The aftermath of my Ambrose post...

After my post yesterday, the friend came up with two interesting points to illustrate why my approach might be wrong. While his points are very interesting and might sound as logical as my earlier post on paper, I had to respectfully disagree and I just did that.

So this post gives you an account of the points he raised and my response to him. At this point I really want to thank the two people for making this interesting engagement possible, my friend and his friend whom I guess I can call "my friend" henceforth. Thanks to them, I have my second post in 24 hours after a break of almost an year.

 I love the allure of statistics, ratios and averages. End of the day. its about wickets and runs. I mean Kohli has an average of 40 and 50 in tests and ODIs and so does Dhoni. it does not make MSD as good a batsman is VK? Or maybe he is.

Cricket as a game is loaded against the bowlers. Everything favours the batsmen, the bowler is only remembered for his worst performance (unless and until he’s part of the list we discussed in the previous post). Case in point is Chetan Sharma who is still remembered for that last ball he bowled to Miandad. Nobody even bothers to talk about his world cup hattrick against the Kiwi’s in 1987.

Now, coming to your comparing batting averages against the numbers I put up in my previous post…

They are chalk & cheese. You can’t compare the bowling strike rate with the batting average. Why strike rate, you can’t even compare the bowling average with the batting average.

Batting average is a straight division of the RUNS MADE by INNINGS TAKEN leaving out the innings one was UNBEATEN (Not Out). Note: There is a Not Out consideration

Bowling average is about the runs conceded per wicket

Bowling strike rate is about the balls bowled before a wicket was taken

You don’t have a measure to directly compare the two averages.

If I made one up, it would be something like this..

Ambrose played 179 innings for his 405 wickets. The average would be 405/179 = 2.26. Meaning he took something like 2 wickets per innings (Murali will have 3.5 with his 800 wickets in 230 innings). 

But this is still not comparable, because there isn’t anything that would come close to a Not Out in bowling. And they are two completely different trades although in the same game, Bowling and Batting.

There is a Batting Strike Rate which measures the number of runs scored per 100 balls.

Let us look at Ambrose again, he faced 3080 balls for his 1439 runs. So his strike rate is 1439/3080 (*100) = 46.72

VVS Laxman faced 17,785 balls for his 8781 runs with a strike rate of 49.37.

So can we say Laxman = Ambrose ? You will call me names J

Because for a batsman you need to look at the average in the long haul. You can compare a Kohli & Dhoni with the averages. That would be a Quantitative take, purely based on runs scored and innings taken. If you compare their batsmanship on technique and flair, that would be a Qualitative take.

And yes, for a Quantitative take you need to define your minimum requirement. For example you cannot compare a player A who has only played 15 innings with a player B who had played 125 innings. That is why in many cases cricket statisticians define a min comparison requirement in terms of the number matches played.

Now getting back to our topic, bowling. The analysis I provided only gives you a prediction, a forecast had Ambrose played a bit more, bowled a bit more. According to the stats, I concluded that he might have taken more wickets and broken into the top 3 wicket takers had he played more, bowled more. But we all know he didn’t.

So in this case, what I wrote as my concluding para (two paras) is what matters (BTW, I struck down the uncomfortable truth in the game of cricket).

“For the time he has spent on the field, he has done extraordinarily well. Just that we are trained / conditioned to look at the wrong piece of stat to decide who / what a best bowler is

Hence Ambrose is surely among the best of bowlers Cricket world has seen, irrespective of 400 or 800.”

So is it in soccer, it is about goals. hence Messi + Ronaldo will always be the highest rated. of course this year, Lewandowski might have a chance at it. 
In Tennis, you have no choice but to see tournament wins. 
In Athletics; Gold medals, not even Silver. How cruel. Who cares if Usain Bolt is last of the blocks. Or if he pulls up before the tape. 
My boss would want to know if i made plan. Nothing to do with productivity, averages etc etc etc.

Every game has its different way of looking at player performance. I would say the soccer stats are very cruel too. They are only forward / midfield friendly. What happens to a defender or a non goal scorer ? How do you evaluate him ?

