Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Learn to live, learn to give


Life is spent in pursuit
Of perfect job,
Of perfect partner,
Of ambition,
Of dream,
Of knowledge,
Of love,
Of money…


But it evades…
Or, if conquered, leads to many more pursuits.


You take out your frustration
By drowning in a mug of beer,
By watching a movie,
By going on a holiday,
By partying with friends,
By spending money
In the hope to find your happiness.


Happiness is in giving,
Happiness is in loving,
Happiness is in watching a child smile,
Happiness is in helping an old man walk again by aiding him with a stick,
Happiness is in helping a blind child see the world through your eyes,
Happiness is in lending a hearing aid to a deaf girl,
Happiness is in wiping a tear off a hurting cheek,
And putting a smile on the lip…


Then you see
Your pursuit gets meaning
And you clearly see what you want.


Learn to live,
Learn to give.


PS: This was written as part of a charity campaign earlier today.

Tuesday, October 06, 2009

Champions Trophy Review and the Future of One-Day Cricket


CENTURION, SOUTH AFRICA - OCTOBER 05:  Ricky Ponting and the Australian team receive their Championship jackets during the ICC Champions Trophy final match between Australia and New Zealand from SuperSport Park on October 05, 2009 in Centurion, South Africa. (Photo by Duif du Toit/Gallo Images/Getty Images)Since the disaster of the 2007 ICC World Cup in the West Indies from all conceivable angles and the subsequent rise of T20 cricket, one-day cricket has become the most abused topic with experts and fans alike. 
More challenge followed with the movement of Champions Trophy from Pakistan last year to South Africa this year, owing to security and terrorism issues. It meant some heavyweights having to adjust their calendar to squeeze in this tournament. 
Almost by force, the design of the tournament ended up being what was meant to be: a short, crisp tournament where only the best participated with no meaningless or one-sided contests, at least on paper, which has proved to be the bane of ICC’s other tournaments. 
The Champions Trophy was also being seen as a litmus test for one-day cricket as a format. The opinion was divided among the connoisseurs, with some believing that one-day cricket had done its job and it had successfully transformed into T20 cricket, while others believed that one-day cricket had provided some of cricket’s greatest moments and were unwilling to write it off just yet. 
With the next Champions Trophy not scheduled yet and the belief that it might not find a place once the new Future Tours Programme is drawn in 2012, there was more at stake when Champions Trophy got underway two weeks ago. 
The early season pitches meant teams had to show adaptability and discipline to come out as winners. The pitches varied from being turners, bouncy, flat, to even being dangerous at times. 
Less confident and rusty teams found it difficult. Even heavyweights India and South Africa floundered with the varying conditions and the weight of expectation seemingly affecting their performance. 
Though the tournament didn’t offer gripping contests, all games were competitive. Big totals were given a fair chase, while small totals ended in close finishes. 
In essence, the distinguishing factor of one-day cricket came to the fore. Sure, it isn’t Test cricket, where a less skilled and a less capable side are not expected to come out on top against a champion side over a period of five days. 


Nor is it T20 cricket, where the chasm between sides dwindles so much a team with a good half-hour can take the game away from a superior opposition. 


Teams were willing to pay respect to good bowling and were willing to wait for lesser bowlers before opening up. Good bowling sides were able to choke the opposition for runs, even in the so-called “predictable” middle overs. 
Versatile and competent batting sides were able to adapt to the varying surfaces in the two venues. Sri Lanka struggled to come to terms on bouncier surfaces and South Africa on a turning track couldn’t put bat to ball against Mendis.
India struggled with a poor bowling squad, while West Indies didn’t have a squad worthy of participation. England blew hot and cold.

