Kevin Pietersen's unusual reverse-shots against New Zealand in the one-dayer at Chester-le-Street has kicked up quite the storm. The MCC, still the guardians of the laws (and thank god for that, imagine if Lalit Modi had the power to change the Laws of Cricket) are meeting tomorrow to discuss the legality of Pietersen's innovations. What Pietersen did was to alter his grip during the bowler's run-up and thus, effectively, switch to batting left-handed for that delivery. Being a man of remarkable strength and skill, not to mention I strongly suspect being ambidextrous, he was able to use this ploy with great success. Most observers, including the magnanimous opposing captain Daniel Vettori, marvelled at his audacity and ability. Pietersen himself claimed that "Reverse sweeps have been part of the game for however long," he said. "I am just fortunate that I can hit it a bit further. Everybody wants brand new ideas, new inventions and that's a new shot. Nobody has seen it before." This is bad history, as reverse-sweeps have traditionally always been played without changing grip and thus have been perfectly legal.
The most intelligent comments on the matter, with which I can have no disagreement, come from the cricket correspondent of The Guardian, the former England fast bowler Mike Selvey:
"Astounding and audacious strokes these may have been but there is something not quite right about their provenance. It poses a number of questions. Should the batsman be obliged to declare if he is playing right- or left-handed? The bowler has to. Vettori and the bowler would have wanted to change his field setting had he known of the reversal. Had Styris fired the ball away to the right of the stumps, would that have constituted a leg-side wide?"
I am certainly not against innovation- which has been central to the success of the game throughout its history, and has always attracted controversy that has usually died down. Over-arm bowling, for instance, attracted criticism and the anger of umpires when it was first used in the early 1860s- although I daresay Kevin Pietersen cannot claim to be the exponent of such a radical form of change. Ranji, the creator of the leg-glance, was accused of "never having played a Christian stroke in his life". Selvey's argument, however, is near irrefutable. The MCC experts who meet to discuss the issue will, I hope, realize that popular opinion is not as important as the fundamental laws of the game.
Tuesday, 17 June 2008
Sunday, 15 June 2008
The fine art of bad timing
Only a few weeks ago I added to the bloggerati chorus of proclaiming Gordon Brown's slow death and his sure replacement in 2010 by the smarmy Blairesque David Cameron. When election day comes two years from now, the Tories are still overwhelmingly likely to win. But David Davis' bizarre resignation as an MP over the issue of detaining terror suspects for up to 42 days has, at least in the short term, hurt Cameron badly. Before Cameron's sudden and shocking rise at the 2005 Conservative Party Conference, and Davis' limp performance at the same conference, he was the hot favourite to replace Michael Howard as leader of the party (although it should be noted that many commentators had always contended that appointing Davis as leader would be foolish).
After Cameron won the 2005 contest by two to one, he appeased Davis by making him Shadow Home Secretary. Davis' current behaviour is a poor repayment for this generosity. His resignation has made the party look weak, and while he was undoubtedly right on this issue he has alienated the Sun-reading Thatcherite core of the party. What's more, it's a bit rich for a man who opposed the repeal of Section 28 (which allowed local government to promote homosexual relationships in schools) and is a proven social conservative to style himself as a libertarian. Davis allowed Gordon Brown to score his first press victory in months and the Tories' poll lead has slipped by seven points. With potentially two years left for the general election Cameron need not start panicking again. But he might well decide that to distance himself from such a master of bad timing would be a wise course.
After Cameron won the 2005 contest by two to one, he appeased Davis by making him Shadow Home Secretary. Davis' current behaviour is a poor repayment for this generosity. His resignation has made the party look weak, and while he was undoubtedly right on this issue he has alienated the Sun-reading Thatcherite core of the party. What's more, it's a bit rich for a man who opposed the repeal of Section 28 (which allowed local government to promote homosexual relationships in schools) and is a proven social conservative to style himself as a libertarian. Davis allowed Gordon Brown to score his first press victory in months and the Tories' poll lead has slipped by seven points. With potentially two years left for the general election Cameron need not start panicking again. But he might well decide that to distance himself from such a master of bad timing would be a wise course.
Selling state secrets, like Guy Burgess or AQ Khan, is one thing. How about leaving secret government documents on a train?