Again, you cannot bring athletics or any individual sport / single player game in here. Because in those cases performance evaluation is simple, like you say about Usain Bolt. It is black or white. So you don't need the crutch of a piece of stat to measure effectiveness.

For me, the three (all round) stat friendly team games (from a player performance evaluation perspective) are basketball (NBA), Baseball (MLB) and Ice-hockey (NHL).

So in summary, two very interesting points raised by this friend

Comparing the bowling statistics to batting: My answer is simple, we cannot directly compare a piece of bowling stat with that of batting. Plus what I did in my previous post is not to prove that Ambrose would definitely have taken 800 wickets or more.

It was an attempt to see if he might have had be played more. Given what his performance is, the stats say that he might have. We know he didn't.

But the main point is that the fact that he didn't doesn't in anyway eclipse the fact that he is a top class bowler.

And two,

You cannot compare individual sports with individual sports. Or for that matter compare a game A to B in terms of the stats you churn out, for certain indicators might not be in vogue or even available for the sport in question. 

Stats: Thanks to Cricinfo

Could Curtly Ambrose have ended up with 800 test wickets ?

After hibernating for long, I decided I should do a post on this one.

To give a background, a good friend posts a video of Curtly Ambrose running through the Australians 23 years ago. A friend of that friend posts a nice piece of stat showing the top wicket takers in the world and bemoans the fact as to why Ambrose is not among the highest wicket takers in the world. In the post below, I try to reason why his anguish might be a little misplaced.

To get things going, that is the link for the video and see below for the nice piece of stat this friend of my friend had posted.

And now, what do I think about Ambrose the bowler ?

Top bowler in cricket is a warped term. We see top from the perspective of the number of wickets taken.

If you go by that, yes Ambrose ended up with 405 wickets.

Let me show you how he compares with Muralidaran

Number of Matches: Ambrose (A) = 98 Murali (M) = 133

Number of innings: A = 179 M = 230

Wickets taken: A = 405 M = 800

Strike rate (balls taken per wicket): A = 54.5 M = 55

Number of balls bowled: A = 22,103 M = 44,039

What can we see from there ?

1. Murali has played 35 more matches than Ambrose (51 innings more)
2. Murali has taken twice the number of wickets (almost)
3. The two bowlers have taken more or less the same number of balls per wicket
4. Murali has bowled almost twice the number of balls Ambrose bowled

Keeping in mind the fact that their strike rate is almost the same, we should note the following

• Ambrose played less number of matches / innings compared to Murali
• But the clincher, Murali had twice the opportunity Ambrose had to get his 800

Now, there could be other counter arguments like

• Murali took 5 wickets an innings 3 times more than Ambrose (A = 22 M = 67)
•  Murali took 10 wickets per match 7 times more than Ambrose (A = 3 M = 22)

According to me there are three (actually two) types of bowlers (and their ways of getting test wickets)

1. An assiduous one who keeps working for his wickets
2. A gifted one who strikes at will (Dale Steyn for example)
3. A combination of both

Most of the bowlers belong to the first category, where if you wanted to use a cricket cliché, they hunted in pairs. Murali was a combination, may be mainly because he didn’t have anyone to combine with for most part of his career.

The problem while hunting in pairs is that you are sharing the workload and hence the fruit too. If you compare for example Walsh with Ambrose (and discount the fact that Walsh played more tests compared to Ambrose) you will see that both have produced very similar results. The important fact there is that Ambrose has a better strike rate or wicket taking ability among the two. But he has still ended up with lesser wickets compared to Walsh (519) thanks to the fact that he played lesser games than him (Walsh = 132, Innings = 242).

The fact that most of the bowlers in the list  of top wicket takers are fast bowlers again plays a huge role in the workload per match / innings (in other words the number of overs they bowled).

So considering the fact that Ambrose was a genuine fast bowler let us discount the comparison on the number of overs bowled vis-à-vis Murali. He couldn’t have bowled that many overs.

Then we can conclude that had Ambrose played a bit more (even to the extent Walsh did), he would have surely broken into the Top 5 if not the 3.

