India is a big country. And home to cultures as diverse as chalk and cheese. And the diversity just begins at culture. It veers on to the economy, education, information and myriad spheres. But nothing levels this diversity like....aaah...not cricket...I'm talking about the humbler, but far more popular paani-puri/golgappa/puchka/whatever you might call it. Here's my presumption of the stats. More than 80% of the people of the country would have eaten it atleast at one point in their life. And a majority of that do so regularly. I might even be talking about an industry worth a few crores, though mostly in the unorganised sector.
A paani-puri/golgappa/puchka is a small puffed ball of flour filled with a part solid mixture-part spiced water filling. The filling is the beauty here - it differs from region to region. But the fervour is the same - be it for golgappas in the north, puchka in the east and paanipuri in the west and south. Also worth mention is the assortment of other snacks, colloquially and collectively called chaat. Needless to say, the chaat varieties too vary from region to region. Yours truly has been lucky enough to have tasted it in different parts of the country. And this is my tribute to the snack that exemplifies India. A strong unit despite the diversity.
My first tryst with this wonderball was at Faridabad, now almost a satellite town bordering Delhi. I wasn't even into double figures then, chronologically speaking. Every evening, a golgappa vendor would walk through the noisy sector 10 lane where I stayed. And roaring business he did. I remember waiting impatiently for him to reach the vicinity of my house while he'd be busy serving his loyal customers at the beginning of the lane. The golgappas of the north are not for the weak hearted. The filling is made of mashed boiled potatoes mixed with boiled chickpeas, spiced up to the max. The water too, is spicy. One though, has the option of tempering it down with the meethi chutney, a delicious sweet-n-sour sauce made of tamarind, dates and jaggery. And at the end of the golgappa course, the vendor fills up your saucer with a cup of the paani to wash it down with. The golgappas are followed by chaat, the choice being between aloo-ki-tikki (a spicy potato cutlet), dahi bhalla (flour dumplings in whipped curd) and papdi (puris that don't puff while frying). The choice is then topped with the meethi chutney, teekhi chutney (a mint-coriander-chilli chutney) and whipped curd. This is then sprinkled with various spices. The king of north indian chaats, the Aloo-ki-tikki is also served with chhole (a mouthwatering chickpea preparation). Some outlets up north also give you the option of sooji ki puri (puris made of semolina). These are crispier than their atta counterparts.
Although the snack has many names, the most popular among them would be paani-puri. Maybe its the Bombay connection. And till recently, when the vada-pav took over, paani-puri shared the top spot on the snack podium in Bombay with its country cousin, Bhelpuri. Paani-puri in the west is much more mellow as compared to the north. The filling consists of sprouted green gram with a hint of salt and the paani is less spicy with a stronger mint flavour to it. The west is also where the custom of eating your paani-puri with finely chopped onion finds its origin. An alternative filling is ragda (dried white peas boiled in a mellow gravy and left simmering over a low flame). The bonus at the end is a puri sans paani but with the filling and spices sprinkled on top. This is called masala waali puri. The chaats here are different from the north. You get to choose between sevpuri (puris filled with boiled potatoes, meethi and teekhi chutney and garnished with sev, an indian snack I find somewhat difficult to explain); dahipuri and chutneypuri (the same sevpuri with an extra shot of whipped curd and chutney respectively). Then you have ragda-pattice - a potato cutlet topped with ragda and the chutneys. But the royal chat of the west would be bhelpuri. Its a hotchpotch of puffed rice, chopped onions & tomatoes, chopped boiled potatoes, crushed puris and sev, laced with 3 distinct chutneys - the ubiquitous meethi and teekhi chutney with a new partner, a garlic chutney that forms the base of the hotchpotch. Some new age garnishes popular with some outlets in the west are slivered beet and pomegranate seeds.