New Zealand continued to perform above potential, as they always do, and even managed to get to the finals this time. If not for an untimely injury to their captain, they might have surprised Australia in the finals. 
Pakistan—with their strong bowling—had a good tournament, only to be let down by their suspect batting in the semis. The ugly head of match-fixing seems to follow them everywhere. For the moment, nothing is concrete and I’ll leave it at that. 
Australia, with this win, have won all ICC one-day events since the 2003 World Cup in South Africa, barring the 2004 Champions Trophy in England.
They have proved once again that they are the side to beat in big tournaments. They might have floundered in the T20 World Cup and are rebuilding their Test side, but continue to rule the roost in big one-day tournaments. 
This Champions Trophy might not have given the most riveting cricket to the fans and viewers, but has proven that, with the right surfaces in place, one-day cricket is as fascinating as any other form of cricket that demands skills specific to it. 
ICC, if anything, should insist on good sporting wickets around the world if they are serious about the future of one-day cricket. They can only be providers, and with due respect to all those who have written their obituaries for one-day cricket, it is commerce and fans that will decide the future of the sport.
You can also read it here

Getting To Know India's First Baseball Superstars


For quite sometime, America has been casting its network towards the more populous east. Korea and Japan have responded well to America’s baseball charms and the Yankee land more-or-less has captured the big audience in China by signing Yao Ming for the NBA.


While India along with the rest of the world is trying to cash-in on the tremendous potential for cricket in the States, America has in cast its nest in India in the hope of unearthing a Yao Ming like baseball pitcher.


They launched their “Million Dollar Arm” search all over India and 37,000 turned-up to participate. Finally Rinku Singh and Dinesh Kumar Patel were chosen as the winners and were sent to America for further training.


The below video shows the journey of Rinku and Dinesh from not knowing what is baseball to being professional baseball players. (Though the video at times paints the picture of India as a land of snakes, beggars and cattle, I can assure you from personal experience that not all Westerners are that naïve.)





Yes, the video culminates with Pittsburgh Pirates signing Rinku and Dinesh in November 2008. What happened after that?


Good news.


In July this year, Rinku became the first Indian (or Indian-born as MLB.com and Americans prefer it) to win a professional baseball match by striking out the only batter he faced. Dinesh followed suit in August with his first success.


For Pirates’ management team of Neal Huntington and Frank Coonelly, it is a significant moment as Rinku and Dinesh are the first non-Americans they have signed.


They both must feel vindicated with MLB.com having only good things to say about their India signings, “the 6'2" Singh throws 89-90 mph and has a split-finger changeup pitch, [while] the 5'11" Patel throws a circle change and can reach 91-92 mph with his heater”


America and Pirates will hope that they can tap into the riches India has to offer–both economically and in providing a pool of talent.


Here’s hoping that there’s more to follow.


You can also read it here

Monday, October 05, 2009

Today’s the Age of Performance Sportswear

Nike pays Rafael Nadal more than $ 3 million every year to wear its designer clothes. Nadal, by ritual, adjusts his shorts at the seat before he serves. You might think Nike with all the money that it pours into sportswear is incapable of designing Nadal a ‘comfortable’ pair of shorts. Or, Tendulkar for that matter, as he has a habit of adjusting his bread basket before every ball, you’d believe Nike can’t design a comfortable paor of track pants! As with Nadal, it is more a ritual with Tendulkar.

Here, I take a look at the advancements made in the field of performance sportswear. I will refrain from getting into the design specifics of Sharapova and Wozniacki, but will concentrate on swim suits instead.

Swimming is a sport where world records are broken again and again. Many a time, a world record doesn’t stand more than a race. Last year 108 world records were broken.

It is also a sport that is faced with many drug scandals. International Swimming Federation (FINA), the governing body, also has the headache of minimizing the influence of technology in body suits and their apparent influence in inflating the swimmer’s performance.

Performance Sportswear is specialized branch of study. LZR revolutionized swim suits like never before.

Earlier in the year, 31-year-old Swede Therese Alshammar broke her own world record in the 50-meter butterfly category in the Australian Championships in Sydney. She was disqualified for wearing two LZR swimming suits. While it was legal until the week before the race, the rules were changed since, and a negligent world record holder was disqualified.

These suits apparently form an air pocket between the skin and suit which provides a better body position in the water, thereby greatly enhancing the swimmer’s performance.

The suits are constantly monitored for their material (more the non-permeable material, better the performance. It is currently restricted to 50% to the swim suit’s total surface area) and rules change thick and fast. Of course, all swim suits are tested by FINA for clearance.