For the time he has spent on the field, he has done extraordinarily well. Just that we are trained / conditioned to look at the wrong piece of stat to decide who / what a best bowler is

Hence Ambrose is surely among the best of bowlers Cricket world has seen, irrespective of 400 or 800.

Stats: Courtesy Cricinfo 

Letter to a dear friend...

Dear Prof.,

Greetings !!

I beg to differ on lot of things you had said in our whatsapp conversation. In fact, I will use a stronger word, that I DISAGREE on the things you say. Let us go point by point to see why.

a.      That map isn’t the true picture of India: Why do I think so ? Rape or atrocities on women is not unique to India. I am not going to give you statistics and start a discourse about “rape per capita” of India vis-à-vis western countries. When SIR Jimmy Saville, the great BBC presenter was mired in child sex abuse cases no one in England painted a map of it with crying children. Rape is horrific and to condone this pop culture of painting a whole country’ map with that and to say that that is the true picture of our country is just SAD (yes, in caps)

b.      Are we now a sick society ? NO (again in caps): Please do remember that this society which you call sick is the one that houses people like your father, brother, husband, friends like me and many more who don’t believe in and are strongly against the abuse of women. We all make this society, so to call it sick is calling all of us sick. Painting all of us black in one stroke is just NOT RIGHT (again in caps). But yes, there are some sick people in our society like in any other society. Like another famous English man and glam rock singer Gary Glitter. Another English pedophile, do people like him make England a sick society ?

c.      You say you need that documentary to make people aware of such things: Didn’t we not have press coverage of the incident itself ? Didn’t we have many debates about how to change the mindset then ? And how do you think that a BBC documentary that is mainly for western consumption, to show us as savages that was also going to be telecast in an Indian English news TV that is #2 or #3 among English news TV will make people aware ? Who are the people you are referring to ? People like you and me ? But we already know and are aware of this thing. I don’t have girls, yes. But I do speak to my boys about respecting fellow human beings irrespective of caste, creed, colour, sex or occupation. So I don’t need to be educated about such things and I think you don’t have that need too. Do you think this documentary will reach those who need to be reached ? I don’t think the motive was to educate or make OUR (caps again) people aware of such things. Did BBC make a documentary of Saville, Glitter or the famous VIP pedophile ring with the intention of informing, educating and make the British society aware of the evils it was facing ? NO (caps again !!) The motive here is to show us as a sick society of savages who run around raping and abusing women. And that my dear friend is just not on

This documentary is sick, perverse and paints all of us Indian men with the same brush as rapists and abusers of women. My mother, sister, wife and many of my good friends including you are women. I respect each one of them for what they are and would continue to. Not only that, I will also educate my boys to continue this tradition of respecting the people who bring us to life, our women. And I don’t need BBC to preach me about respecting women. Let them go do it in their country, talk about the many pedophiles, rapists and savages they have.

And these so called “liberals”, the sepoys of the west among us who promote such discourse that shows our great country in poor light ? God bless them.

You, Professor play an important role shaping the future of this country. So please tell the future generation how great a country we are and how we should be. Educate the future about these lumpen elements in our midst and how to quell them from our society. But please don’t be party to this, “We are a sick society” discourse. It is just disrespecting your father, brother, husband & your friends like me and many more. We don’t want a generation that hates men or views all of them with suspicion.

Bharat MATA Ki Jai !!

regards>raja

10, what a small number...

10 was a small number till a while back, my sons knew that from times I don’t remember.