Puchka is what the wonderball is called in the east. Haven't been lucky enough to have it at a regulation outlet but I did have it at a friend's place, who's usually quite authentic with her bengali dishes. The filling was mashed potatoes and boiled chickpeas and the water a bit on the tangier side. A different, but likeable flavour. And yeah...have eaten at a smattering of bong/bihari roadside stalls in Bangalore as well as Hyderabad. Which brings us to the south. Though its not a snack native to the southern parts, paani-puri has firmly established itself in this region too. The know-how comes from the localised marwari population, that has seeped through to the locals over the ages. Paani-puri in hyderabad has somewhat dampened my passion for it due to the excessive use of tamarind in the paani. That makes it irritatingly sour. And to add onto it, the ragda here is bland...to say the least. Even the chaats are a misnomer - anything and everything looks the same. Its either a hollow samosa or a potato cutlet mashed beyond recognition; sauteed with a scoop of ragda and topped with onions, crushed puris and curd. But then, there are some outlets that do serve you a decent enough fare, though nowhere in the league of what you get in other parts of the country.
Well...that kinda concludes my round up of paani-puri. However, it might seem incomplete without a look into the evolution of this snack from its humble origins to a rage. What exemplifies this metamorphosis the most is a small snippet I came across a year or so ago. It talked about some upmarket pub having hit upon a novel idea. They have liquor puris on their menu. Nothing jazzy...just that the paani has been replaced by a shot of your favourite liqour. And vodka-puris have become one of the top-selling items on their menu.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
BOOM...err...rang!!!
Just the other day I was discussing the theory of Yoga in general and Karma in specific with black_beetle. We both concurred on Karma being akin to a boomerang. And yesterday, I watched what probably is one of the most telling commentaries on Karma ever filmed - Stanley Kubrick's Clockwork Orange. And while the peerless Syd Barrett invigorates my intellect with his Madcap Laughs, I'll try to pen my thoughts on the boomerang theory vis-a-vis Kubrick's masterpiece. Warning : This may contain spoilers.
Let me first introduce you to the boomerang theory. Karma is nothing but action, or if you care about a sudden Einstienesque spurt in my cerebrum, the lack of it. I say lack of action since that constitutes a plethora of activities in itself. And since the human mind is accustomed to great quantums of action even when we're in the deepest of slumber, lack of action would entail a huge amount of energies spent to restrain the boundless flight of the human mind. Hence, hereforth, when I refer to action, it'll also imply the lack of it. Moving forward, every action of ours comes back to us. Just like a boomerang. And to an untrained soul, it sometimes becomes too much to handle. And this happens when the living entity (the body, soul and intellect) starts getting hit from all sides with boomerangs he's himself thrown at some time in the past. And then there are the numerous boomerang it throws in self-defense. That's just the start of the chain reaction. And this is where Yogis are born. A yogi is a trained soul, ie. a soul in sync with its intellect. A yogi is someone who is in control of the boomerangs he throws. So when he throws one, he knows when and how its going to come back at him. This allows him to be prepared to catch it on its return and avoid hurt to the living entity. Now, I don't mean that yogis won't ever make mistakes. But for them, the mistakes are strong learning experiences and they'll take care not to throw a certain boomerang in a certain way if it has hurt them in the past. Guess that was the boomerang theory in a nutshell. I agree that this by itself might not be enough for a complete understanding of the theory, but my scope is much larger here and I'll try and address any specific issues through comments on this post.
