Random Musings

In the last couple of days, I picked up a common thought across three completely unrelated media events.

Event 1:
In the first instance, I saw on TV, an interview with Anupam Kher. He was talking about his very first movie which was a big success, and where his work was appreciated, “Saaransh”. He was referring to the scene in the film where he goes to claim the ashes of his dead son, and breaks down in front of the officer. He says that the scene had multiple takes and each time, he managed to cry out very well, and with a lot of emotion. The scene was one of the key scenes of the movie. Anupam confessed on this interview that while doing this scene, he was not thinking much about the character, or the character’s son who had died, etc. Somehow he was thinking that if this film does not work, he would have to head back to Shimla, from Mumbai. And that thought was making him cry and in turn, bringing out the best in him!!

Event 2:
Then I read an interview of Indian captain M S Dhoni, where he was also describing his entry into the Indian team. He said that after an India A tour where he was a member, he started to get a feeling that he will at least get one chance to play for the India team. At least one chance! And he did get that one chance when he was selected for three matches. And somehow he did not click in any of them. He hoped against hope that he will get one more chance. And which he got in a while. Now he was clear that if he did not make it, he will be lost in the oblivion of Indian domestic cricket. This was it – his last chance to show that he is worthy of a place in the Indian team. Then, it was that thought of being written off, and the pressure that it caused, that made him work very hard in that outing, and he managed to hit a ton. Staring at the possibility of having to go back to his old life made him raise his level and fight it out, and succeed!

Event 3:
Today morning’s paper carried an interview of Ms. Indra Nooyi, the Pepsi CEO, and she said that she owed her success in great measure to the fact that she did not have a safety net. That should she fail, she’d have to take the next boat home, and that thought made her work harder and achieve the success that she ultimately did.

There is an interesting pattern across these three otherwise unrelated messages. That the fear of failure, and the relegation back to the not-very-desirable life made the persons work harder towards their goal.

Interestingly, I carried a different thought most of my life. Somehow on account of various factors, pretty much right through my education and my working life, I always had a perception of having a ‘safety net’. When friends were working hard during exams, for it was a make or break in terms of career prospects for many, mentally I used to feel that I always had the family business to go to, and I was less stressed. That I did not do too badly over time, made me feel that perhaps the lack of pressure was allowing me to deliver my best?

But now I think again. Could more stress have driven me to even greater levels?? Do I give my kids the feeling that they have a safety net, or do I tell them that they better make it, or else…?!

I was not taken in by the 20 overs cricket concept as I felt that this “slam-bam-thank you ma’am” format would just be festival cricket and no more. A combination of curiosity, media blitz and convenient timings ( 9.30 pm starts) got me viewing these games and after seeing a couple of these games, I can say that I am a convert of sorts.

I had felt this often about basketball games. That more often than not the two teams stay close to each other in scores over 3 quarters, and perhaps even a bit into the 4th. And that the game is finally decided in those last 5 min depending on which team plays a tighter game then. And I have wondered that the first 3 quarters are only charades. Why don’t they just start the game at 75-75 and play for just 15 min calling it the 4th quarter?!

Well twenty20 is that equivalent in cricket!

In normal 50 overs cricket you see an initial fast paced batting in the first ten overs, then some consolidation, wicket conserving and
soft pace setting over the next 30 overs before a final onslaught again in the last ten overs. Twenty20 cricket is all of the above but without those middle 30 overs! Like taking out the first 3 quarters of basketball!

You would think that it would basically be a batters game then. Yes it is so. But you still see some inspired bowling performances. Like R P Singh yesterday against South Africa. What the bowlers don’t have is the luxury to settle down to a line and length. They need to get it right from the first ball that they bowl. And the yorker is the ball to bowl, again from early indications. There is a huge flurry of sixers being hit (Yuvraj hit 6 in an over!!), so anything that is remotely short has a chance of being walloped over the ropes. The bowler’s best chance is to pitch it up and aim for the yorker. This is unlike the ODIs, where to some extent, short balls also work. Mainly because the batsman is more conscious about not losing his wicket – there may be another 20-25 overs to bat through there. Here, batsmen are far less concerned about their wicket, and in the interest of scoring, they are willing to sacrifice the wicket.

The fielding needs to be top class. On the ground and in catching as well. Dinesh Karthik took a catch yesterday that could be about as
good as any that I have seen taken on a cricket field!

On the batting front a team may always seem to ‘have a chance’. Even from 30 for 5, a team could potentially end up at a score of 150 and which could be defensible. After all the tail needs to wag only for say 5-10 overs which maybe they could manage, and in the process bang around a few runs as well.

I guess there is not so much established strategy to the game yet. The captains and the coaches are experimenting still. Like how to do the bowling changes (with just 4 overs max per bowler, how do you give the bowler multiple spells, for example!), or the batting order (every batter has to be potentially a pinch hitter…). The strategy will come as they play more and learn.

Those cliched statements of ‘the game is not over till the last ball is bowled’ or ‘the better team on the day will win’, are all the more true in this form of cricket. Australia lost to Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka and South Africa both looked very good teams and both have not made it to the semis also. Being a short form game, one bad move can mean defeat as there is no room to wiggle out of a spot and recover. Which is why, established good teams could also end up losing.

From a spectator’s point of view, the format is good. In about 3 hours, you see the whole game and its all over..

And meanwhile from India’s point of view, Dhoni appears to be (touch wood and all that) a lucky captain so far. We have made it to the semi finals, although till date, we are amongst the least experienced Twenty20 sides.

Of course, it could be a ploy to ensure that the game becomes a hit in the largest paying market for the sport…