The rules change so much and so often that some people are caught napping. It was a case of swimming in troubled waters for Alshammer!

Swimsuits might be designed for performance enhancement. So are cycling and football jerseys, for better aerodynamics like a Formula1 car. It is the age of technology, and next time someone can’t back to defend a cross quickly enough, be sure to refer them to LZR.

You can also read it here

Thursday, October 01, 2009

Tiger Woods’ “Appearance Fee” Woes!

Slumdog Millionaire has caught the attention of the Western audience so much so that there is a tremendous interest now in India and in Bollywood. Some Western cities now have full fledged Bollywood dancing schools, and many, from Jay Leno to Milan fashion shows, seem to take keen interest in the personal lives of Bollywood starts.

Now, even the Western sports world is copying the Bollywood stars.

Earlier in the year, Tiger Woods made a come back from a long injury lay off. And the PGA was worried that their revenues were nose diving without his presence. He came back and made a splash. And how! His fit-pumping was back and so was his game.

Woods has apparently asked for a 3 million dollar (Australian) appearance fee to appear in the Australian Masters in Melbourne this November (he surely must have had a chat with Akshay Kumar). The Victorian government has agreed to pay half the appearance fee.

Why?

The Austrailans simply adore Woods, and his first ever appearance in Australia is estimated to bring between 10 and 20 thousand foreign and interstate visitors to Melbourne to catch a glimpse of Woods! And that would mean an influx of 19 million dollars (Australian) into Victoria’s economy according to the auditors of Ernst & Young.

Now that is ingenious. You use the tax payers’ money to pay for Wood’s appearance fee, and then expect the same tax payers to spend more money to come and watch Woods play! Hello! Isn’t that cheating?

I just wonder if such a scenario would work in India. Well, I am not toosure about the number of people that would flock to see Woods play in India (I would, and would ask for tax exemption if the government was paying his appearance fee!), but it certainly may not bring the same millions as it would in a nation like Australia.

May be it would work if the person happened to be a certain Maria Sharapova. With her, I am certain that you don’t even need her to ‘appear’ in one of our WTA tournaments, a simple rumour would do and our television channels would bring in the millions!

You can also read it here

Monday, September 28, 2009

IPL2 Theme Song: It Wasn't Me

This was written when this year's edition of IPL was moved out of India following the government announcing its inability to provide adequate security as it clashed with elections.

24th March 2009

Indian Political League, International Premier League, Indian Problem League, Indian Premier Letdown screamed headlines across news channels and portals the moment IPL bosses announced that they were taking the domestic league overseas.

As one would expect the reactions from politicians, franchise owners, sponsors and organizers reflected that the buck was passed on. Of course, none of them could be held responsible for the sad state of affairs. Somebody else was - what else? - accountable.

Well, if anything, Shaggy’s famous song ‘It wasn’t me’ would easily clinch the deal as the undisputed theme song of IPL2!

Shashank Manohar, President, BCCI, tore into a provocative speech that predictably revolved around how "sorry" he was in taking the IPL out of India and that he deeply "apologized" to the people of India for having to take "their" tournament out of "their" country.

Asked whether they could have done anything to keep the domestic tournament "domestic", he said that they were left with no choice but to take it outside owing to indifferent "attitude" of the government.

Bottom line (BCCI): The government is accountable. It wasn’t me!

Narendra Modi, Chief Minister, Gujarat, criticized the Congress government for "shaming" India’s image as a safe State. He even went to the extent saying that his state would provide the security to hold the entire tournament there even while Gujarat’s DGP remained equivocal of providing security should the entire tournament be held there.

Bottom line (Gujarat): No doubts (barring its DGP!) in our capacity to provide prudent security. Of course, it wasn’t me! Hallo! How about the communal riots in Godhra? What about the security then?

P Chidambaram, Union Home Minister, came out all guns blazing demanding explanation to Shashank Manohar and Narendra Modi’s comments and said that the security issue was decentralized and that it was an issue with the "state governments".

Bottom line (Central Government): In chorus now, it wasn’t me! And, of course, Jai Ho! They have the official rights for that song, remember? And also, if every one is watching cricket who is going to attend political rallies?