Now, the movie. Its a first person narrative of Alexander DeLarge, a degenerate of the top order and his journey through the cycle of reform. We see various facets of Alex in the first few minutes. The only son to a naive and hardworking pair of parents; a nasty teenager with a complete lack of compassion; a spoilt brat with a love for worldly effects; a nocturnal animal who indulges in lawless activities to satiate his hormones; a dagger wielding leader of a gang of similar hoodlums and last, but not the least, an ardent fan of as he himself would put it, "lovely Ludwig van". He's tricked by his own gang and ends up getting 14 years in the bin for murder. This begins a medley of different colours of reforms he undergoes. Starting with the tough prison life, where he finds comfort in the bible (though not in a way one would imagine him to). Then on to being a subject for a revolutionary medical concept, brainwashing criminals into vegetables, for whom the very thought of sex and violence gets nauseating and revolting. The "cured" Alex is released and he finds his brainwashed state conflicting with his instincts. That's when the boomerangs start hitting him. They hit him real hard. And he sees life coming a full circle. Reeling from the boomerang hits, he finds himself at the mercy of a reactionary professor, one of his old victims. This begins the return of the most viciously thrown boomerang depicted in the movie - also the next phase of his reform - an exercise at exploiting his brainwashed state to drive him to suicide. The climax shows Alex in a hospital, recovering from a botched suicide bid. And we see him really "cured". At home with his instincts. A cynical footnote screaming out the hypocrisy of the establishment is thrown in for good measure. But the most hard hitting part of the movie is the last line - "I was cured, all right". Cured he was, because he regained his strongest power. The power to choose, the power to throw the boomerang he wants to. And IMO, that's the cure a majority of humankind needs today.
Let me first introduce you to the boomerang theory. Karma is nothing but action, or if you care about a sudden Einstienesque spurt in my cerebrum, the lack of it. I say lack of action since that constitutes a plethora of activities in itself. And since the human mind is accustomed to great quantums of action even when we're in the deepest of slumber, lack of action would entail a huge amount of energies spent to restrain the boundless flight of the human mind. Hence, hereforth, when I refer to action, it'll also imply the lack of it. Moving forward, every action of ours comes back to us. Just like a boomerang. And to an untrained soul, it sometimes becomes too much to handle. And this happens when the living entity (the body, soul and intellect) starts getting hit from all sides with boomerangs he's himself thrown at some time in the past. And then there are the numerous boomerang it throws in self-defense. That's just the start of the chain reaction. And this is where Yogis are born. A yogi is a trained soul, ie. a soul in sync with its intellect. A yogi is someone who is in control of the boomerangs he throws. So when he throws one, he knows when and how its going to come back at him. This allows him to be prepared to catch it on its return and avoid hurt to the living entity. Now, I don't mean that yogis won't ever make mistakes. But for them, the mistakes are strong learning experiences and they'll take care not to throw a certain boomerang in a certain way if it has hurt them in the past. Guess that was the boomerang theory in a nutshell. I agree that this by itself might not be enough for a complete understanding of the theory, but my scope is much larger here and I'll try and address any specific issues through comments on this post.
Now, the movie. Its a first person narrative of Alexander DeLarge, a degenerate of the top order and his journey through the cycle of reform. We see various facets of Alex in the first few minutes. The only son to a naive and hardworking pair of parents; a nasty teenager with a complete lack of compassion; a spoilt brat with a love for worldly effects; a nocturnal animal who indulges in lawless activities to satiate his hormones; a dagger wielding leader of a gang of similar hoodlums and last, but not the least, an ardent fan of as he himself would put it, "lovely Ludwig van". He's tricked by his own gang and ends up getting 14 years in the bin for murder. This begins a medley of different colours of reforms he undergoes. Starting with the tough prison life, where he finds comfort in the bible (though not in a way one would imagine him to). Then on to being a subject for a revolutionary medical concept, brainwashing criminals into vegetables, for whom the very thought of sex and violence gets nauseating and revolting. The "cured" Alex is released and he finds his brainwashed state conflicting with his instincts. That's when the boomerangs start hitting him. They hit him real hard. And he sees life