Thursday, 12 June 2008
Rules
A few near-certainties you can rely on in our uncertain world:
1. In a two-party election, the right-wing candidate will move to the left during the campaign, while the left-wing candidate will move to the right;
2. The winner of the Grammy for Album of the Year will finish outside the top ten in the Village Voice Pazz and Jop poll;
3. A winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature will see his/her works suffer an inexorable decline after the award;
4. Doctors will marry doctors;
5. Harbhajan Singh will continue to bowl over the wicket to left-handers and appeal loudly for LBW when the ball pitches a foot outside leg stump;
6. The BJP and the Democratic Party are protectionists in opposition and free-traders in office;
7. The further north you go, the worse the coffee gets;
8. The winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics will begin to regard himself/herself as an oracle on all matters of social science and ethics;
9. The DMK and AIADMK will win alternate elections in Tamil Nadu;
10. In Kerala, the Left and Congress ditto;
11. A Kannadiga man will have a moustache;
12. Private schools will have disproportionately many Malayali teachers and disproportionately few Muslim ones;
13. The best singer will not win American Idol;
14. Spain will start brilliantly at a football tournament and burn out just as spectacularly;
15. A descendant of Indira Gandhi will be either leader or heir to the throne of the Congress Party;
16. The above Gandhi will have transferred colleges at least once due to academic struggles;
17. With each coming day the headlines in The Times of India will get bigger and the articles shorter;
18. Preoccupied with change we forget the innumerable things which stay the same.
1. In a two-party election, the right-wing candidate will move to the left during the campaign, while the left-wing candidate will move to the right;
2. The winner of the Grammy for Album of the Year will finish outside the top ten in the Village Voice Pazz and Jop poll;
3. A winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature will see his/her works suffer an inexorable decline after the award;
4. Doctors will marry doctors;
5. Harbhajan Singh will continue to bowl over the wicket to left-handers and appeal loudly for LBW when the ball pitches a foot outside leg stump;
6. The BJP and the Democratic Party are protectionists in opposition and free-traders in office;
7. The further north you go, the worse the coffee gets;
8. The winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics will begin to regard himself/herself as an oracle on all matters of social science and ethics;
9. The DMK and AIADMK will win alternate elections in Tamil Nadu;
10. In Kerala, the Left and Congress ditto;
11. A Kannadiga man will have a moustache;
12. Private schools will have disproportionately many Malayali teachers and disproportionately few Muslim ones;
13. The best singer will not win American Idol;
14. Spain will start brilliantly at a football tournament and burn out just as spectacularly;
15. A descendant of Indira Gandhi will be either leader or heir to the throne of the Congress Party;
16. The above Gandhi will have transferred colleges at least once due to academic struggles;
17. With each coming day the headlines in The Times of India will get bigger and the articles shorter;
18. Preoccupied with change we forget the innumerable things which stay the same.
Monday, 9 June 2008
Oil shortage: reality or myth?
The "super-spike" in global oil prices is due to excess consumption and, more importantly, to a major oil shortage. Or is it?
I'm no science expert but I find Dr. Pike's argument somewhat unconvincing. That the leading decision makers in companies and cabinet rooms across the world have such a wrong estimate of world oil reserves is rather difficult to believe.
I'm no science expert but I find Dr. Pike's argument somewhat unconvincing. That the leading decision makers in companies and cabinet rooms across the world have such a wrong estimate of world oil reserves is rather difficult to believe.
Real change, and default "change"
The end of two and a half boom decades has, as always, brought with it political disaster for governments around the world. In France, voters were fed up of the Chirac administration well before last year's election. Yes, a member of Chirac's party, Nicolas Sarkozy, won that election, but that was because he was seen as youthful and more of a break from the past than his Socialist opponent, Segolene Royal. A man previously thought as a candidate for the presidency, Chirac's Prime Minister Dominique du Villepin, stood no chance because of his association with the past.
The situation in the United States is not dissimilar. George Bush is by some distance the most unpopular two-term President in history, and while the country is not yet officially in a recession that it is on the verge of a substantial one is apparent to everyone. It is only in a set of circumstances like these that a politician like Barack Obama can, despite huge obstacles, rise to power and prominence. Not only did Obama have the problem of his race, in a still racially divided nation; he faced an opponent with the kind of institutional advantages that George Bush had when he defeated John McCain in 2000; advantages normally enough to secure victory with ease. Obama's victory is of course a tribute to the courage and resourcefulness of the man and his team. But it was possible only in a political climate where voters are keen to reject the makers of the current order. Hillary Clinton's "experience", her association with the recent epoch of American history was as much of a liability as it was an asset. It is this climate that makes it possible for Obama to defeat John McCain in November, as although McCain has understood the need to project himself as an agent of change, he can never do so to the extent that the Illinois senator can.
