How can you generalise such a thing, I know quite a lot people who do not know their leg-gully's and 'square' of the wicket even within the 'knowledgeable' demographics as suggested by the author.
Certainly one of those articles that Mr Keshavan writes for the sake of putting something on paper and getting paid.

Nice article ! Cricket on TV is a joy to watch ( espcially if one has the remote with which ti mute Mark Nicholas when he comes on ) Actually Ch9 coupled with the ABC radio commentary is the best solution.
You always have to have a dig at the Aussie team don't you, so bitter and twisted!

Yawn...Another piece of patronizing tripe. Guys please get someone else to write. I'd rather a Sambit Bal or Premachandran blog. This guy's too sleepy for the 'uber' viewer

but then i presume we played much more cricket than the kids of today and watched more of local leauge cricket

Now thats something Indian..The older generation (60s - 80s youth) have been following the cricket on the radio and occasionally the clips being shown in theaters in the intermission of the movies, with the ads playing in the newspapers that "Highlights of India -Pak test in Chennai" in particular theater at particular time.

I heard stories of how older generation used to get up late in the night to listen to the commentaries on radio for India - WI series....

Today we too wake up late in night but to watch it on tv and then follow an overdose of the analysis with some same boring faces in the hindi version of Max and then on some other news channel with oldie cricketers saying the same crap thing "Seniors hatao, desh bachao" (Remove seniors, save the nation)...

Indian television wont be ever able to match the quality of Channel 9 or even for that case the Sky Sports in England. However if we see the games on ESPN (Which has reduced to a few good countries like Eng, NZ, Aus), the quality of analysis and the opinions sound good, but the news channels and their experts sound as foolish as the street side super shoppe who runs "Pan ki dookan" who says some ridiculous things about Indian cricket and cricket in general (Testimony to it is the discussions on rediff.com, where more messages are removed owing to abuse alerts than being displayed on the site).....

Anyways Mukul, thats a perfect Indian article. Way to go. Much like our normal Indian day to day sensibilities and livings. One can easily identify to this wehn you talk of how older generation fans used to follow game on BBC TMS, Akashvani (Viji, Ravi Chaturvedi etc etc) radio channels..... Keep it up!!!!!! And one last thing : dont take always a dig on teams u dont like....India in previous articles and Australia now....

Once again, brilliant writing. Great topic! Too good.

Dear Mr. Kesavan,
Thank you once again for another BRILLIANT article. I've experienced this very thing in my own home (in Bangladesh, not India, may I just add!)
I hope you keep writing even after the tournament is over for cricinfo because your blog entries since the start of the tournament have been a joy to read.

"I thought deep-fine leg stood near the boundary just a few degrees to the left of the keeper. I thought long-leg was deep fine-leg. "

Isn't that the case anyway? I am probably reading this wrong, but for a right handed batsman, Deep Fine Leg is at the boundary a few degrees to the left of the keeper. Long leg was the historical name for Fine Leg as far as I know.

And why the hate for the Aussies? I really can't understand it.

Mukul - Actually until you wrote about deep fine leg, even i thought the same and I have been following cricket closely for about 20 years.
The only fielding position which i knew for sure was Point where Jonty fielded.

Another excellent piece Mukul. I started watching cricket in 1991 and things have changed so much from even 1996. I remember how I was delighted to find info on each player playing the world cup in 1996 in a magazine which came along with the Telegraph. Now, there is so much info available online.

Just a small note.. Channel 4 of England even upped the standards with their revolutionary coverage. Channel 9 became mundane for a while but have improved again. To see how brilliant Channel 9 is, get the Ashes 2005 DVD set if you can. Absolutely brilliant analysis from them. Sadly, we got the Sky feed for the Ashes in 2005.