coming a full circle. Reeling from the boomerang hits, he finds himself at the mercy of a reactionary professor, one of his old victims. This begins the return of the most viciously thrown boomerang depicted in the movie - also the next phase of his reform - an exercise at exploiting his brainwashed state to drive him to suicide. The climax shows Alex in a hospital, recovering from a botched suicide bid. And we see him really "cured". At home with his instincts. A cynical footnote screaming out the hypocrisy of the establishment is thrown in for good measure. But the most hard hitting part of the movie is the last line - "I was cured, all right". Cured he was, because he regained his strongest power. The power to choose, the power to throw the boomerang he wants to. And IMO, that's the cure a majority of humankind needs today.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
The cup runneth over
The Indian team's moment of truth is over. And they came out of it not like the phoenix, but more like a scared novice debuting in a war exercise. The lack of a tactical approach and the lack of application is something I've already talked about and will not care to elaborate further. What hit me in yesterday's match was the lack of self-belief among the Indians. Had it been a team of WC greenhorns, the self-belief factor would've been more understandable. But here was a batting line-up that boasted of the "holy" (not anymore though) triumvirate of Sachin, Saurav and Dravid - three batsmen with more ODI runs between them than any 3 batsmen in the history of ODI's put together. Skipper Dravid had proudly proclaimed a couple of days earlier that Sehwag is back in touch. So, we also had two of the most murderous willows active today - Sehwag and Dhoni. Add to that the youthful exuberance of Yuvraj and Uthappa, what more do you need? As a bonus, they had a record smashing outing in their last match. And although 255 was atleast 20 runs more than the target India should've eyed half-way through the first innings, it was very much doable.
Anyways, lesson learnt. As my friend black_beetle put it when I spoke with him in the morning, "Never support mediocrity in such tournaments.". I wouldn't say that my support for the men in blue stemmed completely from motives of nationality. I had faith in the talent and experience of the team. Though a stray thought in my mind pointed to the inconsistency and docile on-field demenour of the Indians, the optimist in me invariably got the better of it. Alas, the men in blue let me down, along with millions of their supporters worldwide. Am I feeling bad about it? The Indian in me is. He's feeling extremely upset about the fact that his team is out of the showpiece event. The logical thinker in me is trying to temper down these feelings. He says that I shouldn't have kept my bar of expectations so high - I was one of the very few who sincerely believed that the Indians had it in them to get the coveted cup back.
But one part of me is also happy about the goings-on. The cricket lover is happy that so far, the wind has stayed in favour of the talented and the brave. I'm happy about the fact that teams like Bangladesh and Ireland would get the exposure they need at the biggest stage of the game - something that'll do good to them as well as to the game. He's also happy that till now, every match has been won by the better team on the day and that's what the game is all about. India didn't perform, they paid the price. And quoting black_beetle again "The future rounds of the cup would be better off without India".
There's also a scary aspect of the goings-on though. And that's the aftermath of yesterday's result. For starters, heads are going to roll. The skipper, the coach, the selectors. One or more of them are certain to be replaced soon, if my understanding of the way of functioning of Pawar, Shah & co. is correct. The top contender IMO, as things stand now, looks like guru Greg. And yesterday's match was something like a commercial watershed. Industry talk has hinted that Sony will have to take heavy cuts in the ad revenue for the future rounds in the absence of India. And this won't stop just at that. The result is going to bring a sharp downfall in cricket viewership in India, thus affecting the revenue coming from the game in a big way. And since an overwhelming majority of cricket moeny worldwide comes from Indian companies, the aftershocks will be felt all over. Does one see a relationship between this scenario and what I referred to as responsible reporting by the cricketing "elite" in my last but one post?
Anyways, time for some fun now. Did anyone ever give a thought to the small snippet that India still has a theoretical chance to go through to the next round? If Bermuda manages to beat the Banglas, India would tie with B'desh on points and scamper through on NRR. With the kind of money involved, doesn't it give enough fodder for the conspiracy theorists to come up with the idea of the Bermuda-B'desh match getting fixed?