It is perhaps easiest for candidates to campaign on the change issue in presidential systems where the force of one's personality can translate into votes. Even in parliamentary systems, parties are increasingly presidential and associated with one person, although far less so than in the USA or France. Such nations have been equally bitten by the change bug, as evidenced by the return of Silvio Berlusconi in Italy.
Two countries where this is especially apparent are the UK and India. In the United Kingdom, Gordon Brown is now labelled by pundits and voters alike as a unique combination of John Major and Jim Callaghan. This is a slightly unfair comparison, for unlike Major and Callaghan (who were both poor Cabinet Ministers), Brown was a broadly successful Chancellor for a decade, his only failing being his failure to significantly reduce income inequalities. As Prime Minister, Brown's bad luck and, more importantly, his lack of charm coupled with a series of appalling gaffes (a particular nadir was his move to abolish the 10p tax band) have meant that it is inevitable that Labour will surrender power at the next election, in 2009 or 2010.
The Congress and its unwieldy UPA group are equally certain to lose, and lose badly, in 2009. The party's implosion is obvious from its series of humiliating defeats in states that it ought to, by the law of anti-incumbency, have stood a decent chance in. The major cause of the government's unpopularity is rampant inflation and economic slowdown, but more generally it is a government that has failed to enthuse even a single section of the electorate. Even Muslims, traditionally loyal Congress voters, have begun to desert the party en masse. As for its allies, the DMK, TRS and Left Front are all set to suffer heavy losses next year as more popular rival parties (AIADMK, TDP, Trinamool Congress) regain the seats they lost in 2004. Coupled with the resurgence of the BJP and the emergence of the BSP, it is safe to write off the UPA's chances of retaining power.
In all four countries, the opposition has consistently lambasted those in power and promised "change". In the US and France, Sarkozy and Obama have, in their vastly different ways, promised real, fundamental, change. I am no militaristic right-winger, but I have to acknowledge that Sarkozy's desire to reform the French economy is probably a fair one. The French national debt has climbed to over 65% of GDP (up from just 20% when Mitterand took office in 1981) and the work and pensions system remains antiquated and inefficient. Barack Obama is the most promising presidential candidate since Roosevelt in 1932: a candidate with the rare commitment to practise a non-divisive politics that is aimed solely at national and global improvement. Voters in the United States are fortunate enough to have a true choice, between a failed old older and real change. It is of course not certain that Obama will be a successful President if elected. Sarkozy's first year in office has been a disappointment, with none of his many promises on the route to fulfillment, although it is far too early to pass judgment on the man's presidency.
In the UK and India, voters are not provided with a meaningful alternative to the incompetent incumbents. The Conservative Party has avoided any talk of what its exact policies are going to be, noting that Labour won in 1997 with a manifesto notable only for its vagueness and failure to commit. Its leader, David Cameron, is a direct political descendant of Tony Blair. When he does talk about policy, rather than values, he seems to be a suspiciously New Labourish sort of person. Similarly, the Indian opposition preaches a change that is no real change. The BJP pushed for a nuclear deal and freemarket policies when in office, but in opposition has positioned itself as a bunch of left-wing populists. Mayawati, having escaped from Ambedkar's shadow, projects herself in a manner eerily reminiscent of the current rulers (although she can at least claim to be made and not born). The change that voters will choose by thrusting this lot into office next year is merely a change of faces, not of policies or attitudes. Voters deserve better than this kind of cynical charade.
The situation in the United States is not dissimilar. George Bush is by some distance the most unpopular two-term President in history, and while the country is not yet officially in a recession that it is on the verge of a substantial one is apparent to everyone. It is only in a set of circumstances like these that a politician like Barack Obama can, despite huge obstacles, rise to power and prominence. Not only did Obama have the problem of his race, in a still racially divided nation; he faced an opponent with the kind of institutional advantages that George Bush had when he defeated John McCain in 2000; advantages normally enough to secure victory with ease. Obama's victory is of course a tribute to the courage and resourcefulness of the man and his team. But it was possible only in a political climate where voters are keen to reject the makers of the current order. Hillary Clinton's "experience", her association with the recent epoch of American history was as much of a liability as it was an asset. It is this climate that makes it possible for Obama to defeat John McCain in November, as although McCain has understood the need to project himself as an agent of change, he can never do so to the extent that the Illinois senator can.
