Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Learn to live, learn to give
Posted by
Goutham Chakravarthi L S
at
8:03 AM
6
comments
Links to this post
Labels: poetry
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Champions Trophy Review and the Future of One-Day Cricket
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.
Posted by
Goutham Chakravarthi L S
at
9:14 PM
2
comments
Links to this post
Labels: Champions Trophy 2009
Getting To Know India's First Baseball Superstars
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.
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.
Posted by
Goutham Chakravarthi L S
at
1:55 AM
0
comments
Links to this post
Labels: Dinesh Kumar Patel, MLB, Pittsburgh Pirates, Runku Singh
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
Posted by
Goutham Chakravarthi L S
at
5:35 AM
0
comments
Links to this post
Labels: LZR suits, Nike, Rafael Nadal, Sachin Tendulkar
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
Posted by
Goutham Chakravarthi L S
at
8:51 PM
0
comments
Links to this post
Labels: Akshay Kumar, Bollywood, Golf, Jay Leno, Maria Sharapova, PGA, Slumdog Millionaire, Tiger Woods
Monday, September 28, 2009
IPL2 Theme Song: It Wasn't Me
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 (
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".
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
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;
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.
You can also read it here
Posted by
Goutham Chakravarthi L S
at
5:19 AM
0
comments
Links to this post
Labels: ipl, Lalit Modi, Narendra Modi, P Chidambaram, Shaggy, Shashank Mahohar
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Remembering Jack Kramer: Tennis' Most Significant Figure
Posted by
Goutham Chakravarthi L S
at
11:24 AM
0
comments
Links to this post
Labels: ATP, Jack Kramer, Pete Sampras, Ramanathan Krishnan, Rod Laver, WTA
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 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
either (i) touches the bat or person of the striker
or (ii) passes the wicket at the striker's end
Posted by
Goutham Chakravarthi L S
at
10:11 AM
2
comments
Links to this post
Labels: brendon mccullum, cricket laws, getty images, rahul dravid





