England Cricket, World Cup 2007, And Other Things

The reserve days kept for each of the matches say it all - the rain's the extra slice of unpredictability this World Cup. While I have never been a big fan of the one-day format, and especially the World Cup, it still does succeed in giving me a kick on sometimes - for the sake of my teams. So, while 1999 was the year I was hooked for Zimbabwe (and the year when all my predictions used to be true - Zim beat Ind and SA, got beaten by Eng, Geoff Allott of NZ was the leading wicket-taker of the World Cup, and India didn't qualify for the semis, Neil Johnson was one of the stars of the World Cup), this time it is England - of course, never now with the same intensity.

This World Cup has even a better format than the 1992 World Cup held in Australasia - and sadly, this one also seems to be marred by rains. Cricket is a game, which can be totally ruined by rain - it breaks the rhythm of whosoever is coming into rhythm, and gives the down-and-out opposition a sneaking chance, not of their creation, of not only coming right back into the game but winning it. And that's what breaks the heart, really. Not a dropped catch or a missed runout, not a wrong umpiring decision cutting up a blooming batsman's innings, not an overthrow releasing the pressure which was beginning to build up with five previous dot balls, not a slip absent or standing way back (worse!) or trying to be second as well as third slips (worst!) and sometimes even the third man combined as well (and when the captain is in such a pitiable state of mind, he expects the wicketkeeper to triple up as the first slip and the leg slip as well), not a superb spell's pressure at one end broken by a flood of runs at the other end, not a straight drive deflected onto the stumps of the non-striker leading to his runout (with probably the non-striker in the form of his life, and the striker on say 3 in 26 balls) - no, but rain, which is not a bit in anyone's hands, pouring, and changing the match position, targets, rhythm, confidence, mood, pitch and air conditions, toss decisions, team decisions, everything. Though, very, very rarely, rain does liven up the match in fact, and makes a slow jog a canter, a coasting-to-win into a mad rush and late charge, with accompanying excitement, a test of temperament and nerves of steel and gentlemanly behaviour (after all, isn't cricket all about this? not Sreesanth's shameful antics but Flintoff and Lee's respect and friendship for each other) - and just when you had begun to doze off in those consolidating overs, you are woken up directly into a mayhem, about which you have no clue about - either its origin or its destiny.

Let me begin with England, then the World Cup will take care of itself. For though Australia is still the favorite for me (even after now four straight losses, and five in six games), my guts go out to England. After all, they have the Barmy Army with them!

Fine, fine fettle! Pietersen is definitely back - and that was all the missing link. Even if half of the others on the injury list - Vaughan, Anderson, Jon Lewis - remain on the list, there should not be any problems with England's bid for their first World Cup. The Caribbean will not assist swing much, unless moisture comes into the picture - and here lies the sudden strength that England has acquired now. Monty and Dalrymple are sure to excel in the bowling department for England in the World Cup - and if a pace bowler misfires, there's the support of Bopara, Vaughan, and Pietersen. A couple of overs from each of them, supplemented by Collingwood's intelligent bowling, should surely make up 10, if not 20, overs. All the pace bowlers of England are in great form, and if England is captained by Vaughan (and if unavailable, then please Strauss rather than Flintoff - will raise the game of Strauss as well as Flintoff), then, for me, England is a certainty till the semi-final of the World Cup. (After that, its luck, off days, and temperament.) Now, the bit of concern is batting for England - Vaughan might or might not be there, and the skipper is anyway not much of a great one-day player. The opening three or four is a bit of concern - Ed Joyce is a great find, but who's to partner him? Bell is maturing fast, but goes into a shell time and again. Strauss has been terribly unlucky throughout the Australian summer, and could have his confidence and form dented. So, now the real game is up to the solid, powerful, and explosive middle order of Collingwood, Pietersen, and Flintoff. England's decisions will be key here. What if Vaughan is not playing? In such a case, Pietersen at no. 5 is too low down for me in my opinion - better would be then Joyce and Bell opening, followed by Collingwood, Pietersen, Strauss, and Flintoff. I don't know why I have this feeling, but I always get it - that Flintoff and Strauss could make a great no. 5-no. 6 partnership in the history of the game. And if Vaughan is not there, we could have Bopara and Dalrymple at nos. 7 and 8 (but selecting Bopara would then mean to select only one specialist pace bowler - this might be a good move only if Flintoff is finding the Carribean to his especial liking). Or Bopara even higher up, depending on match situation and who is in what form and are the spinners or pacemen in operation. Battingwise, another concern for England is that none of their tailenders know much of batting - and also, the wicketkeeper Nixon also doesn't look much of a bat. The problem with England is the problem of plenty right now - with both Vaughan and Pietersen, who would they keep out? They cannot afford to drop Joyce or Bell - then who, Strauss? But, Strauss himself is captaincy material - Vaughan might not play all the matches, and I would not prefer Flintoff captaining. Also, Strauss is supremely talented - it is only that somehow he has still not come in his own in the one-day arena (a case similar to Matt Hayden's?). Slow bowlers are a must on West Indian pitches - so Dalrymple is an automatic selection, even though Monty is already there. Then, would they pick only one specialist pacer, either of Plunkett or Lewis or Anderson? If Anderson is fit, my vote will be for him - otherwise, any of the other two. Mahmood, I think, even though he is maturing fast, might find himself out of the World Cup team, if all other pace bowlers are fit.

