Mr. Swaminathan, it is Sunday again!
I have been reading Swaminathan Aiyar on and off for some time now. What he has said here has forced me to write about the way he approaches this war issue.

Just because he is not worried about calling himself a cynic, does not mean he is not one. If you read the above article, you will understand how he has successfully evaded delivering an opinion on a critical issue just by sticking some mathematical and historical arguments together!

There isn't much you can dispute or argue about in the whole article. It is just his way of saying 'a table is a table'. You can't really deny anything. But when you think from the "why" angle of it - that is "why did he actually say all this"? - the best reason you would probably come up with is that "It was a Sunday"! Come every Sunday, he has to write one article. And this time, it happens to be this!

Let me take a vote here! Who doesn't know about Darwin's "Survival of fittest"? If you raise in "Me!" to the above question, then you have hell a lot to learn from that article of Swaminathan Aiyar.

So he goes..
"A victory will doubtless unearth evidence of Iraqi biological or chemical weapons, and ridicule will be heaped on Hans Blix, France, Germany and the UN Security Council. The new regime in Iraq will condemn Saddam as a mass murderer, and the world will nod agreement."

So does he feel that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction? Does he have an opinion on whether Iraq possesses those weapons actually matters? Before we think along these lines, the next lines follow..

...if the war goes badly for Bush, moral attitudes will be very different. Suppose thousands of US soldiers and Iraqi civilians are killed, and that terrorist reprisals on US cities with biological weapons kill thousands more. I suspect the US public will turn against Bush, and blame him for unwarranted deaths in an unwarranted military adventure..

Duh! Okay, so what's your point?

This is more and more Aristotle syllogism! When I start out in the morning for a long walk, I always know the following..

"It will rain or it will not rain"..

I think you need to tell something more if you think you deserve to get published!

THE FINAL!
It is time for the final!

Here are some random tips that I have in mind for the Indian Team. The captain needs to decide on all of these and the best thing I could do to pass it on to him, was to publish it here..

* Play Parthiv Patel!
* If you win the toss, bat first!
* Play Dravid at number three; Ganguly at number five;
* Tell Sehwag to play natural in this one game. Take the pressure off him!
* Beware of Andy Bichel!
* Convince Srinath to go round the wickets to Gilchrist - first ball, every ball!

Thats all I have for the captain.

And I am really not surprised that three of my four predictions for the cup have failed, outright! I have never been good at it, for that matter! :-)

Logic for semifinal clash..
A friend of mine today questioned the logic for semifinal clashes in tournaments. Usually, if the semifinalists stand 1,2,3,4 on the points table, 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3. He questioned this saying that this takes the fun out of one of the clashes in the semifinal. Even though 2 vs 3 will be a good contest (speaking in expected terms), 1 vs 4, in all probabilities will be one-sided.

He said if you wanted to make sure 1 should get to the finals - you could very well not have semifinals and have finals - straight between 1 and 2. Whats the point in having a semifinal and taking the fun out of one game, he argued.

He said, for better contests - 1 vs 2, 3 vs 4 is ideal. But because this will eliminate a better team one stage before, we should avoid that and have 1 vs 3 and 2 vs 4, instead.

I did give him a convincing argument against his format and he finally accepted to the current format. And the explanation I gave was simple enough, I thought.

But just want to know if there are other thoughts.. What do you think?

For the records, I am totally unaware of any mathematical facts involving tournaments, when I say all this.. So if you give me any, I will blindly accept.. (after considerable thought! :-)

Bhagwan..
I hear thats what they call Sachin in the Indian Camp these days..

Bhagwan..

Apt title, I would say... Cricket writers have tried many adjectives.. And were found wanting.. This one's simple.. And complete..

If there is one thing that opposing bowlers have to learn - it is that when you take Sachin on, you do that first and then talk about it..

Whoever has gone to press before the actual battle have suffered..

Caddick said he is going to test Sachin with bouncers.. He bowled once.. Four runs resulted.. He tried another.. The ball was thrown out of Kingsmead, Durban.. He didnt try any more..

Shoaib Akthar talked to pressmen more than to his teammates, one felt.. He realized talking is different from actually confronting the Master - and he did that in ONE OVER!

I am a major fan of Akthar too.. For pure pace.. That he finally did take the prized wicket - however tired Sachin was at that time - is just a pointer to the quality of game we had yesterday.. Shoaib taking Sachin was good for the game.. The battle's still on..

"Throughout this campaign there has been a look in his eye, the sort detected in Viv Richards before a final. Sachin means business. A mild man, he realises the time has come to leave his mark upon cricket's most prestigious tournament."

Says Peter Roebuck. Maybe yes. Maybe he has decided that it is time for him to leave an indelible mark on the World Cup.

I would consider myself lucky if that's indeed true - for I lived and watched cricket at this time..

Waiting..
I am just preparing myself for tonight - when Sachin and Sehwag are going to be on one side and Wasim and Shoaib on the other!

For all the build up - this is THE moment of the world cup..

Hope it keeps up to all the hype.. :-)