brokeback mountains out of molehills

This post might seem a bit dated by now, but I randomly came across this article in the San Francisco Chronicle the other day and it made me think. As the article exemplifies, it has become common for people to assume that males who do not want to watch the movie Brokeback Mountain are homophobic or "insecure". This is both unfair and erroneous. Has it never occurred to people like Mr. Hartlaub (the author of the piece) that there may be other reasons for some males not wanting to watch the movie than the mere fact that it has a few gay sex scenes?

Think about it. It is a 134-minute-long "tender, complex" love story directed by Ang Lee and based on an Annie Proulx story about cowboys. Now I know three things about my taste in movies: (1) tender, complex love stories, especially 134-minute-long ones, are generally insufferable (see Remains of the Day- enough said); (2) The last movie Ang Lee made was The Hulk; and (3) The Shipping News, the only other movie based on an Annie Proulx work, was boring, meandering, and pointless. Plus, I can’t even pronounce her name. All in all, I would be a complete idiot if I didn’t learn from my mistakes and still watched Brokeback Mountain, when it is a composite of all the types of movies that I just don’t enjoy.

But Brokeback Mountain isn't just a movie, it's a "phenomenon". And that is the genius of it. Making a movie seem more than what it is is a brilliant marketing tool, because it ensures that even people outside your target market will watch it in droves. Yes, many people watched Brokeback Mountain because they like movies like it. But we all know people who watched it because they felt they had to - to show themselves to be "open-minded" or whatever. That is absurd. I shouldn’t have to watch movies to be proving shit to anyone.

And it has nothing to do with the sex scenes. I admit, I (a heterosexual male) am likely to be a bit squeamish about them - I can’t help it. But I was also squeamish about the scene in American History X in which Ed Norton jams a man's head (teeth first) into the curb with his foot. I still half-close my eyes at that scene. Yet, I consider it to be a fantastic film. And what about the scene in Pulp Fiction where Bruce Willis and Ving Rhames are kidnapped, strapped up, and raped by rednecks? As far as I am concerned, that is a far more disconcerting (albeit less explicit) depiction of gay sex. Yet, there are tons of guys (myself included) who would rather watch Pulp Fiction than Brokeback Mountain.

So if you tell me, Mr. Hartlaub, that Brokeback Mountain isn’t just a gay movie, then you should be able to accept that I may still not want to watch it, for reasons other than its depictions of gay men. The fact that you are so quick to judge me for my decision says more about your insecurities than it does about mine.

world cup woe #6 - cricket at a crossroads

A couple of weeks ago, we (Omar and I) had a few lengthy discussions about why it is that we found this World Cup so boring. It must be understood that we are a pair of die-hard fans who grew up on the game; fans whose earliest cricket-watching memories are those of Imran Khan lifting the coveted trophy in 1992. So if we are left horribly unsatisfied by the sport’s premier event, then how can we expect the Scots and the Dutchmen of the world to chance upon the tournament on TV and suddenly start giving a shit about the sport?

Is it even possible to spread the game of cricket?

Therein lies the strange vicious cycle-esque dilemma. Imagine, for a moment, that the ICC isn’t a money-grubbing pack of wolves, and then ponder its dilemma about the nature of the game itself. Should it try to spread the game to all corners of the world that are even remotely interested, or should it maintain cricket’s status as a strange exclusive club of 9 or 10 countries and leave it at that?

Here’s the catch. The more countries the ICC tries to include, the more boring the World Cup, and the more frustrated people like us get. And the fewer countries it includes, the more it alienates the rest of the world.

Where does this leave ODI cricket?

ODI cricket is at a funny stage in its life. A stage at which it needs to decide its identity once and for all. If it is to stick around, then countries need to be granted ODI status the same way they are given test status, otherwise it is just making it more painful for the rest of us. Besides, just because these teams are in the World Cup doesn’t mean their countries are watching. Take a survey of Canadians and ask them if they even know about their 3 Cricket World Cup appearances. Then ask them how proudly they all watched their team get knocked out in the first round of their only FIFA World Cup. For that matter, Pakistan has won four Hockey World Cups and I’ve never seen a single hockey match from start to finish.

