Shah Rukh, Chidambaram, Tendulkar

A day of interesting events and statements...

SRK says he doesnt look at the script before signing on a film. Well, I am glad he realizes that because we movie-watching public knew a long time ago that there doesnt exist a thing called script in his movies.

Then PC mentions that he is proud that Kasab is getting a fair trial. I had mentioned in a previous post that we accuse Pak of going slow on 26/11 suspects even as we are fiddling with Kasab's evidence and trial. How ironic that our honorable home minister should make this statement!

And finally, India is humiliated at Nagpur. With Dravid and Laxman out, the middle order simply evaporated. But, as always, Sachin rose to the challenge. As always, he played resolutely, with remarkable dedication, focus, hard work and commitment to get to his 46th century! And, as always, he decided that was enough!! I realize I am being really mean, but I would be surprised if I am the only one that thinks Sachin just played for the record today. Its just too much of a coincidence to labor to reach the century and then get out without adding a single run. I wonder what general reaction would be if he were dismissed at 99. Certainly, he would have attracted huge sympathy for putting up a fight and missing a landmark, being unlucky because had he reached the century he might just go on to make a double, triple, do a Laxman, and maybe win us the test! Alas, that was not the case. He reached the century alright. We love to see successful people fail so we can offer them our sympathies. But when they succeed and collect the reward, we are left to choose between either patronizing or criticizing them.

Sachin 800

People have been dropped from the Indian side for all kinds of reasons, but it will be a first to see someone dropped for denying Sachin a century. Thankfully, Dhoni has been suspended so Dinesh Karthik will escape. If he was another batsman, you never know.

In any case, it is weird that we still tout Sachin as our best batsman. There was a time when he was a unique combination of aggression, style and consistency. Is he still our best though? Shot for shot and inning for inning, we have far better players. When Sehwag is in the mood, Sachin starts to look like Dravid. When runs flow from Laxman's bat, Sachin's strokes look manufactured. And there is no doubt who the "wall" is. Well yes, he blends in these qualities better than others, and produces good knocks from time to time. But I have my reservations about him being the best.

For one, I am deeply disappointed at his inability to lead the team. Such absurd shirking of responsibility would be tolerated only in our government services where one joins as a clerk and can retire as one, albeit hardworking, if one chooses to. That is precisely the allegory that comes to my mind when I watch Sachin play. A focused, hard working, dedicated and determined worker ant. He cant play like a Sehwag or Yuvraj because he is supposedly mature and responsible. But apparently not mature or responsible enough to lead the team. So all we get out of Sachin are some consistent innings, and its a shame that we dont have the talent to replace him.

Not to discount his feats and accomplishments, but what's the point of keeping him around, if he is serving no higher purpose, simply being a batsman building records, blocking the place of a youngster who can be groomed for the future. And even then, threatening the place of others for denying him a damn record! He is like our good old Maruti 800. A reliable and elegant alternative to the Ambassadors and Padminis when he broke out on the scene. And he remains so. But would you be caught dead driving a 800 today?

The paradox of sport stars

The recent Tiger Woods incident has highlighted a painful fact that great sportsmen are not necessarily great men. If anything, most of the guys at the top are terrible people.

Of the thousands that play tennis at a pro level, only one wins the Wimbledon. A nation of billion plus is represented by only 11 men at the national level. Getting to the top in sports requires talent, hard work, and a bit of luck. Talent and luck are to some extent predetermined, so the only thing a budding athlete can put in hard work and loads of them. And hard work is not simply hours of practice, but also developing a killer instinct to win, and at any cost. They develop a fiercely competitive spirit and seize on the slightest of opportunities. Even after reaching the top, these traits are required to stay there. The more physical a sport is, the more ruthless one needs to get. I am certain soccer players have the worst character record among top athletes. Even on the field, they resort to blatant cheating, be it diving for penalties or the use of hand. And until this recent incident, I thought golfers had the best one.

We, of course, are enamored by their successes and equate them to role models. But it is simply unfair to expect that they will smoothly metamorphose from ruthless animals to stellar human beings. Of course there are certain exceptions who readily come to mind. But they are just that - exceptions, who are born with incredible talent and put in an extraordinary amount of hard work. They only needed to remain focused, not become ruthless, to get to where they are. But the majority has had to scrounge for opportunities and capitalize on them at any cost. It is the survival of the fittest and the fittest are not necessarily the best.

