ENGLAND KICK SOME ASH(ES)

DURING England’s second innings at the final Ashes Test at The Oval, Matt Prior’s drive first smacked into the pitch and then bounced onto Ricky Ponting’s left cheek. In what would have felt like a well connected right hook, Ponting was momentarily dazed, and would have been down for the count if it were a boxing ring. The Aussie captain, being the tough guy he is, did regain his composure and the fact that it was the stroke of lunch helped matters. But there was no such respite for the Australian team, which ignominiously has now lost two successive away Ashes series. Prior’s drive had inflicted its share of pain but its symbolic significance will rattle the most. By the time the dust settled on the Oval pitch (and there was loads of it on a track that crumbled unexpectedly), the Aussies were left to rue their decision of not selecting spinner Nathan Hauritz and despair over their fall to 4th place on the world test rankings, the first time they are not number one since 2003. And there you have it - the Aussie aura and era are over; the aura punctured by the exit of greats whose shoes are too big to fill in the short run and the era closed by teams which seem to have the right mix of spunk and experience to take over the mantle. It would be naïve to imagine no one saw this coming. Even a school kid will tell you that a team that loses players of the caliber and impact of McGrath, Warne, the Waugh brothers, Hayden and Gilchrist in about a half a decade span will have a lot of catching up to do. At different times Michael Clarke, Michael Hussey, Mitchell Johnson and even Brad Haddin have tried to plug the gaps but they could only gallantly delay the inevitable. Schadenfreude would be the order of the day as the cricketing world tries to make sense of the irony of the Ashes defeat – the Aussies were the statistically superior team all through and yet they came up short. It has been a trajectory similar to the West Indies’ decline, plateau and fall through the 90s after the legends like Viv Richards, Malcom Marshall, Desmond Haynes and Gordon Greenidge called it a day.
Australia’s first weakening was the exit of Steve and Mark Waugh, and then Glenn McGrath followed by Shane Warne. The final nail was the exit of Adam Gilchrist and of course, Mathew Hayden. In the meantime, the Aussies held their fort because the support system worked well for the key men left. Clarke and Hussey’s emergence in batting and Ponting’s own solidity masked the absence of a Glichrist or Hayden till the time the bowling was well marshaled and there was a Warne to call on. It was a similar story for the other dominant team, the West Indies, when their batting inadequacies, bar Brian Lara were shored up by the towering achievements of Curtly Ambrose and Courtney Walsh operating in tandem. Once Warne left, and Johnson’s form became more erratic than the Indian monsoon, the weaknesses were exposed far too many times. Starting with the Waugh exits in 2002 (Mark) and 2004 (Steve), the fact that Australia were finally knocked off the pedestal of the No.1 Test team for the first time since then has an eerie foreboding to it.
It’s open season now for the top spot, though it is difficult to argue that the team sitting atop both the Test and ODI rankings is not the best in all forms of the game. South Africa have shown remarkable ability, even in the nascent T20 format and this could be the time to consolidate their gains at the top. The other contender is India, a team whose evolution to a world beater has coincided with Australia’s decline, quite a bit of which has been contributed by them in some of the most hard fought test series ever seen. The meeting of India and South Africa in India in February 2010, then, assumes immense significance. To use the oft abused phrase, the tipping point has arrived and whichever team makes the bold first move can occupy the top spot again. And yes, don’t quite count Australia out of list, just in case.

THE MERSEYSIDER

A DAY TO go before the 2009-10 season of the English Premier League kicks off. And I couldn’t be more excited about the season, mainly because I have high hopes of the team I am backing – Liverpool. When the EPL started being beamed live in India, it had everybody hooked and everyone had their favourite teams. Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal and so on. I somehow stuck to Liverpool. My knowledge about English Football was limited to updates from the Gillette World Sport Special and the occasional Bill Shankly quote, and the Merseyside team were at best middling in the premeiership as their aura of the 80s waned. But I liked them. I can’t honestly say I had a reason to, but I developed an affinity to the team.