It is perhaps easiest for candidates to campaign on the change issue in presidential systems where the force of one's personality can translate into votes. Even in parliamentary systems, parties are increasingly presidential and associated with one person, although far less so than in the USA or France. Such nations have been equally bitten by the change bug, as evidenced by the return of Silvio Berlusconi in Italy.
Two countries where this is especially apparent are the UK and India. In the United Kingdom, Gordon Brown is now labelled by pundits and voters alike as a unique combination of John Major and Jim Callaghan. This is a slightly unfair comparison, for unlike Major and Callaghan (who were both poor Cabinet Ministers), Brown was a broadly successful Chancellor for a decade, his only failing being his failure to significantly reduce income inequalities. As Prime Minister, Brown's bad luck and, more importantly, his lack of charm coupled with a series of appalling gaffes (a particular nadir was his move to abolish the 10p tax band) have meant that it is inevitable that Labour will surrender power at the next election, in 2009 or 2010.
The Congress and its unwieldy UPA group are equally certain to lose, and lose badly, in 2009. The party's implosion is obvious from its series of humiliating defeats in states that it ought to, by the law of anti-incumbency, have stood a decent chance in. The major cause of the government's unpopularity is rampant inflation and economic slowdown, but more generally it is a government that has failed to enthuse even a single section of the electorate. Even Muslims, traditionally loyal Congress voters, have begun to desert the party en masse. As for its allies, the DMK, TRS and Left Front are all set to suffer heavy losses next year as more popular rival parties (AIADMK, TDP, Trinamool Congress) regain the seats they lost in 2004. Coupled with the resurgence of the BJP and the emergence of the BSP, it is safe to write off the UPA's chances of retaining power.
In all four countries, the opposition has consistently lambasted those in power and promised "change". In the US and France, Sarkozy and Obama have, in their vastly different ways, promised real, fundamental, change. I am no militaristic right-winger, but I have to acknowledge that Sarkozy's desire to reform the French economy is probably a fair one. The French national debt has climbed to over 65% of GDP (up from just 20% when Mitterand took office in 1981) and the work and pensions system remains antiquated and inefficient. Barack Obama is the most promising presidential candidate since Roosevelt in 1932: a candidate with the rare commitment to practise a non-divisive politics that is aimed solely at national and global improvement. Voters in the United States are fortunate enough to have a true choice, between a failed old older and real change. It is of course not certain that Obama will be a successful President if elected. Sarkozy's first year in office has been a disappointment, with none of his many promises on the route to fulfillment, although it is far too early to pass judgment on the man's presidency.
In the UK and India, voters are not provided with a meaningful alternative to the incompetent incumbents. The Conservative Party has avoided any talk of what its exact policies are going to be, noting that Labour won in 1997 with a manifesto notable only for its vagueness and failure to commit. Its leader, David Cameron, is a direct political descendant of Tony Blair. When he does talk about policy, rather than values, he seems to be a suspiciously New Labourish sort of person. Similarly, the Indian opposition preaches a change that is no real change. The BJP pushed for a nuclear deal and freemarket policies when in office, but in opposition has positioned itself as a bunch of left-wing populists. Mayawati, having escaped from Ambedkar's shadow, projects herself in a manner eerily reminiscent of the current rulers (although she can at least claim to be made and not born). The change that voters will choose by thrusting this lot into office next year is merely a change of faces, not of policies or attitudes. Voters deserve better than this kind of cynical charade.
Saturday, 7 June 2008
Tyger, Tyger
One of the more amusing forwards to pop up in my inbox:
Actual poem by a Bengali schoolteacher
Through the jongole I am went
On shooting Tiger I am bent
Boshtaard Tiger has eaten wife
No doubt I will avenge poor darling's life.
Too much quiet, snakes and leeches.
But I not fear these sons of beeches.
Hearing loud noise I am jumping with start
But noise is coming from damn fool's heart
Taking care not to be fright
I am clutching rifle tight with eye to sight.
Should Tiger come I will shoot and fall him down,
Then like hero return to native town.
Then through trees I am espying one cave ,
I am telling self - "Bannerjee be brave"
I am now proceeding with too much care
From far I smell this Tiger's lair
My leg shaking, sweat coming, I start pray
I think I will shoot Tiger some other day.