Lalit Modi, Chairman, IPL, said that the "tournament had to move on in the interest of "cricket"and "fans". Anyhow, there were "2 billion eyeballs" watching it on TV last year which put the IPL on a pedestal with Olympics and FIFA World Cup as a sporting spectacle. And that ‘99%’ of the audience previous was TV audience, and that the tournament would still cater to the Indian audience at "4 pm" and "8 pm" IST! So much so for city based franchise and rivalry!

Bottom Line (IPL body): We provided 42 different options to the home ministry, but then…. It wasn’t me!

P Chidambaram even said that the IPL was a "shrewd" marriage between "cricket and business" and that there was no need to bring "politics" into it.

Well, Bollywood has successfully embraced cricket. They use if perfectly well to promote films and swell their popularity. If the reason behind not providing security was really that they didn’t have enough resources to cover both election rallies and the IPL, then, they should have brought them both together in this marriage!

If Bollywood stars can go to a cricket match and appeal to the fans to watch their new offerings, then surely the netas can address the fans and ask them to vote. Surely, that would be a feather in Lalit Modi’s cap – IPL deciding the fate of the Indian government (SMS the text VOTE A for Congress, VOTE B for BJP…. and send it to 12345!).

Extending on the thought, it would be fun to listen to netas campaigning between innings of a T20 game: views on morality when skimpily clad cheer girls are doing their thing in the boundary. I would like to know what a Bangalore neta has to say when Chennai’s Dhoni is smacking sixes at the Chinnaswamy and vice-versa.

Fantasies aside, the point is IPL is the only, I say that again, only sporting brand to come out of our country. Superbowl and MLB are American; Wimbledon and EPL are British. The IPL has surpassed them all in popularity and viewer ship in a single season.

We are not a sporting nation by any means, but cricket is a way of life here and by taking it out of here, we have affected the Indianness of the sport. Of course, the TV ratings will be high, and of course cricketers will remain demigods, but our netas have taken our happiness outside of here.

Of what significance is a Bangalore vs. Chennai match to a student in Yorkshire or in Cape Town? Whatever is the answer to the people who filled up stadiums in Bangalore and Hyderabad game after game even when there was no semblance of their teams winning? Who is to blame? Is that what happens when Sharad Pawar and Arun Jaitley wear the hats of both cricket administrators and politicians? At least, who made the most of politicizing this entire thing? All I know is that it wasn’t me!

You can also read it here

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Remembering Jack Kramer: Tennis' Most Significant Figure


It is almost two weeks since Jack Kramer, founder of the ATP, died at his home in Los Angeles aged 88 of soft tissue cancer. I take this opportunity to write on the man who is by far the most significant name in the tennis’ history.

Early Years

Born to a railroad man in Las Vegas in 1921, Big Jake would go on to be a part of the golden generation of American tennis players that dominated world tennis–King, Marble, Riggs, Schroeder, Wills, Budge, Vines.

Young Kramer played an aggressive game with a huge serve which he generally followed-up with a winning volley much like the way Pete Sampras played.

His aggressive serve-and-volley game earned him a doubles spot in the U.S. Davis Cup team in 1939. Almost immediately after that Kramer went away to serve as a Coast Guard officer during the Second World War. He lost some of his best years serving as the Coast Guard officer at the pacific.

After returning from the war he had a great run at Wimbledon in 1946 only to lose in the semi-finals as he suffering from blisters in his feet. He went on to win the U.S. Nationals, forerunner of today’s U.S. Open, the same year.

He followed it-up with a victory in 1947 Wimbledon where he swept past the challenge of Tom Brown 6-1, 6-3, 6-2 in a mere 45 minutes. He went on to defend his U.S. Nationals title in a classic five-setter coming from two sets down to beat Frankie Parker.

That finals holds significance as it was just before the final that Kramer decided that he would turn professional.

"It was simple," he said. "I needed the money."

Also those were the times of “shamateurism” when players stayed amateur so as to compete in the major tournaments but took under the table. It was a significant step for tennis and as Bud Collins, Hall of Fame tennis journalist observes of Kramer, “From a competitor to an administrator to a broadcaster, Jack Kramer was the most important figure in the history of the game.”

