A dummy's question to the experts: Did the best available Eleven play the World Cup semifinal?

India is a land of experts. At every dusty, cramped corner of every large and small city are present people who have an opinion, a belief, strong and unflinching, in their expertise – cricket and politics are omnipresent, other topics a lot more localised.

They were always there but social media has given every such expert a voice, a platform to express their opinions and share common ideas and beliefs with the entire world. And so, when the Indian cricket team lost the World T20 semifinals to a rampaging England riding roughshod over a group of some of the biggest names in the sport, there was the spontaneous outpouring of anguish and angst in equal measure – along with dissections, analyses and opinions on what went wrong.

From who should have played to how should it have been played to digging up all kinds of statistics and data on weather, pitch, ground, stands, soil composition, opposition players and staff, ground force to lights and conditions – there have been innumerable pieces on what the Indian team should have done to ensure a different result.

The writers of all these pieces have impeccable pedigree – former players with glowing achievements, scribes with decades of experience covering all forms of the game and casual viewers who are famous enough to get print space for their opinions. The reasons for the defeat have been overwhelming to say the least. And a lot of it, to be rudely honest, sounds more like an excuse and less an explanation.

So what am I going to add? Nothing. Honestly, I do not, cannot have answers to the loss. I don’t play the game, never did, don’t cover it, don’t hang out with or am friends on nickname basis with players, can’t gush over that one particular shot in A game by B player in C series in D year – I am not ashamed to admit I haven’t even made the effort to cram up stats and figures to pad up this piece in favour or against any argument.

I do have one question, and I have it for those who are supposed to know all this stuff and who take decisions on the basis of this stuff. Just one, the most basic of them all, something anyone working in a group in any industry would ask: Did we play the best 11?

In a country like India, there will always be someone left out. I am sure someone in Jharkhand would vouch for including Varun Aaron in the side or another in Bhavnagar insisting Sheldon Jackson deserves a look-in. But there are only so many spots in the national side. I get it. So once the final 15 is named, that’s the basket of eggs you have to choose from. But did the best 11 from that squad play in the semifinal?

Credit: www.t20worldcup.com

The best 11 -- not in numbers, statistics, runs, wickets, years, not on paper – simply the best 11 as on date in terms of their ability, performance, recency and most importantly, augmenting whatever is the team’s USP. Pakistan may be the cricketing equivalent of a pendulum but they know their strength – fast bowling – and everything revolves around that regardless of the result, opposition, conditions. Conditions matter, of course, as does preparing differently for every opposition. But the best adapt and shine.

The Tendulkars, the Gavaskars, the Warnes, the Walshs and the Ambroses are not considered great simply because of their numbers; it’s because they took conditions out of the equation. Also, a player is a lot like a car – a well-maintained, smartly driven and constantly in use one will outperform a more expensive but long-parked one suddenly brought out of the garage.

Do the Top Two fit? Was Three a gamble that just happened to pay up at the right time in the tournament? Why does Six continue to dangle between being the future and not sure of the present. Why does Seven keeps coming in and going out, neither with any explanations nor seemingly with any co-relation to his performances? Has Eight been largely great only at home? Has Nine been iffy for too long? Do only Four and Five walk into the side as batsmen and 10 and 11 as bowlers? 10, by the way, was a late replacement. So, was it the best 11 we had?

If no, the decision makers need to be asked why. If yes, the problem is far deeper than we think.

The Shifting Sands Of Fan Engagement In Indian Cricket

The overall purity of spontaneous reactions has been adulterated

with transactional relationships. Can it be changed?

A sporting loss, in any big-ticket tournament, always hurts a team’s fans. When it is a World Cup, it hurts more. If it is cricket and India, it’s worse. And when the loss is big and comprehensive enough for even the team’s usually measured and word-correct coach Rahul Dravid to be lost for words, you know it’s open season for everyone else – humiliation, disaster and disgust being the dominant theme expressed in a lot more colourful language.

The disappointment is understandable. For a public that not just puts a premium on performance but literally demands it every time the Indian cricket team steps out on the ground, a 10-wicket loss -- in a 20-over game that finished in 16 – is unacceptable. When it deems the players as demi-gods and excuses their every excess -- lifestyle, monetary, behaviour or otherwise -- the public also endows on itself the right to scrutinise, label, judge and criticise them. Fair or not, that’s the way the dice rolls, specially in times of an omnipresent, tenuous and fickle social media that brings close and pulls apart the player-fan equation simultaneously and in equal measure.

For a long time, this equation was largely emotion-based. When they won, the public felt happy; when they lost, the public was sad/furious. Yes, there would be the occasional stone-pelting incidents but they would largely be spontaneous and limited with universal condemnation. There were the organised betting rings, sure, but they were limited, underground, criminal activities taking place in the dark with only the ones involved knowing the way in. Then came the glut of fantasy games and online apps, each featuring its own set of players, past and present, endorsing it as a ‘skill’ and ‘fun’ and ‘tactical’ and ‘strategy’. It involved money, it democratised role-play making everyone a selector/coach/expert, it legitimised hedging your bets. And it put a price on the emotions, turning the equation into a transactional one. The purity of both the happiness at winning and fury at losing was gone.