Turning round I am going to flee
But Tiger giving bloody roar spotting Bengalee
He bounding from cave like footballer Pele
I run shouting "Kali Ma tumi kothay gele"
Through the jongole I am running
With Tiger on my tail closer looming
I am a telling that never in life
I will risk again for my damn wife!!!!
Actual poem by a Bengali schoolteacher
Through the jongole I am went
On shooting Tiger I am bent
Boshtaard Tiger has eaten wife
No doubt I will avenge poor darling's life.
Too much quiet, snakes and leeches.
But I not fear these sons of beeches.
Hearing loud noise I am jumping with start
But noise is coming from damn fool's heart
Taking care not to be fright
I am clutching rifle tight with eye to sight.
Should Tiger come I will shoot and fall him down,
Then like hero return to native town.
Then through trees I am espying one cave ,
I am telling self - "Bannerjee be brave"
I am now proceeding with too much care
From far I smell this Tiger's lair
My leg shaking, sweat coming, I start pray
I think I will shoot Tiger some other day.
Turning round I am going to flee
But Tiger giving bloody roar spotting Bengalee
He bounding from cave like footballer Pele
I run shouting "Kali Ma tumi kothay gele"
Through the jongole I am running
With Tiger on my tail closer looming
I am a telling that never in life
I will risk again for my damn wife!!!!
Those marvellous men and their moustaches
A report in The Independent cites the authors of a book who claim to have found that facial hair is losing popularity in India, and may disappear in the coming decades. They evidently didn't visit the South: any one who takes the time to look at the members of the new cabinet in the state of Karnataka will notice that not even one gentleman is clean-shaven. The front-bench of the Congress, on the other hand is notable for the absence of moustaches- Kharge, Krishna and Dharam Singh are all clean-shaven- but this reeked of urbanism and, while I say this in jest, perhaps there is some sort of correlation between this and their electoral woes?
Of faith and dreams and fathers; and Iran
In The Independent, Johann Hari provides an interesting way of looking at the Obama-McCain race: an examination of the diverse journeys of their respective fathers, both of whom have had books written about them by their sons. I learned from the article that Niall Ferguson, the Harvard history prof, is McCain's foreign policy adviser. Ferguson is best known as a modern advocate of colonialism: he has long argued that the US should become a new sort of British Empire, invading and reforming the savages wherever they live in the world. Ferguson's arguments found scant support in Britain, but he has made quite a name for himself across the Atlantic; his other pet scheme is the abolition of all existing taxes and their replacement with a 33% sales tax (Huckabee-style economics). It should be admitted that Ferguson has written some fine books and is by no means not respected within the academy. He is also a champion of counterfactual history.
***********************************************************************
John McCain's expected and deeply disingenuous ploy of making Obama appear to be "soft" on Iran has led the Democractic nominee appear more hawkish on the issue. This might worry some who, like me, find Obama's foreign policy ideas to be his most appealing. But it ought not to truly detract from his world standing, for it is surely not hard to understand the pressures that he is under. McCain is clearly a man with little understanding of economics and no new or interesting policy ideas. He thus has to rely on the national security card to win votes, especially in states like Ohio and Michigan where his best economic ideals (his belief in free trade) do not go down well with voters. It is thus necessary for Obama to counter this move by seeming like something of a hardliner himself. If he manages to find a way of appearing both strong to the American people, who always seem to need an "enemy", usually a fictitious one, and at the same time maintain his commitment to negotiation and intelligent diplomacy, it will be a supreme balancing act. Even if he does not strike this balance during the campaign, and errs on the side of hawkishness, there is no cause for us to think that he would be a hawk as President.
***********************************************************************
John McCain's expected and deeply disingenuous ploy of making Obama appear to be "soft" on Iran has led the Democractic nominee appear more hawkish on the issue. This might worry some who, like me, find Obama's foreign policy ideas to be his most appealing. But it ought not to truly detract from his world standing, for it is surely not hard to understand the pressures that he is under. McCain is clearly a man with little understanding of economics and no new or interesting policy ideas. He thus has to rely on the national security card to win votes, especially in states like Ohio and Michigan where his best economic ideals (his belief in free trade) do not go down well with voters. It is thus necessary for Obama to counter this move by seeming like something of a hardliner himself. If he manages to find a way of appearing both strong to the American people, who always seem to need an "enemy", usually a fictitious one, and at the same time maintain his commitment to negotiation and intelligent diplomacy, it will be a supreme balancing act. Even if he does not strike this balance during the campaign, and errs on the side of hawkishness, there is no cause for us to think that he would be a hawk as President.
