like Dunga at the helm, we are not going to witness the free flowing Brazil of yore anymore.

 

Some of the most exciting batsmen in the world today are natural strikers, who defy the coaching manual - A B Devilliers, Brendon McCullum, Chris Gayle, Sehwag, Dhoni, Steven Smith.

 

And would you rather watch the supremely naturally gifted Roger Federer or machines like Nadal, Murray or Djokovic? The less said about the clones in women's tennis the better.

 

Like sports, does our formal education system kill creativity? Food for thought

Significance of 108 in Hinduism

108 is a holy number for Hindus. When we do Pushpanjali to a particular deity, we chant 108 synonyms of the concerned deity as a method of pleasing him/her.

 

I have always wondered at the significance of 108. Why is it 108 and not 100 or 110 or 150? Knowing the wisdom of our forefathers, this could not have been accidental or something that happened on a whim.

 

Recently, I think, I probably found the appropriate reason. Life revolved around the sun during the Vedic Ages, to which we can assign the origin of the sanctity of 108.

 

108 is the result you get when divide Sun's distance from Earth by Sun's Diameter

 

149,600,000km/ 1,391,000 km = 107. 55 or 108 (rounding off)

(Data sourced from NASA)

It is also interesting to note that the Moon's distance from Earth/Divided by Moons diameter (382,500km/3485km = 109.75) is  more or less equal to 108, though slightly more. We can give a benefit of doubt to our sages who lived thousands of years ago, as they didn't have accurate tools to measure.

Amazing isn't it?

Crossing 50

Both me and my father were voracious readers. We used to finish lengthy novels in a couple of sittings. When he was well into his 60's, he will baulk at reading 800-900 page novels, which came as a surprise to me. When queried, he came up with the following response " You wont understand now. But when you are old, you lose the drive to take up the challenge of reading a 1000 page book. Once gets a sense of futility". I could not agree with him, but let it go.

 

I have, this year, turned 50, and have started realizing the truth in what he said then.

 

I used to drive my employees hard and was relentless in my quest for perfection, which created lot of friction. But of late, I am accepting slight imperfections, am more tolerant of mistakes and slightly less task oriented.

I still read a lot, but am more leisurely in my readings. I read when I am in the right frame of mind to do so, and am not worried too much if I take a week to complete a book, that I would have sat through and read in a single night in the past.

 

I am more into why people are behaving in a particular manner, and don't give out free advises unlike the past.

 

I have started enjoying even the slightest achievements, but at the same time am not downcast and devastated when I have major setbacks. I take it in my stride, and don't lose sleep over it.

 

I have started feeling the age at times, and strangely don't regret it.

 

I don't lose my temper these days, but on those times when I do, I take time to cool down.

 

In any case, I am less hated than I used to be in the past, which is not bad. But am I paying a price for it? I don't know!

 

Am I slowing down, mellowing? Is the above a good development? Will I get my old spark back? More importantly, do I want to go back to my good (bad) old days, when I used to be less popular?

 

Only time will tell.

सर्वे भवन्तु सुखिनः सर्वे सन्तु निरामयाः ।

सर्वे भद्राणि पश्यन्तु मा कश्चिद्दुःखभाग्भवेत् ॥

sarvé bhavantu sukhinaḥ , sarvé santu nirāmayāḥ |

sarvé bhadrāṇi pashyantu , mā kashchid_duḥkha-bhāg-bhavét ||

All of you be happy, be healthy, see good; 
May no one have a share in sorrow.

 

 

 

 

Your Happiness in

 

 

 is in your hands