If you want to test me about “Times”

I know all the important details…

Their names, as they are spelt in official papers with the exception of a stray “d”, “h”, “t” & “a”

Their dates of birth, to the year plus or minus 2

And believe me, even the class they are in, at least 2 in 12 times

Ok, coming back to the story… 3,650 days, many things have happened in the interim

A big move, geographically

A bigger move, the birth of a son

Even bigger, setting up a young family at a distant land unknown

And bigger, getting a school admission for the son

More, when the second son was born

Much more, when he got to the same school as his elder brother

And yes, the biggest of all…

Something that was the BIG, great start of these small big things above

The day when RoopaK took up a great challenge, the greatest of her life till

Anirudhha & Anantaa got together

Yes, it is 10 years since she committed the blunder of her life

I have no shame in admitting that I am Mr RoopaK and it is 10 years since that name change of mine happened

Thank you RoopaK for the wonderful and most adventurous 10 years we have had…

I am sure I haven’t lived up to your standards and I am not sure I ever will

Sweets, here’s to many more…

Ladies & Gentlemen who were vocal about a certain maoist supporter...

The Chennai, Tamil Nadu that was vocal about civil rights when a certain Binayak Sen was imprisoned is sleeping now...

For the nation has started talking about corruption, the favorite past time of our favorite politicians in our state and we care a damn about it (we have historically, chosen the lesser evil)... As much as income tax is a certain % of our annual income, so is the allocation towards the "tea expenses" of the public servants, we have become "the barbie's in their hands" (Kai Paavai, as they say in Tamil)...

Tamil Nadu, let us wake-up...

There is life more than watching a Vadivelu campaign for a certain party slandering the other... And the lady who says her opponents family is corrupt is no saint either... Leave alone those who don't know what power is in Tamil Nadu for more than even Google could remember...

It is time for us to say "Kollai Addichuttanga, OK... Meesala Maan Ottrathukku Munnala Muzhichukitten !!" (They plundered, it's okay... I woke up before they stripped me nude !!)

The feeling of saying a goodbye...

As “The Corrs” song, “Goodbye” blasted through my little big car stereo I was driving out of MEC, Dubai’s parking. As I waved off to one of MEC parking’s many friendly neighbourhood Pakistani security guards, I was feeling different. Very different from the last time I did this, apart from the fact that it was Jethro Tull who was with me as I waved off and it was 8p, there was a major difference.

I had a joblist ready for the next day in office and I had told Ashwini, Agnello & Raju that I would meet them on Sunday.

Today was my last day at office, I had already given away the access card and the parking permit which were like Karna’s armour for me. Mathew had already read the list of my end of service benefits, how they added up to that handsome sum and when he would deposit that crossed cheque into my loan laden ADCB account.

Mani had sent me the two cardboard boxes, slightly bigger than 5 year old Anirudhha’s pencil box to which I loaded my belongings. After a hearty lunch with my team, a cake cutting and a ceremonial opening of my parting gifts, I was ready to go. End of sentence.

As I waited at the exit of the lane next to the office, to join the main stream Media City I was feeling heady, gasping for breath. I felt like one of those Zardari’s non state actors. Not what they exactly were, but someone who didn’t have a state or as someone who just lost his state, his identity.

I had just renounced my rights at MEC / mc2. I wondered who I was, of course when Sidhartha renounced he was Buddha and me ?

Four years of relationship, new office, pitches won & lost, fights, appraisals, less bonus, low increments, four birthday cakes, one more son in the family, it was a fairytale journey. If there were rollercoasters in fairytales that is exactly the journey I’m talking about.

I don’t have a joblist for tomorrow, I can wake up anytime I want. I can wear my favorite jeans, T-shirt and sneakers, watch television, even have a drink at 11a in the morning. But it wouldn’t be fun, it wouldn’t match the moment every morning when I picked my phone up and said, “Ya, Andy tell me…”

Miss you MEC / mc2

More than anything, I’ll miss you Andy… God bless you for all those good things you have done to me !!

Vin Sinners: Howz that ?

VIN SINNERS, I am proud I know this guy.

Listen to the first track “Something to believe in” and you will know why.

Some truly original music, mind blowing stuff …

My untrained ears can hear strains of Mark Knopfler in the first track (who actually rocks like he never has !!).

The second (Book of faces) is something that gets me reminisce "Indus Creed" the foremost of the popular Indian bands to reach out to the public. The track for me sounded a bit of an “Indian Rock” the mandatory you see in the Bollywood movies these days.