How does England grapple with the problem of plenty, what decisions it takes for team selection as well during the matches, does rain play a role, and with how much momentum and rhythm can they begin the Super Eight - the key for England. The ability, the sportsmanship, the talent, the joy of playing - no doubt about these things in this England team (and, mind you, for all other teams, including Australia, these issues are there - for some, small, for other, big). And this World Cup does provide every team a wonderful chance to acclimatise, to get into playing rhythm, to get into the hot of the things hot. The warm-up matches at the start of the tournament can be called as the warm-ups of the warm-ups (interestingly, Eng play Aus in the warm-ups, which could also be the final itself). Then comes the group stage, and since the Super Eight match schedules are not at all affected by who tops the group and who comes second, the matches of the Super Eight could be held pretty much decided (that is, who plays whom, where, when). It would only take an upset in the group stage to mar the great organising and marketing ploy of not considering the group topper - and I don't think there's going to be one. Though, of course, you can never say if West Indies would like to produce an upset or so (they are also up against some better minnow teams - Zimbabwe and Ireland). Actually, only Ireland gives me slight jitters about an upset - it could upset any of its group partners, both Pak and WI being also the likeliest to oblige at any time. Otherwise, there's not much to analyse in this World Cup about the match-ups - since every team has to play all the other powerful teams, barring the one it played against in the group stage. And this, coincidentally, has made it a little tough for most of the teams.

Let me first say, that West Indian pitches are most of the times 220-230 pitches, with 250-260 being a real good total. Slow bowlers will dominate; yet, if the batsman has the patience and the zest to get his eye in, and is not befooled by bowlers of the type of Gayle and Dalrymple, the totals could also go up to 280 region. But the norm of the game would be 225 region in the Super Eight. So, now, life will be difficult for the teams who don't have any good slow bowlers. South Africa and Pakistan are the candidates here. Especially the former - for not only SA has any good slow bowlers, but it also plays the slow bowling terribly. So, for me, this is not at all South Africa's cup. Also, it would not have been anywhere else, given their racial policies of selection (with Kevin Pietersen the biggest visible slap on their face, the laughing stock that South Africa and South African cricket has become). Australia is also another team who doesn't have a good slow bowler if Michael Clarke stays unfit - but still, Aussies will manage at least in the Super Eight. Now, Aus won't have to play SA, India won't have to play SL, Eng won't have to play NZ, and WI won't have to play Pak in the Super Eight stage. And, I think, Aus, Ind, and Pak would have been better served if they would have got these matches in the Super Eight (so, its easy to see, that, for me here Aus winning over SA, Ind over SL, and Pak over WI are pretty much foregones). They would have got one easier match out of the six they would have to play in the Eight. Only, Eng v NZ is too hard to call - and its good for both the teams that they don't have to bother with each other in the Super Eight.

I like the sequence for England in the Eight. Their toughest matches will be in the right middle of the Eight and the World Cup - the ones versus Australia and India. And their last match - which could be a crunch encounter, even if they have qualified, to decide who meets them in the semis - is against West Indies, a team which I believe they can defeat very, very easily (and have the luxury to lose to them willingly or win slowly (the thing that Aussies did against WI in the 1999 World Cup - decried as dirty all over, though I didn't see the dirtiness ever), if the situation demands it.)

Just looking at all the other sequences, I think that India's is the toughest. For India, the Super Eight is all toughies, maybe except the game against Pak - first four real ones - Aus, NZ, SA, and Eng. And the crunch for India could be again WI - but India don't do too well against them. The Super Eight sequence is comfortable for both SA and SL. Interestingly, their first Eight game could be against each other - and each would feel a chance against the other, but if rain is not in the picture and Jayasuria is fit, then SL, I think, could have a clear edge here. West Indies, I think, has the toughest sequence of the match-ups, and, per me, they might be able to win only against one (India, possibly) or two teams (that is, if Ireland have not already edged them into oblivion!). Pakistan is another team who doesn't fire me at all - the only glimmer I get for them is Sri Lanka, their last, and maybe by then inconsequential (at least for them) encounter.

Rains, umpires, upset wins, scheduling, factors that can never be prophesied - so many things could make all the above go awry. But still, I think that the following teams will not make to the semis, at any cost: the host (West Indies) and Pakistan. I cannot predict more regarding the semifinalists. The World Cup this time looks to be won by any of Australia, India, England, or New Zealand (in order of their being favorites for me). I would wish England, for English cricket's sake; my dream would be an Australia-India semifinal, England-New Zealand semifinal, and India-England final, won by England.

