Privy

Yet again, Dial C for Cricket (confusion as I like to call it) lived upto its reputation of making misguided discussions and trying to fit in reasons to conclude, as per convenience. This time they were in search of a hero and seperate him out from the rest of the team, honor him and undermine the efforts of the rest of the team.

Some how, architect of any win are always batsman, though in this match, it was also some great bowling by the Indian’s in the second innings. For England, out of 311 that they scored in the second innings, around 240 were contributed by a single partnership. When England had an opportunity to blow it away, they blew it up, and the credit has to go to our bowlers.

Now, Sachin’s innings was great by far, but I don’t know how would we have looked at it, say if he had not got a century and had Yuvraj (with the same effort that he put) bypassed his score. May be Yuvraj could have been declared the hero, rather than a sidekick that he was portrayed. Anyways, Sachin’s centuries are celebrated more than even double hundreds by other players. The problem is that we go too much into numbers and Sachin himself realises that very well. For Indians, Sachin is the heir apparent to Bradman and any further proofs (if there are still not enough of them), makes us go ga-ga. A little unfair to other players, though.

I hardly found an article even coming close to attributing the win to Sehwag for his out of the world innings. Sachin for me was the architect for India not loosing. With Sehwag’s innings, Sachin could make us win. Without it, Sachin would have still ensured that we didn’t loose.

I do feel for England, who didn’t deserve this, after playing good cricket. But if you look at it in a different light that should a team win because in two innings that it batted, there were only three partnerships? After having a great opening stand, you are all out for 35o?

On the other hand, India also won it fair and square and deserved it anyway. England would have definitely not deserved a draw, but either team winning was the ideal result.

Dial C for cricket on Neo Sports beats Extra Innings on Sony as the worst cricketing show on TV, by far. More so because of the format, its anchor and the callers. The aim of the show is to create controversies where there are none. Though Arun Lal talks sense, the whole show is worth a miss.

The problem starts with the anchor having no cricketing knowledge, or rather a cricketing brain. Next are the callers, who are from a very naive public and then the iteraction between the bozo anchor and the bozo or the hapless caller.

Yesterday, they made a huge hue and cry on Irfan’s selection. Well, media did play its role in fueling the controversy. Our media, like any other, will never become a responsible one. I have lost all hopes even from the likes of Times Now and NDTV.

Ideally, India would prefer an in form Irfan Pathan, because I think we are forgetting the fact that he was the man of the match in the T20 world cup final, that India won on a good bowling performance. So, he will definitely get more opportunities than any other player. Mind you, he has still batted well even while being dropped. The problem in recent times has only been his bowling, for the term bowling allrounder) If he were an offspiner, people would have promoted him to be a batting allrounder instead, even with the same batting capabilities.

By the way Sachin is back and Gambhir might have to give up his opening spot (which I feel is a bad idea).