“The wise man” compensates if at all are disappointed with the “Book of faces” like I have. It would actually be a wise bet listening to this track before one proceeds to the “Book of faces”. This one is a truly rocking track. Here, I can hear James Hetfield & a Bruce Dickinson and more.

The next track is an alternative version. And frankly the untrained me doesn’t understand what an alternative version means.

Overall, as you are driving in your car am sure this is an album which would make your way back home lively and the one that would get you charged-up as you are one your way to work.

In total an album I would want to have in my car.

PS: I haven’t talked about the lyrics as yet as we only have one song in full “Something to believe in”, you get to read bits of it on the left side of the reverberation screen if you are like me, smarter people would realize how brilliant the lines are hearing !!

Finally the hibernation is over...

At least on BCC! as of today...

Posted a blog on Bored in defense of Lalit Modi. I post my blog and move on to the Indian news TV websites and what do I see ?

I see a story about one of my favorites talking about the issue. Sharp tongued Bishen Bedi lashing it out on the whole BCCI & IPL establishement.

Going by what the acerbic Paaji has said in the interview, it looks like Angad wouldn't be back for the next IPL season.

Keep talking sir !! We love you talking

Wish Bish...

Now showing on Bored...
Go there and say Happy Bored day to Bishen Singh Bedi !!

WADA: The holy cows & little lambs

The debate rages on, the latest to join the issue is Shashank Manohar, chief of the BCCI. While he has not said anything about what BCCI’s answer would be to the Sports Ministry, he has said they would discuss about the issue with ICC.

May be he could have made the lives of the journo's simple had he said, “Let me discuss that with Sharad Pawar and come back”

Going back to the January of 2009, it was the ICC which had approved and implemented the WADA regulations. I am not sure if a single official at ICC could take a unilateral decision to sign the regulations. For, the ICC is supposedly a council. Hence it wouldn't be wrong if one assumed that the decisions must be consensual.

The Indian board and all the other “little lambs” that are following the BCCI today had time till July ’09 to think about WADA. To read, re-read, evaluate & re-evaluate the merits and demerits. The BCCI woke up after August 01, 2009, that was when the “Whereabouts” clause was to be implemented. That too after a couple of holy cows moo-ed.

The worst thing is that NADA, the National Anti-doping Agency of India has been writing to BCCI to know what their response / opinion / view on doping and WADA regulations are, but the BCCI has not been responding.

BCCI’s holier than thou behaviour could be justified by saying that they are not answerable to the government or any governmental agency, they are a private co-operative society after all. But when it comes to upholding the integrity of the game, when it comes to guarding the spirit of sportsmanship the BCCI should have answered.

Add this to the BCCI’s rhetoric of starting their own dope control agency which I am sure has not even seen a pen and paper, it makes one whine. I am sure the BCCI can get away with murder in India, because they are not dependent on the government and they are cash rich but the other “little lambs” that want to follow this Mary today would have to herd back to their respective farms once their governments wink on this issue.

So it wouldn’t be long before the BCCI is left orphaned with an immoral cause.

Should WADA have spoken to the Government of India about cricket ?

This is the latest of the series of million dollar questions about WADA. There have been a million of these questions in the last couple of months. This one assumes some importance as there have not been any WADA questions for a while now. And some of us know the fact that the BCCI is a private co-operative society and not a government controlled sports body.

So why should WADA speak to the government, when the GoI doesn’t control the BCCI ?

Don't they know BCCI is not controlled by the Indian government ?

What will WADA achieve by speaking to the GoI about cricket ?

Is WADA bureaucratic in its ways ?

Two reasons why WADA could have spoken to the government

1. To assess the kind of interest the Government of India has in getting rid of doping from sports. There have been far too many voices against the “Whereabouts” clause, but most notably there was one voice of support, that of the Union minister of Sports, MS Gill.

We still don't know if it were his private opinion or the governments. There has not been a declared GoI position on the whole issue. So may be WADA wanted an official word on their position

2. The most important reason, if cricket gets to the Olympics then it would be the GoI & IOC who would be responsible for the Indian cricket team.