Between 1946 and 1953 he was considered to be the no.1 player in the world. At the peak of his powers as a player, he was asked to endorse a racquet from Wilson Sporting Goods. They named it Wilson Kramer.

At His Peak

Kramer chucked his beloved Don Budge for Wilson’s new one but sent it back after going down to Bobby Riggs. He asked Wilson to repaint his beloved Don Budge racquet and Wilson obliged as they wanted to have a racquet named after Kramer.

Since 1947 more than 30 million Wilson Jack Kramer Autograph racquets giving it the distinction of the most popular racquet ever manufactured. Kramer was to get 2.5% of the racquet sales. Wilson eventually had to renegotiate the deal as the racquet sold by the millions.

"We just did a flat rate," Kramer said. "I understood. I was making more money than the president of Wilson Sporting Goods."

He started playing on the pro-tour playing in cities across the world. He had a great time against his rivals Bobby Riggs, Frank Sedgman and Pancho Gonzales. With little left for him to achieve, he retired in 1954–he also was suffering from an arthritic back.

From Player to Advocate

He was by then running the pro-tour that he had dominated so much. He took on the tennis establishments of Australia, England and other nations and sought identity for professional tennis. In those days, there were severe restrictions on the money that could be taken out of Australia, so Kramer took some of his earnings in racehorses.

As “The Kramer circus” grew in stature over the years the pressure began to tell on the tennis federations which finally led to the establishment of “Open tennis” in 1968.

From Advocate to Executive

In 1972 he became the first executive director of the players union, Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP).

Kramer also served as an announcer at Wimbledon for the BBC. BBC banned him in 1973 following a player boycott headed by Kramer. Niki Pilic, the Yugoslavian, refused to play in the Davis Cup and a suspension by the International Tennis Federation extended through Wimbledon. When Wimbledon honored Pilic’s suspension, Kramer led a player boycott that left Wimbledon bereft of top players.

Kramer turned villain as a result. But, as it turned out, it led to players gaining more control of tennis.

Kramer was a shrewd businessman. He once hired “Gorgeous Gussy” Moran to serve as a part of his warm-up matches for one of his tours. As you’d expect he hired her more for her beauty than for her game.

His belief that women didn’t sell as well as the men eventually cost him in 1970 when Billie Jean-King led a walk-out after a tournament run by Kramer, Pacific Southwest tennis tournament, offered only 15% of the available prize money ($50,000) to the ladies. The walk-out led directly to Virginia Slims Tour and then to the creation of Women’s Tennis Association (WTA).

Final Days

The Pacific Southwest tennis tournament became the Jack Kramer Open in 1979 and was known by that name till 1983. His son Bob Kramer runs the event at the UCLA Tennis Center.

This year he saw his last tennis match from the sides his wheelchair as Peter Sampras took on Marat Safin in an exhibition match at the UCLA Tennis Center.

"Dad loved the way Pete played," Bob Kramer said, "because it was a lot like he played."

"He was a class act and always willing to help. I was happy to see him and say hi at the L.A. Tennis Open. This is truly a great loss for tennis," said Sampras the day after Kramer passed away.

Ramanathan Krishnan, the ace Indian player who was offered a three-year contract for $150,000 in 1959 says, “He was a great player, a critic, commentator, and above all, a wonderful human being who cared for fellow players. Open Tennis, as we see today, is the legacy of the great Jack.”

"We all needed money and he helped a lot of players get some," says Rod Laver who came into the game when Kramer was a monumental figure in tennis.

Jack Kramer knew everyone in the game of tennis for over half a century. He was a great tennis player and an astute businessman, but it is for his contribution in the elimination of the line between professionals and amateurs that he will be best remembered.

PS: Quotes from Los Angeles Times and The Hindu

You can also read it here

PPS: This was voted as the Article of the Day at Bleacher Report for 24 September, 2009

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Cricket Laws 40.3(a), 40.4: An Examination of the Brendon McCullum Incident

The lap shot is very common in cricket these days. Also common is the anticipating wicket-keeper moving towards leg slip in hope of catching the ball. But the law says it isn't allowed.