It’s easy to ride bandwagons in these leagues, back Man U. because they are the winningest team, or Chelsea because they have the best players. I backed Liverpool partly out of chance, and partly out of my admiration for Michael Owen. Ironically, Owen will be seen in a Man U. shirt this season, but his move from Liverpool did not shake my fan roots, because by then I had known a fair bit about the team and each bit cemented my love for the team. Somehow, there was a hypnotic quality about the Hillsboro disaster and the Heysel stadium tragedies that drew me to show solidarity for the fans who paid the ultimate price for the game they loved. Bill Shankly, the legendary manager, is someone you cannot ignore. Liverpool’s achievements in Europe in the 80s and then ‘that’ final in 2005 in Istanbul only added to my ecstatic collection of sports memories of my favourite teams and it was impossible to let go. That a lad named Steven Gerrard, a Liverpool man for life by the looks of it, and the talisman inspiring the team happened to be one of my favourite current footballers just was the perfect icing on the cake. The others also had their story to tell – I thoroughly enjoyed watching Robbie Fowler in action, the quintessential Liverpool player, grinding and fighting hard to keep a rich legacy alive. Though many disagree with a lot of his tactics, I find Rafa Benitez a terrific strategist.

Finally, after watching season upon frustrating season where Liverpool never emerged as serious contenders for the title race, my decade long wait to see Liverpool on top of the table was almost fulfilled in 2008-09 when they had a great run (they had their highest total of points ever in the Premier League-86), only to be outclassed by a better Manchester United. No grudges, but my happiest moment, like I am sure for many others was the 4-1 thrashing of the champs at Old Trafford that Liverpool dealt. It was a rekindling of a love affair which had been going steady and strong but needed that spark of romance to bring it alive again. Perhaps, 2009-10 is the season to set the record straight and get a grip on the Premier League title for the first time. Liverpool has some of the most passionate fans (look at me, I am not a serious ‘fan’ by any qualification, yet my current read is a book on the club, I have ‘You’ll never Walk Alone’ in 5 versions on my iPod, numerous t-shirts, and my phone’s theme is Liverpool as well and of course, I own a DVD of the Istanbul Champions League final!) and it might finally be time for the club to deliver something for the new generation. They have tried in the past, and looking at the transfers in the summer, not too many are giving them a chance. But this is a club that thrives on passion, the only thing that really matters in football, if you ask me.

Aha! Now I’ve cracked the puzzle. It is the passion, or rather the accumulated passion that the club, its heroes, coaches and even the legendary arena – Anfield can stoke is what keeps everybody bound by the Liverpool spirit. After all, ‘You’ll Never Walk Alone’ is the most apt line I can think of. ‘The Beatles’ were four Liverpool kids, and I have a t-shirt that alludes to that link. It says ‘All you need is Liverpool FC’. Sometimes, when you’re looking for passion and inspiration, it is true that you might just find it in your favourite football club. No matter what happens in the 09-10 season and beyond, I will be a Liverpool fan, a merseysider, for life!

WHAT SRK'S DAUGHTER TAUGHT ME ABOUT TRIVIA

THE PAST few weeks, I have been swept up in a storm of dealing with trivia. It was a tryst with the other kind of mindsport (I wrote about puzzles and the like on this blog a few months back), as I researched and fact checked and dug up questions to ask in Dare 2009, the IIPM and 4Ps Business and Marketing Quiz, the finals of which were superbly hosted by none other than Shahrukh Khan. He was at his charming, witty, entertaining and cheeky best lighting up the Saturday afternoon of August 1, but I digress. I want to talk about trivia and quizzing, something that has had me hooked since my General Knowledge classes in Standard IV. But what exactly draws us to trivia? And is trivia really knowledge? The two books I have read on the subject recently happen to think so. Ken Jennings' 'Brainiac' and Mark Mason's 'The Importance of Being Trivial' are terrific texts if you are looking for the context of trivia and the whole sport of quizzing, whether in a pub or on an American television game show (Jennings was a contestant on 'Jeopardy' where he won a record number of times).