So what happens to the BCCI and its selection panel ?

The BCCI would select and recommend a team to the IOC and then the IOC & the GoI would get them to the Olympics.

So whenever that happens, the cricketers too must conform to the Olympic spirit and standards

Therefore what WADA have done is not at all surprising. They have done the right thing in speaking to the Sports Ministry who in turn control the local anti-doping agency NADA in India.

So if there is any such thing called an Indian dope control standard, it has to be the NADA which would govern it till the BCCI decides to give life and unleash the paper tiger of having its own dope control agency.

Let us not forget a key fact, WADA is just an enabler...

A key to shut the arena of sports away from the menace called doping. To offer a level playing field for the sportsmen & women around the world. The moment they become bureaucratic in their ways, the whole reason of their existance would be comprimised. As a responsible body, I am sure WADA is aware of this fact and would make sure they never get there.

Recreation time…

The WADA story keeps floating up and down the sports headlines for the last couple of months. Most of the Indians and the cricketing community didn’t know the difference between this WADA and the one sandwiched between a Pav. Suddenly every Tom, Dick and Hari is speaking about it.

There are some people who subscribed to WADA initially who have now woken up rejuvenated once they heard that the Indian cricket board is against it. Agreed FIFA is in two minds but, most of the other game chiefs are in agreement that the arena of sports and sportspeople in particular should be clean.

The simple reason why...

Because they are role models for the youngsters, The Gen X, Y & Z

There was a report in the Guardian recently about this. Before dissecting the content of the report, let us remind the goodfellas at the Guardian that the Indian Premier League has still not spoken anything about the WADA regulations. Simply because of the reason that the IPL is regulated by the BCCI.

It was the BCCI and its cricketers who are against WADA.

According to this report the Professional Players Association which represents players, including those who play cricket (??) have spoken about two things.

1. The “Whereabouts” clause
2. Recreational drugs

In this post let us not talk about the “Whereabouts” clause.

Let’s see what the Professionals / Role models say about the recreational drugs.

“Don’t ban our players for a longer duration if they took recreational drugs”

Discipline – That is the most important trait a sportsperson / soldier should have. I have never known of a disciplined drug addict. Once a sportsperson decides to take recreational drugs, he / she is no more disciplined and therefore I wouldn’t want this person to be someone who influences my kids.

If these are recreational drugs that warrant such light punishments, then why do governments world over have a fleet of gadgets, dogs & people going after the so called recreational stuff ?

Why are they outlawed ?

Why are some South American governments hell bent on losing sleep and men fighting cartels ?

I wouldn’t want a drug addict’s poster on my son’s bedroom wall…

Would you ??

I wouldn’t want him ape an addict the way he walks, talks and plays…

Would you ???

However recreational the drugs that fella took might be

Infusing life to 50 overs cricket...

The last week was hectic, everyone spoke. There was no action but speech, excluding Harbajan.

Every cricketer you could imagine spoke about the state of 50 overs cricket, except of course the gentlemen from the Westindies. They were debating about the survival of cricket - the game. They would continue to, till Floyd Riefer leads his grandchildren against Afghanistan in a world cup that would be hosted by Vanuatu some 25 or so years from now.

Cutting the long prelude short. Let us firstly, thank Sachin for the proposal.

Thinking about it The Twelfth man got the sparkly idea of the century, something that would revive the great game of ODI cricket. Something that would extricate the game from the beaks of a vulture called T20.

Let’s jump straight to the brilliant idea.

Each team would play 2 innings. Each inning would be of 25 overs

The batting team, before commencing its first inning would declare their set of 6 players who would bat. The innings would come to close at the fall of 5 wickets or 25 overs whichever occurs first.

The notout batsman along with the remaining 5 would bat in the second innings.

So each team would have a total of 10 wickets to lose in the match and one player who would be the notout batsman in the first innings of each team gets to bat in the second innings too.

Each innings would have two powerplays, of 5 overs each. The first 5 overs and another 5 overs which the bowling captain could enforce anytime during the 25 overs.