Here, I take a look at one such incident involving Rahul Dravid and Brendon McCullum from a Test match earlier played in the year at Wellington and discuss in accordance to cricket laws 40.3(a) and 40.4


Case

In what transpired out to be the most stunning and controversial moment of the day, McCullum, anticipating Dravid’s paddle sweep, moved to his left hoping to catch the ball in the afternoon of the 3rd Test in Wellington on Sunday. And when he did, only barely, leaving the bowler, batsman, commentary experts and viewers dumbfounded in what was a remarkable piece of anticipation, some were busy digging up the law book to seek if that was, indeed, fair!


Law 40.4: Movement by wicket-keeper

It is unfair if the wicket-keeper standing back makes a significant movement towards the wicket after the ball comes into play and before it reaches the striker. In the event of such unfair movement by the wicket-keeper, either umpire shall call and signal Dead ball. It will not be considered a significant movement if the wicket-keeper moves a few paces forward for a slower delivery.

So, was McCullum a genius or a cheat?


Argument: Cheat

One reading of law 40.4 for wicket-keeper will tell you that McCullum was wrong in moving (almost 4-5 feet down the leg-side) even while Dravid was shaping to go down on his right-knee to lap it through the vacant leg-slip.


The replays showed time-and-again that the moment Rahul even slightly indicated of playing the dingy lap, McCullum was pedaling frantically to his left to cover that shot and Taylor from the First Slip was moving to his left in case Rahul got a top edge, or even if Rahul missed the ball, he would be able to cover for a wicket-keeper not in his position.


All said and done, according to the law, the ball was dead the moment McCullum started making significant movement down the leg even before Rahul had played his shot. Definitely, it was not a case of moving forward a few paces for a slower delivery!

Argument: Genius

There is this wonderful thing in sport, which more often than not separates the best from the rest. It is called anticipation. A batsman can anticipate a short ball and be ready on his back foot to play the shot. When you anticipate well, a batsman can make a quick bowler bowling 150 kmph look silly.


Similarly, a spin bowler who can anticipate a skip down the wicket from the batsman can make him look silly by even getting him stumped by bowling a wide down leg. It goes for fielders, either saving runs or taking catches. Legend has it that the likes of Eknath Solkar moved sideways with the advancing batsman at short-leg and silly-point so as to be ready to take bat-pads of the great spin bowlers of the 60s and 70s.


Unpredictability is what makes sport the ultimate spectacle it is, and when some can anticipate a sequence of play from an opponent, it makes him all the better prepared to tackle what is thrown at him. Like, in this case, McCullum predicted the lap shot, took the chance as his team was in dire need of wicket, and took the catch in a freak moment of genius.


Law 40.4 states that the ball was dead. There is another argument—aw 40.3(a) that states that such a movement be construed a No ball.


Law 40.3: The wicket-keeper shall remain wholly behind the wicket at the striker's end from the moment the ball comes into play until -

(a) a ball delivered by the bowler
either (i) touches the bat or person of the striker
or (ii) passes the wicket at the striker's end

or (b) the striker attempts a run.


In the event of the wicket-keeper contravening this Law, the umpire at the striker's end shall call and signal No ball as soon as possible after the delivery of the ball.

In many cases the law is age-old and overlapping. Here is a case in point. You have the rule of No ball and Dead ball for the McCullum incident (not that you can’t, but why?). In any case, it is impossible for the umpire to determine the position of the wicket-keeper just about when a batsman is to play a shot. Also, it is only normal for wicket-keepers to shoot down the leg on a pre-planned leg-side stumping.


Verdict:

The cricket world hardly made any noise of this or did it call it unfair like it did with the Brad Haddin incident in Australia where he dislodged the bails before the ball hit the stumps. It goes to show the sheer freakish mode of the dismissal. We have seen Gilchrist try that time and again to do a McCullum inAdelaide in 2003-04 when Dravid scored more than 300 runs in that match, but only to come a cropper. Even if McCullum tried, it is highly improbable that he would pull off such a dismissal again in his career.


Many of the laws on the game belie common sense. This is just a case in point. All said and done, well done McCullum!


Picture courtesey: Getty Images