Nowadays every tom,dick and harry has an opinion(you and me included).
Watching a good game of cricket is ruined by some biased,scene describing commentators. Worst thing that could happen to any viewer is tuning in during a SL game with Ranjith Fernando on air!. yuck..

but i am frankly amazed how cricket off late feeds so many bloggers burgeoning like mushrooms after a rain!(mukul,sambit bal,soumya bhattacharya,et al)

Dear Mukul,
I am currently studying in India and writing about the links between cricket and Indian national consciousness. I would love to hear your views on the topic. I also have a cricket-related blog - www.cricket4peace.wordpress.com
I'd love ot have your feedback on it. Good luck - when's the book coming out? Emily

Uhh... umm.. well whatever - but, the purpose of this article?

I read the whole article and felt like I was listening to a Tony Cozier - Ranjit Fernando hybrid. In other words, reading the article was slightly less amusing that picking my nose.

I am seriously contemplating writing an equally long article about how I created my first email account when I was 19, and how most of the kids I know now have one before they are six etc etc. Will you publish it here? I think that one might me reasonably more amusing that this one.

Sorry Cricinfo - generally I love your website - but, can we please have some meaningful articles here, and from an author who doesnt write for the sake of writing - or none at all.

Nice article about how cricket fans in India have changed since 1960s. If only this knowledgable set of fans realized that India as a cricekting nation can't win unless there are changes in the system (especially the way the BCCI works) and we should just stop watching cricket for some time so that we can hurt their (Board and government officials) money-making. Well, I know this is just wishful thinking.

Once again a great article, sight screen or the side screen sort of an optical illusion in the form of words and I never knew either. I am no well informed of Cricket, but did play soft ball and couple of hard ball matches as a teenager, I really wish I was a modern teenager where everything we want to know in Cricket or for anytrhing for that matter is just a click away.. The other day I was just running through some notes of a 10 year old of an International school, I was amazed to look at their content, some of them we have read only when we were in grade 10, its no wonder there are so much of young pundits on blogs, they can be as accurate as any expert on cricket commentry.

Its news for me of the Halk Eye and the Slo-Mo is a creation of Channel 9, but in someway this has led to question even some of the best empires too of their decision's accuracy, umpires are now able to look at their decisions on a giant screen a minute after their decisions, the question is will an umpire opt to equal a mistake by making another mistake yet again for a "not out" and this time purposely.? Slo-Mo can be put to practice, I think the cricket pundits should find a way to see how they can put the Hawk Eye in to practice.. I've seen a pair of Sunglasses where its lenses can be used as shades and also as a VGA screen, I am not sure I've seen it on movie or in a Trade Fair? Channel 9 how about an umpire with a pair of Spy Glasses?

I was annoyed with Cricinfo's coverage during WC warm up matches, for obvious reasons they gave priority to some of the commercially affluents, I am a serious Sri Lankan fan, guys at Cricinfo may know how much time they took to post our results, unfortunately some of them were half baked and we still had to wait sometimes till 3-4 in the morning. Like I mentioned there were obvious reasons.. unfortunately this treatment can still prevail at times after all what else we can expect for free.. On the other hand Cricinfo has made a revolution in the Cricketing World, no sites are able to present so clearly as Cricinfo, I'm telling you I've been to most number of sites to find an alternative site, I'll guarantee none like Cricinfo,

HATS OFF TO, CRICINFO- THE UNOFFICIAL SITE CRICKET WORLD CUP 2007! CHANNEL 9! HATS OFF FOR THE ORIGINALITY OF MUKUL!

Ranjith Fernando :o(

My preferred choice was always to have the TV turned on and muted, with the radio tuned to Blowers et al on TMS. Bliss!

Unfortunately, the advent of Sky coverage means that the two sources are too out of sync for this to work.

I was shocked to see someone claiming that long leg and deep fine leg were drastically different(I was sure they were almost the same) to form the basis of another boring,preachy,"in my times" article and did a wiki search for it (yes,i have to make use of the vicarious means to eduacate complete idiots like you)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fielding_(cricket)

If 5 degrees of an arc makes any difference,then they are indeed different-may be you confused long on with long leg! Not surprising given that you were busy trying to catch short radio waves.

As for the statistics being poured into your blog,it has been mainly to correct your non-sensical prejudices and completely incorrect assessments. I can't forget the blog where you included Razzaq in the your otherwise good article about Pakistan.