Anyways, lesson learnt. As my friend black_beetle put it when I spoke with him in the morning, "Never support mediocrity in such tournaments.". I wouldn't say that my support for the men in blue stemmed completely from motives of nationality. I had faith in the talent and experience of the team. Though a stray thought in my mind pointed to the inconsistency and docile on-field demenour of the Indians, the optimist in me invariably got the better of it. Alas, the men in blue let me down, along with millions of their supporters worldwide. Am I feeling bad about it? The Indian in me is. He's feeling extremely upset about the fact that his team is out of the showpiece event. The logical thinker in me is trying to temper down these feelings. He says that I shouldn't have kept my bar of expectations so high - I was one of the very few who sincerely believed that the Indians had it in them to get the coveted cup back.
But one part of me is also happy about the goings-on. The cricket lover is happy that so far, the wind has stayed in favour of the talented and the brave. I'm happy about the fact that teams like Bangladesh and Ireland would get the exposure they need at the biggest stage of the game - something that'll do good to them as well as to the game. He's also happy that till now, every match has been won by the better team on the day and that's what the game is all about. India didn't perform, they paid the price. And quoting black_beetle again "The future rounds of the cup would be better off without India".
There's also a scary aspect of the goings-on though. And that's the aftermath of yesterday's result. For starters, heads are going to roll. The skipper, the coach, the selectors. One or more of them are certain to be replaced soon, if my understanding of the way of functioning of Pawar, Shah & co. is correct. The top contender IMO, as things stand now, looks like guru Greg. And yesterday's match was something like a commercial watershed. Industry talk has hinted that Sony will have to take heavy cuts in the ad revenue for the future rounds in the absence of India. And this won't stop just at that. The result is going to bring a sharp downfall in cricket viewership in India, thus affecting the revenue coming from the game in a big way. And since an overwhelming majority of cricket moeny worldwide comes from Indian companies, the aftershocks will be felt all over. Does one see a relationship between this scenario and what I referred to as responsible reporting by the cricketing "elite" in my last but one post?
Anyways, time for some fun now. Did anyone ever give a thought to the small snippet that India still has a theoretical chance to go through to the next round? If Bermuda manages to beat the Banglas, India would tie with B'desh on points and scamper through on NRR. With the kind of money involved, doesn't it give enough fodder for the conspiracy theorists to come up with the idea of the Bermuda-B'desh match getting fixed?
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
The infinite joy of parenting
I recall a small conversation between an ex-boss of mine (He's departed now, may his soul rest in peace) and myself when my wife was carrying. He, a father of two, was teasing me. Quoting his words, "You have no idea what's gonna hit you for the first 3 years of being a parent.". And he followed it up with a jocular laugh. And the customary rejoinder was not far behind, "I was just kidding yaar", he said. And as my daughter approaches her second birthday with boundless packets of energy, I can't get enough of telling myself how true my ex-boss' words were. I have no idea what hits me every moment I spend with the lil 'un, but there's no doubt its what our scriptures describe as Satchidananda - Eternal Joy.
For starters, the girl shows an above average intelligence. She's hardly 22 months old but is already showing signs of being a linguist. She's at ease understanding 4 languages (English, Hindi, Konkani and Telugu) and can converse quite a bit in telugu and konkani. Living in a multilingual environment definitely helps - my wife being a telugu speaker, my mother tongue being konkani and our medium of communication shuffling between english and hindi. And it doesn't stop at languages. She can count till ten. No...not just recite numbers from one to ten...but actually count objects. She can distinguish between vehicles (buses, cars, bikes, scooters, cycles) quite accurately. And yes...how can one forget identifying a smattering of animals, fruits and veggies (not just from her picture books, but also in real). She knows where different things are kept in the fridge and reaches out accurately for butter, chocolates and juice whenever she wants any. She's extremely inquisitive too and is already asking questions way beyond her age.
Another quality in her that adds to my joy is her compassion. She truly cares. She cares for her mother and father, her aunt and grandmother, her friends, the pet mongrel downstairs and anyone else within the spectrum of her radar. Never has she eaten anything without sharing it with whoever else is around. The slightest of inconvenient feelings around her affect her disposition. And if she sees happiness around her, her energy and excitement increase multifold.