Now for the bowling…

The team bowling would select its 4 bowlers who would bowl in the innings. 3 would bowl 7 overs and the other 4 . The bowlers who bowled in the first inning can’t bowl in the second. This means each team would have 8 bowlers.

To make things a level playing field and give some advantage to the bowlers, we would allow 25 bouncers an innings. The teams can decide to bowl all 25 in the trot or leave it to its bowlers to decide when to bowl them. So the game becomes much more competitive and balanced.

This version would be much more balanced than a blind 25 overs each innings cricket. There again inequality would creep in, it would become the game of your best batsmen and the bowlers. So ideally you can have 5 batsmen, 5 bowlers and a wicketkeeper who can bat. That would drive you home.

In the format we are proposing, we cut all these shortcuts off.

ICC… BCCI and the other powers to be… Are you guys listening ??

Don’t forget to pay The Twelfth man his due before you steal this idea !!

Thank you Thambi… I had to time you out !!

WADA and cricket: What is happening now…

BCCI wants cricket’ own watchdog.

ICC wants to wait till WICA (the players association meets WADA).

And the media wants all the cricket boards to join the BCCI against the whereabouts clause, for they want some sensational news and some sustainable TRP’s.

Now that Mr Y S R Reddy is gone (pardon me for not considering the other passengers of that fatal flight… that how the Indian political and journalistic dharma works) and we have another very important news to talk about for the next 7 days. Post that we'll talk about Jagan Mohan as the next CM !! So thankfully WADA becomes a third class news...

Let me spell out the reason why I have been a vociferous advocate of the WADA and its regime…

It is an independent body, they know nothing but enforcement.

What does that mean ?

This means that someone can’t get off by simply replacing a “Monkey” with a "Maa Ki". It means that the Darwinian theory could be disproved, it wouldn’t be just about the survival of the fittest but about the abiding of the lot.

So if the ICC does, as BCCI has been wanting … Set up its own anti-drug unit, it could be (shall be) a farce.

It would then be selective, crucifying an X while exonerating a Y. A Nandrolone could become Nimbu Pani just like the metamorphosis of the monkey in Australia.

That is why you need a neutral body, some one who doesn’t know the difference between the intersection of the union of the bottom and the elbow of cricket politics.

For heavens sake, please realize that they (the cricketers) too are humans, and not some species else or the gods.

Let them also adhere to some rules and regulations. And that too for the noble cause of keeping sports clean.

More WADA talk: If you wanted to start from scratch or wanted more dope... Click here

PS: The only thing that is common between us and these demigods is the strip search at the US airports

A professor on Bored !!

They got a Khufia Baaz, Jatman, Che...

Then, they got an interview done with the communications director of WADA.

Now see who they have got ?

A professor who delights us with the way cricket was those days, or rather his days !!

Can't imagine what they would do tomorrow, these chaps at BCC!... Can you ?

WADA speaks to BCC!

WADA, the World Anti Doping Agency spoke to us at Bored. Too much dope about anti-dope across media and too many interpretations of what WADA & "Whereabouts" stand for, our objective was to clear the air up.

And that is precisely what Ms. Julie Masse, WADA's Communications Director did, speaking to yours truly

Anirudhha & Logos - Part II

We saw Anirudhha's response to the facebook quizzes a while back, that was about cars.

This one is about everything. From soaps to supermarkets, from his favorite music icons to IPL teams, TV channels and many more.

Some 60 of them were shown to Anirudhha and you can see how he manages them.

Rebeca (1940)

Actors: Laurence Olivier, Joan Fontaine, George Sanders, Judith Anderson

The first film of Alfred Hitchcock the American. Yes, this was the great man’s first American project. And the first film under David O Selznick.

The movie was an adaptation of Daphne du Maurier’s novel of the same name (1938).

The first of the many Hitchcock’s in America, those were the days when the master of suspense was trying hard to prove his mettle in the new land whre he was trying to settle down. The place where he was putting all his Trans-European experience into practice, to become the most wanted director of motion pictures.