I enjoyed your articles initially,but then I am fed up of them now-too long,stereotyped and the same sickening "In those golden times when I was a kid" theme being dominant all through your articles.Being so nostalgic,I think it is better you stick to your original profession-writing about history and sociology and leave the cricket to us-"geeky,vicarious fans" who fortunately feel the pulse of the game and are much more accurate in their assessments.

I am an Indian fan and i don't like watching India vs Sri Lanka, mostly because of Ranjit Fernando hahaha, really, most certainly, actully anything ending with "ly" , he uses these words a little too much, i just press the little button on my remote with says "mute" when ever he comes on. I like Australian Commentators, Bring back Dean Joans

well well ,
finally sameer is with mukul accepting some fact i think, but poos sameer will miss 10"dull"kar, gun"gull"y, kumble"y", drrravid when they meet the defending world cup champions "sri lankans" in the 10th world cup.

The last line of this article from Mukul is interesting "Indian team could repay fans by winning something big"...Realistically, this is not very likely to happen - Pepsi will not allow Indian cricketers to practice / play cricket.
They are OK with Yuvraj teaching Carribean restaurants how to cook Indian dishes, Sachin / Dravid et al wasting their time shouting "hoo haa....". They have required Indian cricketers to do everything .... except play cricket.

Ranjit Fernando has got be the worst commentator ever since Sidhu was kicked out of the commentators' box and sent packing to jail.

For whatever reason you hate the Aussies, this article didnt seem like the place to put it in. One Gavaskar is annoying enough.
And I'm not sure what the point of the article is anyway. It states a few facts without giving any insights. A bit of a drab I'd say

The Indian cricket fans who religiously praise your blogs certainly couldn't be very well informed Mukul, not if you are their congenial precept of high thinking. The massive chip on your shoulder regarding the Australian team is what psychologists refer to as; a coping mechanism commonly used to mask a Himalayan sized inferiority complex.

For while any techno geek can analyse the game (with anal being the operative syllable), and from that draw material for the most colourful and abstruse judgements - it takes a hell of alot more discipline, determination, sacrifice and fortitude to successfully play it.

I do sympathise with your antipathy for the Mcgraths and Pontings of the World, I can't imagine what it's like to come from a country that has a population fifty times larger than Australia, and not be able to claim that you're better than them, not by a long shot.

But your overt dislike of Australia is borne from a jealousy that every philosophy in the world warns against. Infact there is a theory that the reason why India was knocked out of the World Cup, was not the result of deified primadonnas not playing to their potential. But from the effects of Karma, accrued from Sunil Gavaskars' negative comments about the Australian team just before the tournament began. Your sentiments only further contribute to this counterproductive esoteric reverb.

Everyone knows that whites are uptight, ignorant and ungracious, but pigment is skin deep and under that we are all brethren. That's what India has taught us, the great humanistic truths that we are all Gods' children

No-one's disputing that there must be harmony between heart and intellect in cricket, in life, everywhere but in the deepest throes of sadhana (meditation)or passion (sex). However alot of what passes for educated analysis here - blithely foregoes intellectual considerations and substitutes the heart component with dubious diatribes of nationalistic fervour. Yours included.

Consciousness is like a version of Windows, time to get yours updated.

Pratyush, I'm not sure what you mean by Channel 9's coverage on the 2005 Ashes DVD - Channel 9 didn't cover that series, they knocked it back and it was picked up by SBS (another Australian broadcaster), who I think just used the British Channel 4 feed (?)

Mukul, what was the point of the "I don't like the Australian team" comment? It wasn't in any way relevant to your article and added nothing to it - would have pleased the 'anti-Australian' Asian readers though I'm sure...

TV coverage is a consequence of the game on the field.

As an (illogical?) extension of this piece we could reflect that while TV coverage has come along in leaps and bounds, the game itself has not evolved that much.

Sometime back a few of us were philosophizing about what would happen if a true money bags nation got hold of cricket and how they would revolutionize the game.

The game, not its coverage mind you.

Say for example, the US got really really interested and came into the kind of financial prominence that India is in now.