And her last, but not the least endearing quality is her expressiveness. Her face can be used for a body language video. Her eyes give out her feelings so clearly. And she knows how to shade her lovely smile the right way - mischievous, affectionate, happy, imploring. By the Almighty's grace, she doesn't have a sarcastic smile yet. As I mentioned above, she's on her way to be a linguist. She also uses her verbal skills to the best of her abilities. And her kisses and hugs are magical touches that give you a high no narcotic can ever give.
Well...I wish that this joy remains throughout my stint at parenthood. Some people may call it wishful thinking, but I've enjoyed being an optimist and a romantic. And as a firm believer in Karma, I know we can shape destinies. So why not this?
For starters, the girl shows an above average intelligence. She's hardly 22 months old but is already showing signs of being a linguist. She's at ease understanding 4 languages (English, Hindi, Konkani and Telugu) and can converse quite a bit in telugu and konkani. Living in a multilingual environment definitely helps - my wife being a telugu speaker, my mother tongue being konkani and our medium of communication shuffling between english and hindi. And it doesn't stop at languages. She can count till ten. No...not just recite numbers from one to ten...but actually count objects. She can distinguish between vehicles (buses, cars, bikes, scooters, cycles) quite accurately. And yes...how can one forget identifying a smattering of animals, fruits and veggies (not just from her picture books, but also in real). She knows where different things are kept in the fridge and reaches out accurately for butter, chocolates and juice whenever she wants any. She's extremely inquisitive too and is already asking questions way beyond her age.
Another quality in her that adds to my joy is her compassion. She truly cares. She cares for her mother and father, her aunt and grandmother, her friends, the pet mongrel downstairs and anyone else within the spectrum of her radar. Never has she eaten anything without sharing it with whoever else is around. The slightest of inconvenient feelings around her affect her disposition. And if she sees happiness around her, her energy and excitement increase multifold.
And her last, but not the least endearing quality is her expressiveness. Her face can be used for a body language video. Her eyes give out her feelings so clearly. And she knows how to shade her lovely smile the right way - mischievous, affectionate, happy, imploring. By the Almighty's grace, she doesn't have a sarcastic smile yet. As I mentioned above, she's on her way to be a linguist. She also uses her verbal skills to the best of her abilities. And her kisses and hugs are magical touches that give you a high no narcotic can ever give.
Well...I wish that this joy remains throughout my stint at parenthood. Some people may call it wishful thinking, but I've enjoyed being an optimist and a romantic. And as a firm believer in Karma, I know we can shape destinies. So why not this?
Monday, March 19, 2007
The opening salvo
"India shock India" screamed the newspaper headlines yesterday. The titans had crashed to their most humiliating defeat ever in World Cup history. Save for the 1996 semi-final fiasco in the eden gardens, no other defeat will pinch the Indian cricket fraternity as this one. True...Bangladesh played with the abandon of one who has nothing to lose, but didn't they also have everything stacked against them right from the beginning? They were facing a team fresh from 2 emphatic wins in warm-up games, including one against the Windies, who have been displaying some mercurial talent over the past few months. They were playing on probably the most unpredictable track among all the cup venues. And they were a grieving lot, having recently lost one of their former teammates. Full credit to the hitherto unheralded, and often ridiculed lions from Bangladesh, who took all adversity in their stride and even got on top of it with grace. And this is one point where I agree with the general opinion.
Where I don't agree with the general opinion is the reason why India lost the match. Armchair critics and the junta alike are unanimous in shouting from the rooftops that India lost due to the lack of application in the middle. According to me, though that was a factor that contributed to our downfall, that wasn't the only one. There were three major tactical errors that if avoided in hindsight, could have well allowed India to get away with even the much-maligned lack of application. I'll come to that in a moment. But before that, I'd like to elaborate a bit on the nomenclature used by me to classify the voices of the cricket "elite" and fans.