Valjean's lament

It is a long time that I wrote this small poem - my first in my beloved language. I am too dry, sandy a man to talk in poetry, to patiently sift through the cells lining the beehive, to let it come to me. Instead, I mistakenly rush many a times, and the haste only leads me to be satisfied and happy with small - I crow with pride and delight over my one droplet of undistilled honey, when I could have had the combful of one. There are reasons that I understand, and which I seek to remedy, and there are reasons that will always be out of my reach to either understand or approach. But, let me share with you till the time this droplet, which was inspired one hot, equally dry afternoon, when I was, more than the usual, thinking about Jean Valjean. And since, it was not the Thenardier or Fantine's deserter who had excited me with wasteful fury as much as Cosette herself, I wrote this:

She has sprung from my loins
She has drunk,

oh my, so charmingly,

All my sap and my first tenderness
All the love

that ever was strained of me

Has been at her command,

useful or not I wot not

And yet

she derides me, she pains me

She lives in a world of her own
Where I am unbidden and unwelcome
She falls and she falls

but she forbids love to help her

She loves me not
And it is not that I complain
It is only that I lament.

BDSM: An Increasing Visibility in India

Is it only something that I am sensing, or is it that a subvert wave is there, trying to bring out in the open and legitimize the trappings and roles and vices associated with sex life in India? I'm talking about the increasing BDSM hints in the visual medium in India - most of them are too subtle to shock many, and yet they are the most likely ones to be fertile, to get ingrained into the minds of a sex-starved, sex-obsessed nation. Right from the Mallika Sherawat dance (at a New Year's party), which was in fact talked about, to hints of heavy chains suddenly coming in supposed-to-be romantic songs in Hindi films - what's the meaning? While the role of a woman has not been much to speak of in almost all Hindi or Hollywood films, yet there used to be a naivety in Hindi films always when it used to come to romance. Now, with the supposed liberalisation and awareness of the West and, what's more important, a social acceptance (though, maybe, sometimes, in a rebelling style) of "un-Indian" ethos, that naivety has given way to, no, not maturity, but vulgarity, the usual, or knowledge, the best (that "we also know").
And so, an Abhishek Bachhan becomes hot property, though to my mind the only thing that he has ever done is to lie sprawling mid-frame, with a dozen girls in different strange tastes of dresses and undresses, ready to be his slave (see, the shot is not even drooling over him, but it is purely slavic). Or probably, that is the thing to do. The chorus of the songs, that used to seem in the films not so long ago some half-mind cronies and fawners of the hero and heroine dancing for simply the hero and heroine (since the film itself made everything project that the whole earth and all the creatures are only for their pleasure - interestingly, the hero and heroine never looked for each other, which could have been a better choice), now seems to be a lot of same or opposite sex hell-bent on pleasing the hero or heroine - sexually.
There was a time when a furore was raised over a Milind Soman-Madhu Sapre ad of Tuffs shoes, with a snake wrapping their nude bodies in a tight grip. While all the furore was over a snake only covering them, I used to be amused that what was something likely to be a disturbing question was and is never asked. The only disturbing thing there for me was the snake itself - and not if it was wrapping covered or uncovered bodies. It was a rope, it was a chain, it was the bondage - the concepts of power and subjugation were in the play in that print ad. While, of course, it could be argued that since both the bodies were bound by the snake, it was not that much of a BDSM situation - someone could even argue that take it in a symbolic manner, and take it that both are bound in their lust and love together (by the way, why does everyone get keen on either mixing up the two or differentiating the two?). But, I think that the whole concept of helplessness, the sadistic enjoyment of the helplessness of one, is BDSM. And that's why the python was there - for people love seeing helplessness. Not for nothing are so many children abused, not for nothing so many rape scenes are included in the films, and not for nothing stilettos are worn - all symbols of power, and exercise of it.
There's always an element of power in sex. No, I am not ruing the fact. It's a sublime game - as many things to variegate it the better - but only when it does not become the continual pick-up scene. Only when you love whom you sex. You love the person, you automatically are respecting, venerating, adoring that person - how can you think of subjugating that person? How can you enjoy seeing that person being made cruelly helpless? All such roleplays are simply the fucking magazine ways of "how to bring zest in your sex life" - a person who needs such a tip, is already a sexless person for me, the tips don't matter.
Finally, let me only clear a bit of air. It is something, which is again like any other thing in this world - there are no rules ever. Countless possibilities of having sex and enjoying it - so there's nothing censured. The only thing that I am against is the sort-of propagation, the inculcation, systematically, of a sort of values. Also, where a thing lodges in the subconscious and modifies your tastes, you never know (especially the adolescents).
I don't know where it's related, but somehow it is. I had been just seeing half an hour of the film Hotel Rwanda. The acting was great, and the film was OK. But always, I start thinking, why can't the hotel manager be a woman - I mean in just one film, at least. Though, for a change, I did get to see The Constant Gardener, some days back. Why not more of Rachel Weisz's? (And actually, there are a few other Hollywood films where I did get to see a woman who is living her life - Helen Hunt's Twister and As Good As It Gets; Patricia Neal's The Subject Was Roses; many Bette Davis movies (probably, because MGM had almost all the star male actors!); Young Bess; Children Of A Lesser God - but yes, I have to think hard, real hard.)