The story line:

A wealthy widower who, purportedly under depression of having lost his wife meets an young charming woman. They marry and go back to the man’s land, and then begins the fun.

Mrs Danvers, the house keeper who has been very close to Rebecca, the dead wife of the man tries to chase the charming young woman (who is never named in the film) out of Manderley. Does she manage to ??

What happens in Manderley after the new woman comes in, that is the movie.

I see a similarity between this movie and Strangers on a train (1951). In both the movies the protagonists are rich or famous and are distanced from their unfaithful wives (Miriam / Rebecca), at the end of the day they are accused of having murdered the wife. In both the cases the wives cheat their husbands.

The disgusted husband wants to do something, but can’t because of his social standing.

At the breaking point the man wants to kill his wife but doesn’t because he is in love with a senators daughter (Strangers on a train) and he doesn’t want to create controversy.

That said, many critics say this movie is similar to Easy Virtue. I would beg to differ. It definitely is not.

It is said that Sir Hitchcock wasn’t faithful in his adaptation of the novel. But Selznick, the producer wanted the movie to be a copy of the novel, so what did Sir Alfred to ?

He shot what he thought was his story, his movie and just that. He ensured that nobody could edit and reach their means. This is what we call these days the “edited in camera” technique.

Trivia: Sir Alfred is seen outside the telephone booth when Jack is making a call to Mrs Danvers to tell her about the result of the inquest.

Rebecca was the best picture (1940 Academy awards), George Barnes also won the best cinematography for a black & white movie. Apart from these two wins there were nine other nominations including one for Sir Alfred for the best director.

Easy Virtue (1928)

Actors: Isabel Jeans, Franklyn Dyall, Robin Irvine
Dir: Sir Alfred Hitchcock

Based (loosely) on a novel by Noël Coward.

One of the early Hitchcock’s, a silent movie with some supers that tell the audience what is happening. But the brilliance of this movie is that you don’t need those supers, it is simply superb.

From the Jurist’s scribble to the explicit expressiveness of the characters. This probably is one story that tells many stories.

The plot is simple, the mother doesn’t like the woman his son has married. She already has her choice made, so she has to look at ways to chase this woman out of her sons life. How does she do it ?

The best thing about this movie is the fact that one doesn’t realize that this is a silent movie. It makes you realize why Shivaji Ganesan, Rajkumar and Raj Kapoor were so over expressive. You have to be when there are only supers (subtitles) to tell the audience what is happening. The only difference when it comes to our stars is that they were simply over expressive for no reason when they were talking !!

Trivia: Larita runs away from reality to save her easy virtuous past immediately after the trial. Sir Alfred is seen walking past the tennis court of the hotel where Larita stays with a walking stick in his hand. This is just after 16-20 mins into the film.

A test match fact file...

Q called the first test between Pakistan and Srilanka in Galle, A more than happening test match.

True it is. And he also had 3 Q's & A's about the match.

One of them was that debutants shared 16 wickets between them. He said he wouldn't be surprised if these (3 he had mentioned) had happened in the Galle test for the first time in history.

You would be surprised, of course...

It happened during 1988 in the Madras test between the Westindies and India. There was a young leggie called Narendra Hirwani who made his debut in that match. He took all of 16 Westindian wickets.

That was not all, there was another leftarm spinner who was also a capable lower order batsman (It was ironic that this leftarm spinner forgot bowling to become a opening bat soon...) called WV Raman who also made his debut. He took 1 wicket.

So I remember an instance when 2 debutants shared 17 between them. It was another story that the (in)famous Ajay Sharma and Phil Simmons also debuted in the same match.

But here comes a twist in the tale...

There is another instance when 40 wickets fell in a match and all 40 were captured by debutants. How ??

It was 1887 and that was the first test (called the first official test) between a combined Australian team and the visiting English team. Australia batted first Charles Bannerman scored the first runs of test history. And in the end Australia won the test by 45 runs.

Another trivia to close this post...

This was probably the only instance when 24 people who made their debut were there in the middle.

Yes 22 players belonging to the two sides and the 2 umpires. Add the scorers the number swells !!