I was texting a friend during the match and we also had a couple of quick conversations during the match and a long one after it. Now, this friend is what I've classified as "Junta". These are the ones who form the bulwark of the economic momentum of cricket in India. The passionate fan, who unfortunately, is also not well conversant with the tactical nitty-gritties of the game. During my text and telephone conversation, lines like "India has lost 2 quick wickets, and the rest won't stay for long either."; "Every strong team is scoring big. India should have scored atleast 280." etc. flowed. The "junta" sees the game in a very unidimensional light, and for them, good batting is all about hitting the ball as hard as you can and possibly scoring atleast 2 boundaries in every over. And good bowling is about every ball being either a yorker, a vicious turner or a copybook swinger. They form opinions on the game based on their own passion and also what the "elite" say. The "elite" or the armchair critics as I'd like to call them are the "expert" commentators who're having a field day on sports and news channels. And they are the ones who I really have a bone to pick with. Because the "junta" forms its opinions based on what they say. Guess I've made myself clear with the definitions. So lets move on to the reasons why India lost.
I mentioned 3 major tactical decisions that more or less cost us the match even before the first ball was bowled. Two of these decisions were selection errors. First being the exclusion of Kumble from the team. I don't see any reason why India's most successful bowler in the Carribean should have sat out. Ideally, the playing XI for this match should've had 7 batsmen, 2 pacers and 2 spinners; with atleast 3 of the batsmen offering bowling possibilities. This, because the track was tricky. And spin being our strength, our spinners could have extracted more from the track than our swing bowlers. And even if they wanted to emphasise on swing, I don't see why the best swinger of the ball in the current squad, Pathan should have been left out. The bowling line-up had no logic backing it. And there was the curious case of Sehwag's inclusion. I've been a strong votary of supporting guys with a slump in form. But this was taking the support too far. The fact that Sehwag had not performed well in the warm-up games goes to show that his inclusion was more of an emotional decision rather than one based on some gameplan or logic. This too, could have been avoided. Karthik had a better claim for the other opener's slot on the basis of some doughty performances in the recent past. The third, and the most crucial error, though I'd like to give Jammy the benefit of doubt here, was the decision to bat first. There was a devil in the pitch in the earlier part of the day, which was well evident from the dismissals of Dravid and Sachin, and the Banglas exploited it to the maximum. This also gave Bangladesh the psychological boost that they beautifully capitalised on, in the second innings.
Now, my mention of these reasons is not to take away anything from the Bangladeshis. They deserve every pat on their back for their performance. And neither am I trying to exonerate the Indian team's lifeless performance from its part in the defeat. All I'm trying to say here is that the "elite" should be a little more broad-minded while handing over their "verdicts" on the match. Their ultimate aim should be to educate the junta on the aspects of the game that have escaped them so far. This, in the long run, will prove to be extremely beneficial to us as it would help shape us into a mature cricketing audience. And we could well be the leading lights of decorum to emerge from the sub-continent, where the crowds are popular for being passionate but also notorious for being fickle too - a reputation we can do without.
Where I don't agree with the general opinion is the reason why India lost the match. Armchair critics and the junta alike are unanimous in shouting from the rooftops that India lost due to the lack of application in the middle. According to me, though that was a factor that contributed to our downfall, that wasn't the only one. There were three major tactical errors that if avoided in hindsight, could have well allowed India to get away with even the much-maligned lack of application. I'll come to that in a moment. But before that, I'd like to elaborate a bit on the nomenclature used by me to classify the voices of the cricket "elite" and fans.
