Can the game of Cricket survive?

I did not title this blog to be sarcastic. I wanted to draw your attention to the severity of the consequences of Indian Premier League’s (IPL) actions that will cause the eventual demise of the beautiful game of cricket.

IPL, a brain child of Lalit Modi, is a new money making, entertaining (supposedly, depends on who you talk to) brand new version of cricket. As a cricket fan I like to follow and support all forms of cricket. But I do have reservations to support IPL. In my opinion it is a travelling circus for which I thanked Mr. Modi last year.

Here is my last year’s post.

“A day after India crashed out of T20 world cup, it’s time to look back and appreciate a few performances and analyze what could have been better. As an avid (Indian) cricket fan it is hard to be objective in the thought process after a gut wrenching loss to a team which is yet to win a major event in their long cricketing history.

 

The team fought hard to save the pain for a billion cricket fans but fell short by 3 runs. We all have one man to thank for what has transpired to be a tough series which ended with a bit of chin music. England bowlers would not have dared to bowl those short balls if Sehwag suited up for the game. Dhoni concurs, asked if injured opener Virender Sehwag’s absence had an impact on India’s performance, Dhoni said: “He is the sort of player you can’t really replace – we missed him. When he starts off the bowler is under pressure. He’s a great player to have in your side.”

Mr. Modi can take the lion’s share of credit for Sehwag’s absence and Zaheer Khan’s fifty percent presence in the lineup. He has single handedly destroyed the dreams of billion fans and will continue to do that in the future. His thirst for power and money is unquenchable. He created a circus to entertain his motives and called himself a commissioner.

I am not trying to blame an injury or two for the team’s loss. I am trying to come to terms with the fact that those two injuries happened while playing in games which don’t matter to anybody and are already forgotten. This loss will linger in our minds for a long time, and it is quite painful.

I would like to thank Mr. Modi for saving my time by eliminating India from the world cup. I am sure corporate India will send him a few bouquets and gifts as millions of fans won’t call in sick for work after watching a late night game.

Thank you Mr. Modi, keep your ego-centric and narcissistic ideas coming and save us some time.”

First let’s examine the pros of this league.

• A lot of young cricketers get a chance to showcase their skills and earn a living. Never before this was possible in Indian economy.
• It takes only three hours to get a result. This is good for all of us who are in it for instant gratification. Enjoy while it lasts.
• Opportunity to market the game outside the traditional venues.
• I tried to come up with more benefits, sorry they don’t exist.

Having established the pros of IPL, let’s take a look at the drawbacks. I am a cricket fan, would like to see all formats (Test, One-Day and T20) of the game flourish. There seems to be a conflict of interest between IPL, which uses the three hour T20 format, and other traditional versions of the game. Fundamentals on which the IPL is being built are going to ruin the One-Day and Five-Day versions of the game and will inevitably erode cricket’s rich fabric.

I think IPL will fail for the following reasons.

• IPL is going to fasten the demise of Indian domestic cricket, which is already lacking support. Australia produces more world class players because they have a strong domestic cricket structure. This could hurt Indian cricket’s sustainability at international level.
• IPL franchise owners need to start making money sooner to get most out of their 10 year contract. This could be quite difficult in the short-term. According to some analyses, team owners may start getting some of their money back only after five years. Cricket Australia chief executive James Sutherland told Sydney radio station 2KY. “It’s nice to pay the players well and get big money from television rights and sponsorships, but ultimately you’ve got to provide a return for the owners.” Do you think the owners accept financial losses for five years and do nothing about it? I will get into the details of economics in a later post.
• Franchises may start taking decisions on players behalf (after all they bought the players at an auction), which could put them at loggerheads with BCCI.
• Revenue streams of Indian cricket may start running dry. Sahara group bought a franchise team spending 1700 crore Rupees (Approximately $378 million). According to Subrato Roy, Chairman of Sahara Group, they are emotionally attached to the game and now they are reconsidering their sponsorship deal with Team India because of their new purchase. Go figure.
• Too much cricket could reduce the length of a player’s career.
• Too much fatigue on players’ bodies hurts Indian cricket team’s performance at international level. Most of the fans remember India’s performance in 2009 edition of T20 world cup. Thanks to injuries sustained during 2009 IPL season, Sehwag and Zaheer were absent. Boy, did we feel their absence? We are already second guessing Dhoni and Gambhir’s chances of making it to 2010 T20 world cup.

Let’s hope the winning ways will be back again.



What do you think?

How many friends can you handle?

How many friends can you handle? Before you sign into your facebook, Myspace or Orkut accounts and start counting, take a minute to think about what friendship is all about.

All of us have friends and quite a few of them actually. Everyone enjoys this relationship in many ways. Even the 145 million orphans in this world find solace in friendship. This relationship may be the most important influence in human lives. Somebody once said, “Humans make decisions, those decisions define humans.” We do consult with friends while making important decisions in life. We share happiness with our parents, problems with mentors, gifts with significant others and achievements with everybody. But we share everything including joy, sorrow and any other emotions or expressions with good friends.

Is there a limit to the number of friends one can have? Oxford professor of evolutionary anthropology, Robin Dunbar in his research suggests that if you are friends with over 150 people, the extras are meaningless. The study also found that there is a negative relationship between emotional closeness and network size. What is your take on this conclusion?  This research was a talking point in a recent post on Fast Company. These findings may affect the business decisions regarding the addition of new features and other promotions by the social networking companies. Do these conclusions seem valid when you look at the kinds of interactions with “friends” in your network? Were you happy when there were fewer friends in your network?

Average user has 130 friends on Facebook. In general each individual communicates with close friends (one or two) on a weekly basis and less often with the rest. Interaction with rest of the “friends” tends to happen due to a need or pure accident. Yes, there are some exceptions to this observation but holds true in case of general population. Facebook may need to change the usage of the word “friend” to acquaintance or connection.

I do see the thought process behind Professor’s Dunbar’s research and findings, but I am happy to have as many friends as I do and like to have more. What about you?

on a Quest!!!

Everyone likes to have many different things (or achieve) in their life, and not everyone succeeds. Start your quest and work for it…instead of just having a desire/wish.

Are you a Polymath?

Many ancient scientists such as Pythagorus and Archimedes were interested in many subjects. Their curiosity gave us the concepts we study today. Leonardo Davinci was not a scientist; he was a curious human being. He didn’t try to find things. He tried to pursue his passion for learning. While doing that he came across some findings which we call them the greatest inventions. He was good at painting, sculpting, architecture, music, science, mathematics, engineering, anatomy, geology, and botany. He was known as a Polymath, a person whose knowledge and expertise spans a significant number of subject areas.

In today’s society, we are taught to focus on one subject throughout college and a career that follows. Even though we are not restricted to do that,  most of us end up with knowledge or expertise in one area and continue to work in that area for the rest of our lives. I think this kills innovation. In most cases innovation comes from need and exposure to a lot of concepts not limited to any one particular area. The latest invention Bloom Energy came out of the knowledge in concepts (but not limited to) such as Fuel cell technology and Material science.

Should we redefine our education system? Share your thoughts.