Monday, 2 June 2008
A throwback genius will never spin again
Stuart MacGill, for a decade the best bowling understudy in world cricket, has announced a sudden but not unsurprising retirement from the game. MacGill, like Rajinder Goel and Padmakar Shivalkar, was cursed by having been born at the wrong time. Just as Goel and Shivalkar found their path to test cricket blocked by the immortal Bishan Singh Bedi, MacGill could usually only get a game when Shane Warne, the greatest spinner in the history of the game, was injured or banned. Thus he played just 44 Tests, but took over 200 wickets; one of the best strike rates for any spinner in the modern era. When he played together with Warne, it was usually at his home stadium, the Sydney Cricket Ground, where he invariably was the better performer. It was fitting that his initials were SCG.
As a cricketer MacGill was a throwback to a better past. He was every inch a test cricketer- he only played three one-dayers, and although he bowled well in those, he was an entirely one-dimensional cricketer in a team characterized by multiple skills. He was a true no. 11- a worse bat even than McGrath and an unathletic, erratic fielder. But he could bowl, and how- combining a legbreak and loop every bit Warne's equal with a wonderfully disguised, biting googly reminiscent of Qadir and Mushtaq Ahmed. He did bowl a four-ball every over or so, but in that sense he was a classic legspinner, unlike Warne, who possesed an eerily masterful control. Even as a person, MacGill was something of an oddball in the Australian team; famously, he once read 26 books during a tour to Zimbabwe.
After waiting nine years for Warne to retire, form and fitness cruelly deserted him just as the master had finally departed. Unlike Warne, Stuart MacGill will get a tame ending, bowing out at a two-thirds empty Sir Vivian Richards Oval rather than at a packed SCG, which on 6 January last year celebrated not only Warne and McGrath but also the first Ashes whitewash since 1921. Speaking of the Ashes, if Australia had only played MacGill over Gillespie or Kasprowicz in the Ashes tests of 2005, England would never have won the series.
Modern cricket has few good leg-spinners, and fewer old-fashioned "specialists". The cricketing artist is an even rarer breed. Stuart MacGill was all three. In an era where sixty-yard boundaries prevail, where six-hitting and yorkers are the only skills that are prized, cricketers who provide the fan with aesthetic pleasure are almost impossible to find. Stuart MacGill is retiring with many regrets, and the game is immeasurably poorer for his departure.
As a cricketer MacGill was a throwback to a better past. He was every inch a test cricketer- he only played three one-dayers, and although he bowled well in those, he was an entirely one-dimensional cricketer in a team characterized by multiple skills. He was a true no. 11- a worse bat even than McGrath and an unathletic, erratic fielder. But he could bowl, and how- combining a legbreak and loop every bit Warne's equal with a wonderfully disguised, biting googly reminiscent of Qadir and Mushtaq Ahmed. He did bowl a four-ball every over or so, but in that sense he was a classic legspinner, unlike Warne, who possesed an eerily masterful control. Even as a person, MacGill was something of an oddball in the Australian team; famously, he once read 26 books during a tour to Zimbabwe.
After waiting nine years for Warne to retire, form and fitness cruelly deserted him just as the master had finally departed. Unlike Warne, Stuart MacGill will get a tame ending, bowing out at a two-thirds empty Sir Vivian Richards Oval rather than at a packed SCG, which on 6 January last year celebrated not only Warne and McGrath but also the first Ashes whitewash since 1921. Speaking of the Ashes, if Australia had only played MacGill over Gillespie or Kasprowicz in the Ashes tests of 2005, England would never have won the series.
Modern cricket has few good leg-spinners, and fewer old-fashioned "specialists". The cricketing artist is an even rarer breed. Stuart MacGill was all three. In an era where sixty-yard boundaries prevail, where six-hitting and yorkers are the only skills that are prized, cricketers who provide the fan with aesthetic pleasure are almost impossible to find. Stuart MacGill is retiring with many regrets, and the game is immeasurably poorer for his departure.
Sunday, 1 June 2008
Idiots
The fact that supposedly respected Indian publications rewrite their letters to the editor to the point where they don't remotely resemble the original letter (either in language or spirit) is appalling. And quite mystifying- why not just print the darn thing as it is?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
