Sachin has done enough to deserve the right to choose his own time of departure.

While I don’t think there’s enough evidence to drop Sachin yet, the time may be soon. But this line of thought from Nirmal Shekar (and shared by many) is patently ridiculous.

I foresee new rules for the selectors. Select the players. Then replace them only when a player chooses his time of departure.

If this was how our selectors worked, one Kris Srikkanth may still be in the playing eleven.

One-day captaincy is much more about instinct and short-term rewards, which we in India are naturally adept at extracting. We see opportunities quickly, we rush in, we are satisfied. A space opens up in a crowded local train and we edge in there, a new counter opens at a bus station and we are first in the new queue; our eyes are forever darting around looking for an opening because if we miss it we may not get another. As a wonderfully instinctive person who has his wits around him, Dhoni revels in these conditions. A five-day game is more like booking your ticket early and reserving a seat rather than charging around looking for one.

The paragraph is curiouser because Dhoni is, in fact, a former Indian Railways ticket collector.

I could write a similar paragraph about how India would obviously do better at Test cricket because they are used to waiting in long lines for their LPG cylinders. Patience has been bred in to them at a young age, so obviously they were number one in Test cricket.

But I don’t have a deadline and a word limit looming.

∞

Another line from Bhogle in the same article:

India are not too bad, as we saw even in the Tests in England and Australia, over short bursts. Maintaining that quality over longer periods is a different skill, and like peace in the modern world, it is a bit scarce in India at the moment.

Less egregious. Mostly just a writer conjuring up a catchy simile. But it’s mostly untrue. The modern era is among the most peaceful, even if it’s people are more nervous about random acts of violence than any previous generation. A graph from the Wall Street Journal (also click through for a graph on homicide rates over the centuries):

Also, India have actually been quite good in away Test matches as recently as one year ago. So wrong on both counts, Mr. Bhogle: it’s a peaceful world where India have recently played good, patient Test cricket.

The Pune Warriors will remain in the IPL and its parent company Sahara will continue its sponsorship of the Indian team [..] The major concession Pune seem to have won is the restoration of its auction purse of $1.6 million and the licence to buy players who were not sold at the auction and also foreign players who were not part of the auction.

That’s blackmail. In a perfect world, the BCCI would have called their bluff and looked for another sponsor.

Also, in a perfect world the Pune owner would not have had to negotiate with the Chennai owner on the fate of their franchise.

During Pakistan’s series victory over England it felt as though there was hardly a single facet of Test match cricket that had not been changed, one way or another, by the DRS; batting technique, bowling technique, the balance between bat and ball, the decision-making processes of the umpires and the experience of the spectators in the ground, all had been altered.

This isn’t to say that the impact has necessarily been negative. From that list I would argue that the only aspect of the game that is unequivocally the poorer for the DRS is the spectator experience.

Ultimately, what else matters? 

Previously on DeepBackwardPoint:

• It’s Fair, It’s Science, but Perhaps It’s Just Not Cricket

When I started watching the NBA, I could never explain the various fouls (was that travelling, a 3-second violation, or just a regular elbow to the ribs?) and the one trillion timeouts in the fourth quarter. A friend once tried to convince me that they actually stop the game so the broadcasters could show advertisements.

Compared to cricket, though, these are minor barriers. The objective is still “get the ball in the net“. Cricket is a complex sport with various arcane rules and the fans who are within the fold– those of us who get it– usually enjoy the game because of these intricacies, not in spite of them.

The modern changes to the game that DuckingBeamers describes are different:

I don’t have any particular animosity to DRS, or Duckworth-Lewis, or even the 15-degree rule — I accept that the science behind them is generally rigorous (even if Hawkeye still freaks me out a little bit). But I worry these technocratic rules raise a barrier between fans and the game, and I yearn  for a simpler discourse that respects fate and fortune over human agency — if only because I think fans should understand the game they profess to love.

These are changes that create barriers between the dedicated fan and his sport, not just casual fans. They may be fair, if the fairness of sport is judged in a court of law, but it’s not clear they make the sport better. Much worse than the off-side rule made me suffer as a player and viewer as a child, these new innovations bring you out of the game and force you to accept an external reality.

It’s all smooth sailing until, pause: the mathematicians say India lost, or the biomechanical engineer says your bowler is a chucker, or the computer says you’re out. They force you to accept that you, the dedicated fan, can’t explain the game you love. It’s fair, it’s science, but perhaps it’s just not cricket.

Just last week, she (my wife) tweeted a link to a blog post about how to go about getting paid to do what you love, and it really amped me up about doing something that isn’t my mind numbing, soul sucking job, that there is a path there that I can follow if I want, that will lead me out of this cookie cutter existence does not make me all that happy.  Off of the grid, in a way, but still with electricity and high speed Internet. [..]

To take something and put every last ounce of yourself into it.  Make it something you are so terribly proud of.  And if you can do that, if you can find the time and the means and the idea, then, well, you have accomplished what we are all here for to begin with.

And that brings me back to this blog.  Despite the factual errors, and the lapses in posting, and the god awful typos (I am actually an above average speller), I am really quite proud of this silly little blog, and I really feel it could be the one thing that I do, that I make perfect, that I put everything into, that I sacrifice for.

Read the whole thing. I couldn’t figure out which passage to quote. I meant to link to this earlier, but really, I couldn’t figure out which part to quote.

“What a nightmare to convince them not to terminate tanveer and also not to take flintoff,” Modi wrote. “Warne went of [sic] the handle. But have managed it by using stick and carrot strategy. Thus they have [$]1.875 [million] only. Much love Lalit.” Srinivasan’s reply later the same day reads: “Thanks. You are most sweet. Srini.” The existence of the emails was first reported by CNN-IBN in September, 2010.