The revenues from cricket on TV would be phenomenally high, thus ensuring the networks would force some changes to the game itself. What are these likely to be?

For instance;
* Five ball overs will increase the ad space available.

*Advertising on cricketers clothing and equipment would probably step up to the level of F1 drivers.

* the seam on the cricket ball would be in fluoro so that it appears to 'blaze' down the pitch ( a la the tracer bullet effect of ice hockey pucks)

*trampoline surfaces on the periphery of the grounds so that fine legs, third men, longs off and on and sweepers square of the wicket could hav telegenically enhanced leaps as they try to snare those 'sixers'.

And so forth!!

Any ideas of your own?

*

Mukul,

There is one more piece of technology which makes watching cricket (or for that matter any sport) even more a pleasure. The DVR (Digital Video Recorder). Here in the US I have a DVR in which I can record over 200 hours of TV program. I subscribe every cricket match, including the ones which India does not play, record them and then watch the recording as if it was Live. Unless I visit any of the Indian websites watching the recording several hours after the match has started, gives the exact same feeling as if you are watching live. Pausing Live TV, replay with a click of a button and such makes Cricket watching a real pleasure.

good article.

The other cause for the (admittedly slight) misunderstanding of the difference between fine leg & long leg is that 'fine leg' is the term more commonly used, and, at least in my experience, fine leg goes a lot finer in school level cricket than it does in international cricket, hence making it (according to Wikipedia's diagram) long leg. There is then no room for long leg between fine leg and long stop, so it goes the other side of fine leg.

At least that's how my subconscious thought process went (until I read this article :P)

I read with some amusement Bravo Mukul's response to your remeniscient piece on the,well,the'good ol' days'when Pearson Surita and Suresh Saraiya were kings and we were their disgruntled subjects.They were our only means to the action however revolting we found their commentary.I have to admit much as I liked the article I found some merit in the argument that the aussie-bashing,heartfelt though it may have been was not necessary.Whatever.But the gentleman who passes himself off as Bravo Mukul needs a reality check.India not qualifying because of the karmic effects of Gavaskar's statement is a white man's interpretation of karma,the true but snide shot at India's fifty strong population vis-a vis Australia ignores political history.But most amusing is that India has taught him the great humanistic truth that beneath the skin we are all children.Someone must have tried hard but,alas,failed.You have no idea of karmic consequences.Sadhana is not meditation and passion is not sex.Dont lecture us on Hinduism or 'new-age' relegion.Get a new master,read better books.
Conciousness is like a version of Windows,time to get yours checked.

Sumit lectured Bravo -

"You have no idea of karmic consequences.Sadhana is not meditation and passion is not sex.Dont lecture us on Hinduism or 'new-age' relegion."

Fair call my Indian brother, you know more about the subject. But please return the favour, and don't pass judgement or comment on cricket matters. We Aussies know a lot more about it obviously!

While the Hawk eye, the replays, the charts, the wagon wheels, the worms, etc are quite good and useful, I hate it when the TV shots only show a player's head+chest shot for 10-20 seconds at a time. And the "above the sight-screen" camera being used for showing every delivery is probably the worst camera angle. The best angle to see the action of both the bowler and the batsman would be from long on or long off with a slight elevation (not "nose-bleed high" like the top of the sight screen). Also, between deliveries, they should use more wide-angle shots to show the fielder positions. And, between overs, they should show how the entire field switches from one end to the other. It is painfully difficut for someone who hasn't seen Cricket in person to understand the game only from the TV pictures. My university's TV network has the world cup matches and lots of people who have never seen cricket in the field want to learn the game but they cannot grasp what is happening just by watching it. There is way too much of close-up shots and not enough explanation by way of the pictures or the commentary. How then is the game going to expand in other parts of the world?

For someone who is used to seeing a baseball umpire call "strike" for a ball that passes quite a bit outside the plate, AND not a word being said to question the umpires decision, the scrutiny the TV coverage puts on the cricket umpiring is simply ridiculous. It is just a game and the ump called it the way he saw it. Get over it and move on!

It wont work dood, the younger generation doesnt read books - you'd have been much better off sucking up to the oldies.