So the way to win these countries over is not to invite them to a boring party, but to leave them at the window looking in on a proverbial bash and trying desperately to get fake IDs. Cricket is an unusually technical game, and the closest it has ever come to being accessible to the casual viewer is twenty20. And let's face it, twenty20 is the only form of the sport that is likely to spread to countries that don’t currently play the game.

Can twenty20 be cricket's savior?

The immense popularity of 20-over-a-side cricket is still a bit disconcerting to the traditionalists amongst us, but its appeal is understandable. It offers sustained excitement and a shorter game that one can actually watch without taking a day off from work. Most importantly however, the shorter time-span makes the game a great leveler. It is way easier for a minnow to win a shorter game against an established team. So if minnows want to play, they should play twenty20s and leave ODIs to the big boys.

So does this mean the rise of the twenty20 and the death of the ODI as we know it? Well, if it does, then so be it. Everything must evolve. As the World Cup and also a recent Cricinfo article showed, fewer and fewer ODIs are tight contests these days. As far as tactics go, there isn't a whole lot of mystery left. Teams know how to win from a winning position, so that a 7-hour game is often decided in the first 45 minutes. And if this trend continues, then what’s the point? This isn't even something we can blame on the ICC or the television companies, as we have become so wont to do these days.

The ICC often comes under fire for packing in tournaments close together, but it's interesting to note that nobody is complaining about the twenty20 World Cup which is to be held in South Africa in September. The cricketing community is yearning for change, excitement, and something to look forward to. Perhaps we are quietly confident, after the series of disappointments that the ODI World Cup became, that the shorter version will be the explosive revival our sport desperately needs.

Cricket needs to either change as rapidly as the world around it - with increased globalization, shorter attention spans, and less leisure time to watch sports - or else stubbornly refuse to ever change and stay put firmly where it is. This slow crawl into the 21st century is neither here nor there, and it’s leaving us all frustrated.

-----
Co-authored by Omar.

For more World Cup Woes, click here.

adnan siddiqi is a choot

Some of you may have noticed that I cross-post my cricket posts on cricket.bloggers.pk, a sort of combined forum for Pakistani cricket bloggers to get better outreach for their posts.

Well, I recently posted michael holding is a choot there, and here is a comment I received from a fellow named Adnan Siddiqi.

"Your voice could be heard if you had no't (sp) prefered (sp) to choose censored words. I hope you can make a difference between a personal blog and a collabrative (sp) forum?

thanks"

First of all, I didn't prefer to choose "censored" words. No words in my post were censored. Mr. Siddiqi would like for some of them to have been, but they were not.

In any case, I recently wrote about the differences between the real argument for free speech and the not-so-important argument about being able to do whatever you want for no reason whatsoever. Well, here's an example of the former.

I am not asking Mr. Siddiqi to read my articles, and I am not certainly not asking his opinion on them. God knows I have a painful time trudging through his overlong posts to edit them. He does, however, get 100 times the hits I do, so he's probably doing something right... But that's not the point.

I also noticed that he has a link on his blogroll to a site called "Fucked Company." I can only assume he endorses this site. So my guess is that Mr. Siddiqi has one of two problems:

1. It is fine to cuss in English, but the word 'choot' is particularly offensive.

2. There is a difference between posting on billu.net and cricket.bloggers.pk.

Of course, he mentions that it's the latter, but I do have a sneaking suspicion that if I had merely substituted for an English term (say, 'pussy'), it would not be quite as much of a problem. In fact, I have written some pretty nasty things in English on cricket.bloggers.pk that seem to have gone unnoticed, which is a particularly disturbing double standard.

As for the second point, I will admit that for a while I was hesitant to post darrell hair is a choot pt. 2 in its entirety on cricket.bloggers.pk, but more out of respect for the creator of the site (Teeth Maestro) than anything else. But Mr. Maestro went on to express disappointment that I had censored the post, since he is a true champion for free speech. Add to this the fact that I am one of the three official site editors, and I set about the task of expressing my opinions in most unbridled fashion.