What's in a game?

Soccer is easily the most popular sport in the world, both in terms of players and viewership. And possibly the only sport today that has remained indifferent to technological advances, because success continues to be determined by such elementary considerations as physical stamina, skill and teamwork. The sheer thrills and rushes of adrenalin offered by the game are unmatched. Fortunately or not, soccer is no longer a game but a national obsession as highlighted by the events following the world cup qualifier between Ireland and France.

After a 1-1 draw, France managed to scrape through in extra time with a golden goal set up by Thierry Henry, one of the game’s leading strikers. However, Henry used his arm to control the ball, which went unnoticed by the referee. The Irish were devastated, and to lose because of a refereeing error was too much to digest. The team protested the result and wanted a replay, which is understandable. What came as a surprise was the call for a replay from the Irish Prime Minister himself! And he even brought up the matter with Mr. Sarkozy on the sidelines of an EU meeting!! Now, Irish fans are protesting outside the French embassy.

My point is beyond how to deal with refereeing errors and the dying element of “sportsman spirit”. I find it incredible that an entire nation can take the result of a game so seriously. We have seen it happen in India too every time Sachin gets out on a dubious LBW decision, and more so if we go on to lose the game, which is often the case. Why are we unable to see these events as part of the game and move on? After all, India losing matches has no direct impact on our lives. If anything, we will stop following cricket and put our time to better use. Technically, even players should not bother much for they are rarely paid on the basis on the result (unless in a tournament or in a qualifier such as this where they lose out on games). But in a bilateral series such as the Ind-SL one currently underway, how does the result matter?

The answer probably lies in the structure of our brain, which has three components: the reptilian brain, limbic brain and neocortex. The reptilian brain is instinctive and reacts immediately to stimuli without thinking, which makes reflexes possible. On the flip side, it also leads us to automatically react without thinking, and probably explains the current Irish rage. We get attached to our team and become one with it. So when the team loses, we lose. But before we can step back and analyze, our reptilian brain has perceived this as a threat and forced us to respond. Once you make a move based on gut, it is nearly impossible to let things go and reconcile with reality. Instead, we end up with rationalizing and justifying our stance.

The trick, of course, is to suppress the reptilian instincts and let the limbic brain and neocortex take over. The limbic brain processes emotions whereas the neocortex is responsible for reasoning and thinking. Apparently, studies show that our neocortex is severely underutilized. There are ways to address this, some of which I learned in the MCC and AMCC courses at IIM-A, but more on that later.

Child Prodigies

Sachin recently completed 20 years in international cricket. He made his debut at the age of 16. Is it fair to subject a minor to the demands of international cricket? In his first Test series, he was hit by a Waqar bouncer on the nose. Thankfully, it wasn't serious, but if it was? Were his parents careless?

The other day I watched a news item on CNN IBN that showed a 9-year kid in Tamilnadu driving a car at speeds of 100 kmph. The incident took place sometime back, but only recently came to the attention of child rights activists, who vociferously and vehemently condemned the episode. It was sort of funny because the parents had spoken to the media after the incident and were proud of their child. Those clips were now being played with a child psychologist yelling her heart out on why such stunts are detrimental to the growth of kids.

For a moment, I was taken aback by the incident. The anchor wondered why parents were so enamored by records and went to such dangerous lengths. But full marks to the channel for presenting an alternative view. A certain gentleman named Hussaini, himself a stuntman, came on the show. Without beating around the bush, he said the act was justified if proper precautions and safety measures were taken. For good measure, he added that if we are not adventurous, we would never know the limits of human endurance. For example, how can we say that kids are not fit to drive? They are super comfortable with computers, then why not cars? Finally, and most logically, he pointed out that this was no different from teaching kids to swim at the age of 5 or enrolling them in tennis classes, which do have the risk of a child getting seriously injured.

In a few minutes, I took an about turn. Pushing children into music and sports as early as 3 is not only acceptable but is thought of as necessary if they have to get anywhere in life. Schoolkids are overloaded with study materials and tuitions in preparation for IITs. All of us has seen at least one kid that has lived up to the saying, "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy." Can we wait until kids grow up and make their own choices? This is what happens in other developed countries where people try all sorts of things before even getting a college degree. But then we have too many hands chasing too little opportunities so to not do anything about a child's career appears unfair as well. I guess the line between guiding children towards their passions and thrusting our passions on them is thin. Very thin.