I am a fan, of the Game, and I like to think, that I learn about life, by contemplating the game.Cricket is an extention of society, etc. I would like to broaden my horizons, by being a cricket fan, or by any interaction, including that with myself.

Very elegant. So, you really did want some spiteful comments from Pakistanis and Australians? Very subtle.
What about Tait? Have you seen how he chucks?
What about Murali?
Have you seen the hyper-extended arm of Akhter's?

I am afraid this sort of finger-pointing without a solid analysis is very unjustified.
As usual, a well-written article though, with, as usual, awkard mentions of cricket without any backing.

wow. the guy says he dosent like the australian cricket team, and out pops some moron who turns it into a race thing. he said 'team'. not country. not the players. the team. you root for a team, what can be more natural than disliking the team that beats them the most?

just to comment on sumit desai's comment rgarding bravo mukul's "enlightened" blog: well said. i am truly sick of all the non-hindu's carping about karma and what not. Please do not spout religious vocabulary if you don't fully understand it's meaning. reading about karma from a book does not make you an expert or anything for that matter. You are born with these ideals and you have to live them in order to grasp their true meaning. using big words like karma may impress your ignorant friends, but it just makes you look and sound like a fool to us.

Dear Mukul,
What do they know of cricketwho only cricket know? I am researching on Cricket and Media, and I would be on my back foot if I am asked to randomly explain the various positions on the field. Cricket can not be reduced to mere statistics. the game can't be reduced to statistics and the field positions. For cricket goes much beyond into the realm of politics, and I do not think the fans bred on super sixes and hawk eyes are well informed if they don't look beyond mere statistics. Hence this generalization may not be true with every individual.

tonight is the mother of all nights...all great spirits who roamed on this great nation shall rise to fortify our march forward..20 million hearts carry only one beat of pray...JAYA SRI..fleming styris bond bring it on..WE ARE READY

Mukul Kesevan is man with great writing skills, I am sure he has some knowledge about the history and facts of the game. But his analysis and personal opnion on cricket are laughable. Mukul's only saving grace are his writing and presentation skills. Content and depth in his analysis is something that's seriously lacking. I guess that's the difference between writers like Kesevan and men who have actually played the sport at international or national level.

What the hell does it matter ? Most fielding positions are not described by name. You have to judge how the wicket is playing and take into account that particular batsman hitting ability and stand accordingly, that is if you are playing. Of course if you are an armchair player the exact name of the position matters !

I agree with Supersub. This obsession with names seems to be another characteristic of the modern fan. We had a guy come out and play in our league once. I asked him to stand somewhat backward of square on the boundary for a left hander who liked to hit to that area -- but he kept moving to either square leg or fine leg despite our correcting him a couple of times. Later I concluded he must have felt standing anywhere in the middle was illegal! :-)

A well written article. I must say however that as an average cricket fan that I disagree with the part about stats. I have been living outside of India for over 7 years now. I have come across many people who recently movd from India and I cannot have a real discussion about cricket with them. They do not bother to look at their stats yet still have an argument with me. It is sad to see that these same people, who have played loads more cricket that I did and had cable TV in India to watch every match could not give me good backup for their arguments about why a certain player is not performaing well. I did not have cable TV until the 88 World Cup came around. I was one of the Odd kids in my school who had 2 DD Channels - National and Metro. I did not know about cricinfo until I was an ad for it in the Newspaper about a year before I left India. My point is that the average Indian fan in many cases is not as knowledgeable and passionate about the game of cricket as they claim to be. They could tell you more about an Indian cricketer's personal life than his batting or bowling Comparison versus the stats or technique of bowlers from any other country that India plays. The Indian fans need to wake up and realize that if we are to know the real reasons why our team performs in a certain way then we must also know the reasons why players from other nation are successful against us.

This was something which I wanted to ask and the picture u had shown reminded me of the same...

The commentators of today, especially the Tong-Greg-Mold, thinks that they are the experts and they only are the experts.. One thing they forget is the histroy of themselves when the do the commentry.. they dont leave any stone unturned..