It may be a collaborative forum, but it is still a forum for free expression, and I should be able to use whatever words I wish, as long as I talk about cricket. That's what makes it interesting. If everyone expressed their thoughts in a predetermined template, there wouldn't be much point in collaborating, would there?

"Don't block the blog" is the word on the street among Pakistani bloggers. Well, don't temper the blog either, I say. Otherwise everyone's blogs will start sounding like tepid, watered down drivel...

india killed the video star

A while ago, Omar put up this post arguing that the ban on Indian movies in Pakistan will inhibit the Pakistani film industry from improving itself. He said that the lack of competition would allow the Pakistani industry to become complacent and settle for mediocrity.

Dog considers himself a die-hard 'liberal', so when he did this, I had to explain to him that it was, in fact, a fiscally conservative argument. A liberal would have wanted to protect the Pakistani film industry until it became good enough to compete in the global marketplace.

In general, my stand on this has veered tentatively on the side of protectionism. But that's not what this post is about. After all, loyal readers will know that tentativeness doesn't form the basis of too many posts here on billu.net.

What I would like to do, however, is draw some comparisons to television. A similar ban was placed some 3-4 years ago on Indian TV stations. Prior to this ban, there were only 2-3 Pakistani channels worth mentioning, and the only real attempt to go global was by broadcasting PTV to the UK and US and calling it “PTV World.” Other than that, the status quo had existed unchanged for a good 10-12 years. Meanwhile, Indian television was pouring into every middle-class Pakistani home.

Since the ban, no less than 62 privately-owned stations have emerged in Pakistan, with plans for another 9 by the end of the year. Coincidence? I think not.

There are, in fact, two reasons for this boom. The first is that the government has become a lot more tolerant of free speech than it once was. The second is that the prominence of Indian TV stations had made Pakistanis accustomed to cable television as a source of entertainment. Once these stations were removed, a concerted effort was made to replace them with local alternatives.

So protectionism, in a sense, led to the current media boom in Pakistan. But not exactly. It was not the banning of Indian stations per se that caused the change. Instead, it was the application of the ban after having grown used to the high quality product that generally accompanies global competition.

So the question is, could the same idea work for the Pakistani film industry? Possibly, but there are two very important differences. First, film and television are two very different products. A movie in the theater needs to capture the viewer's attention for a sustained period of time. Thus, Pakistani films would have to be of a very high caliber in order to compete with Bollywood's high budget extravaganzas. Television, on the other hand, succeeds in part because it is consumed in bulk. Because there are so many stations, it is possible to keep oneself entertained by switching between them. The quality of each station need not be particularly high, as long as it is mildly entertaining for short periods of time.

Second, despite the ban on Indian movies, there is a strong, and quite open, black market that deals in them. This makes it possible for the banned product to make it to Pakistani homes anyway, and neutralizes whatever protectionist effect the ban may have had.

In other words, the black market has made it so that the market is essentially already open. So, just like television a few years ago, Pakistan has grown accustomed to Indian movies as a source of entertainment. Point being, if the black market is shut down, then the dearth of quality films will force the Pakistani film industry to offer an alternative. Movies may be harder to make than TV shows, but if the growing professionalism of the media in Pakistan is any indicator, there should be no dearth of high quality, creative, and talented individuals to fill the void.

Of course, nobody is likely to take any sort of initiative on moving any of this forward. That’s the kind of thing that only happens in movies.

lost in the desert

Nicholas Kristof has written an interesting piece in the New York Times on the common stereotypes about Islam. In it, he argues that no "religion's influence is intrinsically peaceful or violent," but admits that "some Muslim societies do have a real problem with violence, wih the subjugation of women, with tolerance."

His main point is that Muslims exist across the world, and subsequently the practise of Islam spans too broad a spectrum to be so easily summarized. In fact, "The mosaic of Islam", he says, "contains many hopeful glimpses of the future."