Yuvraj, at the end of Act II

One day, they will make a film on Yuvraj Singh’s life. And it will be no Guru Dutt film, no Guide ending. It will be a Barjaatya film, a Lagaan film. A story of the boy who beat the odds, twice.

The third act is yet to be written.

But this is how I imagine it will end.

Yuvraj triumphant, as the film ends

Ok, I can’t promise they’re great people. They look awfully nice in their Two Chucks videos on Cricinfo. And one of them has been awfully nice to this blog in the past. (“Please, I don’t want to read your stupid blog, give me the link to fund them!”)

Here’s the documentary, currently being filmed by Jarrod Kimber and Sam Collins in Australia (trailer):

Death of a Gentleman is a snapshot of Test cricket through the Australia vs India Test series in 2011-12. Is Test cricket dying? Does anybody care? How can a sport be run so badly and hope to survive? Sam Collins and Jarrod Kimber ask these questions and more of cricket’s biggest names and the fans who will decide the game’s future.

But if those aren’t reasons enough to help fund their documentary on cricket, here are three more:

1. It’s cheap: you can spend as little as 10 pounds, and still claim you funded a major foreign documentary. Make sure you say “foreign” if you want to sound pretentious. If you’re from the UK, claim it’s really Australian, and vice versa. Make sure you do not say “foreign”, if talking to wingnuts. Also, don’t be cheap.
2. You get freebees: Depending on how much you spend, you get all kinds of knick-knacks, doo-dads, and even a Producer credit. The Producer credit only goes to the obscenely wealthy.
3. They have a sense of humor: Or humour. These are the guys who had the balls to call themselves Two Pricks. Let’s face it, if you were watching a documentary about the rumored death of cricket as we knew it, wouldn’t you want the bearers of bad news to have a sense of humor? Gallows humor never hurt anyone. Except for relatives of the condemned.
4. They are serious: Sure they have a sense of humor, but they are getting this thing made for real. The filming is in progress, they have already raised 35,000 pounds.

Ok, that was four reasons. Now that you’re convinced– it’s very simple. Go to WeFund, and fund Death of a Gentleman.

1. What is going on?
   Willow TV, the popular cricket streaming service in the United States, has sent legal notices to many cricket fans for (allegedly) subscribing to pirated streams during the Cricket World Cup in 2011. (full legal notice).
2. What are the terms?
   The person is given a choice of either facing legal consequences or subscribing to Willow TV for $14.99 per month or paying $200/pirated-match.
3. Is this legitimate?
   Yes, it is. I’ve had a brief conversation with the Willow CEO on Twitter, instigated by David Mutton (full conversation). Mr. Srinivasan also spoke with GigaOm.
4. How many people are affected?
   I don’t know. But if I had to guess, based on the search traffic this blog has received since 10th January, it is in the thousands.
5. What is the legal history of similar cases on the Internet?
   Again, I’m not a lawyer. But this is similar to what the RIAA pulled off against people who (allegedly) downloaded pirated music. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has a comprehensive history of how that played out. The settlement proposed here by Willow is significantly cheaper than the RIAA shenanigans. If you have questions about this sort of thing, EFF may be a good place to start. Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) faced a similar problem to Willow TV, and sued streaming service providers.
6. How is this different from past law suits?
   Many things. This case involves streaming and not downloading. This case is directly against the user, the fan, the one viewing a pirated video, not the one broadcasting or distributing it. Finally, Willow TV’s offer of amnesty is novel.
7. What is Willow TV’s plan for those who don’t pay?
   No idea. But here is what Willow TV CEO said to me on Twitter: when we move to the next phase, willful and egregious violators will see legal action.This suggests that they may choose to make an example of a couple of violators, on whom they have the most concrete proof, by pursuing a full scale law suit.
8. How did Willow TV get email addresses/IP addresses of alleged violators?
   Willow TV filed a law suit against dozens of web sites allegedly responsible for pirated cricket streaming in 2011. As a result of that lawsuit, they were able to subpoena records from many service providers which may have given them IP addresses, email addresses and other subscriber information.
9. What are the alleged violators responses?
   They run the full gamut. I’ve heard from people who are disappointed but will pay up. I’ve heard from people who are angry and refuse to pay. I’ve heard from people who are just confused. Here is a sampling of comments I’ve received.
10. Can you (Devanshu/DeepBackwardPoint.com) help the alleged violators?
    Many people have been asking me to act as an intermediary between them and Willow, or help in other ways. So far, I’ve been reporting on this as a news story, providing a single resource for all currently known information and a forum for affected parties to communicate. I have also gotten in touch with the Willow TV CEO over Twitter, and asked him or his lawyer to look at feedback in the comments. Beyond this, there is little I can do, especially since this is a legal matter in which I am neither a lawyer, nor an affected party.

Unanswered questions from reader feedback for Willow TV or a lawyer:
Willow TV has released their own official FAQ. Please read that first. The below information may be out of date.

• The email cites US law. What about Canadian law? The cited copyright laws do not apply in Canada and many of the affected people are in Canada.
• If a violator pays up, is this an admission of guilt?
• Can a violator pre-pay the annual subscriber fee to get quick amnesty?
• Can alleged violators find out the specifics of the violation: time, pirated service, IP address?
• Isn’t this punitive action against actual cricket fans? Many claim that the reason people paid for pirated services instead of using the free ones is that they thought they were paying for something legitimate.
• If an alleged violator subscribed to a stream but the pirated stream did not work, was there an actual violation?