Before the Hawkeye came to picture, they would ponder over the replays (some would pass strong judgments even before that) and criticise the umpires.. Today the use the Hawkeye.. From my understanding, the error in Hawkeye prediction varies from ball to ball.. For eg., Murali bowling and it hits the pad only just after it pitched.. So the hawkeye would only have a small length to predict the remaining trajectory.. Does that mean the error in the prediction would be high.. I guess so..

If so, I would like the technology to show how much error it expects in each case. For eg, a thick shade for the nominal path and a semi transparent one for the expected error along the trajectory....

May be its a wrong forum.. but would like to know the comments :)

Thank you very much for writing such a nice article. There is a prevailant attitude to treat old as gold (not just in cricket). But the amazing innovations of TV does make it a pleasure to watch the game. The web analyses are much more detailed. I can re-live some moments of Indian team glory by reading the ball by ball commentary at cricinfo. Kapil Dev's sensational 175 against Zimbabwe is just statistics - whereas Dhoni's 183 against Sri-Lanka is available to for everyone to read ball by ball. (I am sure a day will come where I will get to see 2-d videos to view for free and pay only for the 3-d pictures.) The main point is cricket coverage is one example of how technology makes your life better.

This is slightly unrelated, but I am posting it regardless...

The amount of advertising on TV during cricket matches is shameful. The situation is not likely to improve until ICC takes a leaf from FIFA and sets ad standards for cricket telecast. To begin with, a few simple guidelines must be enforced rightaway:

1) No two advertising slots should be closer (to each other) than 4 minutes. This will ensure that the stupid ads are not repeatedly seen in the following scenarios:
a) A wicket falls on the 4th or 5th delivery (ads come up again at the end of the over). b) Wickets fall in consecutive deliveries (or a W-Dot-W sequence etc) c) When spinners are operating at both ends etc.

2) No advertising during brief stoppages of play during: replacement of ball, batsman adjusting his gear, fielder requesting helmet, a bowler remarking his run-up in the middle of the over, sight-screen being adjusted etc. The telecast coverage during these incidents is actually interesting to the viewer

3) Ads must be cut in only after the over has COMPLETELY ENDED (and the ball is dead) and the scoreboard is being shown. During recent events especially during world cup 2007, the telecast managers most blatantly did not wait for the commentrators cue at the end of the over to cut in the ads. Ads were thrust on the viewers even BEFORE the ball was completely fielded and the score updated and shown. This is a new disease which was not pervalent earlier. All pretense towards class, standards and quality has been thrown to the winds and abandoned in the sole pursuit of ad revenue.

4) No scrolling pop-up style banner ads should be permitted at the top (or bottom or sides etc.). During this world cup many a time including the semi-finals and the finals the batsmans head was cut-off (obscured) by these ads at the moment of playing the shot. Such is the shabby nature of coverage, my friends.

5) No teaser (extremely short duration) ads should be allowed. During the DLF cup sometime ago every ad slot started and ended with an extremely short ad for Dyna Soap (Dyna, Be like a lady...the allusion was to Lady Diana and her death) with two longer duration ads thrown in between. It was so repetitive that it became downright sick after some time. All ads must be prescreened for suitability and should be such that they blend with the telecast in terms of tone and content and do not jar the viewer (Admen would obviously not agree with this..)

Anywhere else in the world (both cricket and other sports) the telecast managers would find it difficult to be in business with the current standard of coverage. The viewing public would ensure that. Standard setters would have wisely set the standards at a (very) high level ahead of the fact (and not after the fact). Technically, of course the cricket telecast (during actual play, i.e. when the batsman is playing the shot, run-out replays etc.) is excellent but the overall experience for the viewer is downright shoddy.

One adhoc solution is to put the TV on mute and listen to the radio commentary in conjunction with the telecast where possible. I wish someone would develop an ad stripping chip which could be fit on the TV.

In fact in some indirect way, this fundamental lack of desire for quality in ALL aspects is resposible for India's poor showing in Cricket of late and sports in general.

Sudarshan Lakvalli
-slakvalli@yahoo.com