That most of these fantasy games and mobile apps and dream teams continue to be either totally illegal or fall in a grey area of government oversight and legal uncertainty is immaterial. What matters is that they are freely available and advertised, sponsor tournaments and teams and tempt people with overnight riches. It’s a lottery on the team’s fortunes fronted by the team members themselves and if anyone finds that incongruous, they are in a minority.

And so, when the players express anguish or displeasure at what they think is over-the-top criticism and unfair targetting for losing what is, at the end of the day, a game or personal barbs for professional failures, they would do well to also take a step back and acknowledge their own role, howsoever miniscule, in empowering such reactions. As public figures, sportspersons are always under scrutiny. As brand ambassadors, their endorsements always add value to products. But when they turn into products themselves, when they extend their presence into every mobile phone and television screen and wallet, do they continue to retain the sanctity of their professional achievements? 

It’s a question they need to answer themselves.

Hyderabad rape, murder & encounter: is it justice, revenge or just a reaction?

I see so, so many of my friends, colleagues and acquaintances applauding the encounter of rapists-murderers in the Hyderabad case that I wonder if I am only wrong in feeling uncomfortable about this.

But I am certain I am not wrong. Yes, they deserved death. As quickly as possible. But is this the way ahead?

When governments or those in power seek instant decisions, applause and credit it is understandable they take the shortest way to it. But a democracy, a civilised world respects due process. It respects the rights of even the guilty and it ensures justice for the worst suffering victims.

Mark my word, justice. Not revenge. It is a very thin, almost invisible line between the two. But it's a powerful line that must not be crossed. For it's the line that separates civilisation from barbarism.

People here might go back to Ajmal Kasab and say he lived on taxpayers' expense. True. But he was executed through a process and not a single person, leader, government anywhere in the country or world can point a finger at him not getting a chance to speak.

Let's go back a littler further, shall we? Everyone knew what would happen in court during the Bhagat Singh trial. He himself knew. And yet, there was a bloody trial. And he got to speak. And that's how the famous 'need a big blast to make the deaf listen' speech came about. And for all the crap from the Brits (and I am one of those who literally hates them to my heart & soul and would love to see them as a malnourished, struggling, indebted 4th world nation for all that shit hole did to the world spl Asia and Africa) they followed the letter, if not the spirit of law.

So, yeah. Back to Hyderabad. I understand the angst. I understand the need for a quick result. I understand the grief of the family and the fury of the nation.

But just stop and think for a second. What would have been better? This encounter, or a fast-track case where the trial was over in 4 weeks, with no provision for appeal, and a quick hanging?

Wouldn't that have had a bigger impact on actual judicial system? Wouldn't that have put judiciary in a more favourable light? Wouldn't that have given the vast common public a lot more trust in the system for delivering justice? This was not a one-off case even though it became highlighted a lot more. I heard somewhere that a woman is raped every 15 minutes somewhere in this country. That's 35040 rapes a year. I can confidently say that atleast 1% of those would be heinous and end with victim deaths/murders.

How many of those 350 cases are talked about? How many of those accused charged and convicted? How many invoke horror? How many encounters? Those celebrating this encounter, what would they like to say the families of the other 349 who remain anonymous? That their daughters/sisters/wives/mothers were less deserving of justice?

A quick, extra-judicial encounter is like band-aid to a battle wound. Can there be legal provisions for fixed deadlines, no course of appeal and conviction within a week of decision for serious crimes?

A lot of it, by the way, already exists. But the execution is an issue. Instead of celebrating quasi-murders, can we not seek accountability from the judicial system and execution of the existing stringent laws? Can we not haul up our MPs and MLAs when they come seeking elections for not utilising the funds meant for women security? I know people might think it not possible but while the judges can haul up advocates and lawyers for insubordination, an open protest by general public seeking faster decisions, filling up vacancies and improved delivery by the courts cannot be treated as such. So why not do it?

PS: I am no bleeding heart liberal. I am as much a frustrated, short-tempered, desperate Indian as anyone else. I love my country as much as the next person. I am not in favour of anyone who believes in insidious activities and will gladly pull the trigger on them.

But, thankfully, I am not barbaric and dehumanised enough yet to condone what I can clearly see is a knee-jerk response by the powers-that-be to put a lid on what might have become a massive embarrassment for those in power. Both in centre and state. I am proud I can still see it clearly. I wish more of my friends do.

That's the only hope.

A third-time debut on bogger!

After a series of attempts to get on the blogging bandwagons since it first became fashionable in the late 1990s, I make my debut on this platform -- for the third time. Things will be more streamlined and continuous this time around. Hopefully.