Monthly Archives: October 2009

Cricket Loyalties and The Human Brain

Continuing with the trend of shamelessly ripping off others’ work, I give you New York Times columnist David Brooks’ take on neuroscience.

The article’s more about the latest trends in “social cognitive neuroscience,” that is, the study of the effects of culture and social interactions on the human brain. The relevant paragraph here:

Mina Cikara of Princeton and others scanned the brains of Yankee and Red Sox fans as they watched baseball highlights. Neither reacted much to an Orioles-Blue Jays game, but when they saw their own team doing well, brain regions called the ventral striatum and nucleus accumbens were activated. This is a look at how tribal dominance struggles get processed inside.

This is in reference to Dileep Premachandran’s column on cricket loyalties, as well as my post on why cricket should stay international: our brains are already wired to root for countries, not made-up IPL franchises.

The Champions League and India’s Cricket Administration

As always, Dileep Premachandran has a brilliant column in The Guardian. Rather than write my own blog post, I’m just going to deconstruct his so you can fully appreciate the argument:

Point #1: The Champions League failed in India, largely because cricket is still about nationalism in India, not the game itself –

India went out in the first round in South Africa, and according to aMap, the average rating for the competition was 1.1 [meaning 1.1% of the homes surveyed were watching the games]. Interest peaked during the India-Pakistan encounter which had a rating of 6.2 (industry insiders say that any rating above 3 is a good one). The figure for the first few days of Champions League action? 0.74.

Point #2: Cricket fatigue doesn’t help, as the administrators kill the goose with the golden eggs –

There was a time when the first touch of late-autumn chill had cricket aficionados in a tizzy about the new season. Now, with the sport played all year round, who can summon up that excitement? “Look at the English Premier League,” says Arora. “They have a fixed three-month break at the end of each season. By the end of that, fans are desperate for play to start again. How can you have that desperation if you play all the time?”

Point #3: Indian cricket administrators are also still remarkably inept, using a ridiculous rotation schedule among still shabby stadiums that are also hung with still ridiculous reservations for VIPs who don’t show up. Phew! –

India may remain the game’s financial hub for the foreseeable future, but there seems to be no effort to create a genuine cricket culture. Where’s the annual marquee Test, the equivalent of Boxing Day at the MCG, July at Lord’s or New Year in Cape Town? Why is there a ridiculous rotation system that has denied Eden Gardens, India’s liveliest venue by far, a Test since December 2007? In that time, Mohali, where Tendulkar went past Brian Lara’s record for most Test runs in front of silent concrete stands and a few bussed-in schoolkids, has hosted two games.

There’s still more in that article worth reading that I haven’t quoted. Yeah, it’s that good. All hail. Read it.

Kieron Pollard’s Unbelievable Feat

Take a look at the short highlights of Kieron Pollard’s 54 off 18 balls against New South Wales. It’s only two minutes long, so you don’t get the match context to fully appreciate Pollard’s feat. (Head over to Cricket Online for that.)

Cricket Should Stay International

Nagraj Gollapudi has a useful article on Cricinfo about the future of the county-based model that thrives only in cricket among global sports. He quotes a club executive to make his point:

“We are seeing the flaws in the country-versus-country model, where there is a huge disparity in the standard of teams. Some matches aren’t competitive and some countries are choosing to play others more regularly, so you haven’t got an even spread of the wealth generation.”

Here’s my problem with the club model (and feel free to correct me, because sports economics isn’t my forte): would anyone watch the IPL if its roster of stars didn’t include international luminaries? Would the IPL be such a success if its major athletes hadn’t already succeeded at the highest level?

Sure, it’s possible that club T20s will eventually provide the glitter and legimatacy that Tests currently do, but somehow I doubt clubs will easily replace the fire that international events easily provide. I want to watch India play Pakistan or England play Australia in a way that I don’t watch, um, the Delhi Daredevils play the Deccan Chargers.

Mohammad Asif’s Magic Ball Against Cameron White

Dileep Premachandran calls this Asif delivery the “ball of the tournament,” and thinks some Indian bowlers could learn from it:

Champions Trophy Ends Badly

Let’s play the good and bad game. On the good side, the tournament was fairly exciting, with plenty of action and close matches and compelling cricket. But on the bad side, the Australians — the ones who’ve done the most to make cricket boring in the last decade — won, and that too against New Zealand, a competent side (but nothing more).

So where does that leave us? This was supposed to be the tournament that confirmed Australia’s official demise as the best team in the world, but instead we found all the top favorites — Sri Lanka, South Africa, India — out of the running. But then again, Australia seemed much more exciting, scrapping to win down to the tail against Pakistan. If this is the future, I like it: plenty of contenders for the throne.

UPDATE: Kridaya has a different, more resigned, take.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 759 other followers