I was texting a friend during the match and we also had a couple of quick conversations during the match and a long one after it. Now, this friend is what I've classified as "Junta". These are the ones who form the bulwark of the economic momentum of cricket in India. The passionate fan, who unfortunately, is also not well conversant with the tactical nitty-gritties of the game. During my text and telephone conversation, lines like "India has lost 2 quick wickets, and the rest won't stay for long either."; "Every strong team is scoring big. India should have scored atleast 280." etc. flowed. The "junta" sees the game in a very unidimensional light, and for them, good batting is all about hitting the ball as hard as you can and possibly scoring atleast 2 boundaries in every over. And good bowling is about every ball being either a yorker, a vicious turner or a copybook swinger. They form opinions on the game based on their own passion and also what the "elite" say. The "elite" or the armchair critics as I'd like to call them are the "expert" commentators who're having a field day on sports and news channels. And they are the ones who I really have a bone to pick with. Because the "junta" forms its opinions based on what they say. Guess I've made myself clear with the definitions. So lets move on to the reasons why India lost.
I mentioned 3 major tactical decisions that more or less cost us the match even before the first ball was bowled. Two of these decisions were selection errors. First being the exclusion of Kumble from the team. I don't see any reason why India's most successful bowler in the Carribean should have sat out. Ideally, the playing XI for this match should've had 7 batsmen, 2 pacers and 2 spinners; with atleast 3 of the batsmen offering bowling possibilities. This, because the track was tricky. And spin being our strength, our spinners could have extracted more from the track than our swing bowlers. And even if they wanted to emphasise on swing, I don't see why the best swinger of the ball in the current squad, Pathan should have been left out. The bowling line-up had no logic backing it. And there was the curious case of Sehwag's inclusion. I've been a strong votary of supporting guys with a slump in form. But this was taking the support too far. The fact that Sehwag had not performed well in the warm-up games goes to show that his inclusion was more of an emotional decision rather than one based on some gameplan or logic. This too, could have been avoided. Karthik had a better claim for the other opener's slot on the basis of some doughty performances in the recent past. The third, and the most crucial error, though I'd like to give Jammy the benefit of doubt here, was the decision to bat first. There was a devil in the pitch in the earlier part of the day, which was well evident from the dismissals of Dravid and Sachin, and the Banglas exploited it to the maximum. This also gave Bangladesh the psychological boost that they beautifully capitalised on, in the second innings.
Now, my mention of these reasons is not to take away anything from the Bangladeshis. They deserve every pat on their back for their performance. And neither am I trying to exonerate the Indian team's lifeless performance from its part in the defeat. All I'm trying to say here is that the "elite" should be a little more broad-minded while handing over their "verdicts" on the match. Their ultimate aim should be to educate the junta on the aspects of the game that have escaped them so far. This, in the long run, will prove to be extremely beneficial to us as it would help shape us into a mature cricketing audience. And we could well be the leading lights of decorum to emerge from the sub-continent, where the crowds are popular for being passionate but also notorious for being fickle too - a reputation we can do without.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
The journey begins
Although I've been familiar with the concept of blogging for quite some time now, this happens to be my first active foray into the actual blog world. The first thing that stumped me was writing about myself in my profile. Mind you, this is something I've done umpteen times in the past and have always ended up with atleast one point that I wanted to mention but could not. But things were different here. I just couldn't write anything there. Is this something others might've experienced too? Or was I just being too paranoid about the whole concept of blogging? I mean...when we were younger, a lot of us used to maintain diaries. And these diaries would be a reflection of the owner's inner feelings. More or less on the same lines as blogs are supposed to be. But that's where the similarities ended. The diaries were sacrosanct. Utterly private. Nobody but the owner would be privy to whats in it. Quite unlike a blog which is open to the whole world to see. But then...what the heck? What if my feelings are out there in public domain? Aren't feelings supposed to be voiced? Isn't it a psychological no-no to keep your feelings bottled up? Though I never kept a diary, I always had a lot on my mind. Things I wanted to say, things I wanted others to listen to and react, things I wanted to stir discussions on. And here I am. They say, better late than never. So Mr.Narcissus...or Mr.Narcissus' understudy....whoever I am....welcome to Blog World! And may your reign here last long.
Amen!
Amen!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