But personally, what does it give us? Well, I had a fulfilling time researching questions because it opened vistas unknown to me. More interestingly, I was drawn towards newer subjects and issues as I hunted for material, often serendipitiously as I hopped from one website or book to another. Where our sense of wonder about all that's around us and the delightful experience of a serendipitious revealtation meet, I think that's trivia. It may not be 100% useful all the time (does it really help to know that Baskin Robbins was the
first ice cream consumed in space?) but it perhaps reinforces the existence of your inquisitive gene - without which I think you're better off dead than alive. And, although I use mostly empirical evidence here, most people with heightened inquisitiveness often go far. Don't get me wrong here; I am not a quizzing geek. And, I am sorry to say this, but I despise those trivia geeks and quizzers who seem to know all the 'facts' without a
disposition for learning. I have seen it happen before. When the 'Kaun Banega Crorepati' swept the country, suddenly an entire nation (not to mention a whole bunch of relatives who seemed least bit interested in 'knowledge' before the mention of Rs. 10,000,000 as prize money) wanted to find out what the currency of Mongolia was. They would gobble up facts like a marathon runner would gobble up carbs a day before his race.

But that's where I'd like to present a counter argument. Quizzing is not a sport where a burst of activity and frentic 'training' can get you success. It has a lot to do with your state of mind, and your attitude towards learning. In the Dare finals, Shah Rukh asked one of the teams, 'What is the full form of MAC, the famous cosmetics company?' The teams (the best six, filtered from 200 odd worthy contenders, mind you) didn't have an answer. Mr. Khan passed it on to the audience, and the 600 odd people seemed clueless as well! I knew the answer, but that's only because I had set that question. Otherwise, don't even expect me to know that MAC is cosmetics brand, let alone its expansion. But the silence was broken by a little girl's voice who shouted out 'Make Up Art and Cosmetics'! The correct answer! That's exactly the moment trivia lovers live for. The girl was Shah Rukh's daughter Suhana, and I have no idea how she knew the answer. But she did! And once again, what I believe about trivia was reinforced - knowledge can belong to anybody who's curious enough. And I am sure Suhana's curiosity had a big say in that answer. Surely, she may have seen many MAC products, but how many 6 year olds would look for the expansion of that name? Next time you are at a pub attending a quiz, or on a game show about to land a big prize, or just challenging a friend to a fact, remember that its not only about what the answer is, but how you got to the answer that should delight you the most.

THE DOPE ON DOPE TESTING

MAJOR LEAGUE Baseball in the United States, the nation's favourite pastime has suffered numerous blows when various doping scandals hit the sport, none more crushing than the Barry Bonds affair. Bonds, whose record of most home runs ever in baseball stands tainted because of that, was only the tip of a dirty iceberg as it now transpires. In cycling, doping has threatened to overshadow the Tour De France, Lance Armstrong and a lot of other teams and riders (Team Festina's ban and the mysterious death of rider Marco Pantani still rattle fans). Track and field has had its high profile disgraces as well (anyone remember Marion Jones?). Italian football clubs (notably Juventus, AC Milan and the like) have been notorious for having pharma stocks more varied and voluminous than a general hospital.

In this air of corruptibility that shrouds modern competitive sport, surely the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) isn't asking for too much if it wants to test cricketers as well. The BCCI's petulant reaction of not agreeing to sign on a dotted line where all FIFA players, as well as cricketers from other countries have signed once again underlines its role as an ugly bully in world cricket. Strangely, as a country, we seem to be backing them and our cricketers in calling for respecting their privacy and security concern. Pardon my language, but that's a lot of horse manure, if you ask me. Cricketers, especially of the Indian variety, have of late started behaving as if they were born with a silver spoon in their mouths, or as in this doping case, a silver needle on their arm. If the WADA had any other way of making sports drug free ('Remember kids, only losers don't drugs' is what pro sports seems all about these days!) it would have, but the demands of our time and scandals that have fermented because of it (see above) have left it no choice but to solidify the policing. If a common citizen has to subject himself to frisking and metal detectors from schools to shopping malls, its unfathomable why a cricketer can't take a while off their 'busy' off season for a simple test. And if anyone thought cricket was immune to the temptation of 'performance enhancement', look no further than Mohammed Asif and Shoaib Akhtar.

I doubt WADA's strict testing will continue forever; its simple economics that the incentive to cheat will srop drastically if the system is firmly held in place long enough. But for that to happen, compliance without compromise is the keyword. And if you really idolize your cricket players, and consider them models for good behaviour, I suggest not wearing the seatbelt or the helmet as a show of solidarity. Meanwhile, I just hope our cricketers are good at urinating in a cup!