He cites a Muslim in Brunei who implies that the problem is not with Islam, but with 'Arab' Islam. By putting it this way, Mr. Kristof simplifies the problem by breaking it up geographically: Asian Islam is like this, and Arab (or more specifically, Saudi) Islam is like that. This is partly true. Local culture and history do tend to play a large role in the way the religion is practised. But that's not the whole story.

The trouble with Saudi Islam is that it, moreso than its counterparts, is so opposed to updating its rituals in any way that integrating its followers with the rest of the world is becoming increasingly difficult. As a smart Muslim once pointed out to me, it "needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century."

What Mr. Kristof fails to point out, however, is that Saudi Islam, as the supposed purveyor of the faith, has a significant influence on other varieties, regardless of geography. Pakistani Islam, for example, often uses the Saudi model as a yardstick, unwilling as it is to carve out its own identity.

What's left is a problem that is exported out of Saudi Arabia into other parts of the world. The Saudis are quick to justify everything they do in the name of Islam, making it hard for Muslims everywhere, especially less educated ones, to deny their alliegance to some pretty dastardly things. The result is that many Muslim societies, among which Pakistan is a shining example, are sharply divided along educational, not geographic, lines.

Mr. Kristof drives home his point with a slightly melodramatic comment:

There is a historic dichotomy between desert Islam — the austere fundamentalism of countries like Saudi Arabia — and riverine or coastal Islam, more outward-looking, flexible and tolerant. Desert Muslims grab the headlines, but my bet is that in the struggle for the soul of Islam, maritime Muslims have the edge.

So what about places like Karachi, that are, quite literally, both maritime and desert at once?

bringing running to a standstill

As much as I love cricket, I think it's lame that it allows you to have "runners" and "subs" in the way that it does. If you get tired of batting, you can call someone to come and run for you; and if you get tired of standing in the field you can go inside and chill while some random dude fields in your place.

I have fervently castigated other sports, like American football and baseball, for breeding "specialist" athletes - e.g. a quarterback's entire role is to throw the ball when he is told, and a pitcher in the American league will never bat. I now realize that cricket is not dissimilar, because runners and subs rules allow a player to narrow his task down to swinging his bat or bowling his over without worrying about other aspects of the game.

If you get cramps from smacking a ball around all day, then maybe you need to toughen up and build your stamina. You are, after all, an athlete playing at the highest level of your game, so it's not too much to ask. If you can't perform ALL the tasks of batting or bowling (including running and fielding) then you shouldn't be allowed to bat or bowl. If you do call in a substitute, he should have to play for the rest of the match.

It's time cricketers got up off their asses and increased the level of athleticism in the game. This will make for more interesting viewing. Maybe then the rest of the world will actually start respecting the sport.

pushing the envelope

Sacha Baron Cohen, the guy who does Ali G and Borat, is selling out.

First, he has started to appear on talk shows to promote his show, when earlier he would refuse to be seen in public out of character. When this first started to happen, I thought, well, enough people are in on the joke now that it's okay. But I still feel he could have kept his integrity by staying out of the public eye.

Second, he is taking this whole Borat thing a bit too far. Basically his Borat act involves saying horrible things, racist and otherwise, while pretending to be a Kazakhi television reporter. When it started, it was a nuanced and deftly constructed act, in which he would use people's ignorance against them by pretending to be completely out of sync with civil society, and in doing so bring out their own lack of civility. Kazakhstan at the time was just a symbol, representing a place about which most Westerners are completely ignorant, to the point where they could expect anything from someone who was from such a place.

This involved him making fun of many races, but also of Kazakhstan itself. Needless to say, everyone got offended, but none moreso than the Kazakhs themselves, who started having to defend their own traditions and decrying what was being said about them. At this point, Cohen had two options: 1. to ignore the Kazakh response, and 2. to retatliate. Unfortunately, he chose the second. So instead of being a nuanced attack on people's ignorance, it became an all out schoolyard brawl with the Kazakh authorities.

The latest episode in the saga involves him parading outside the Kazakh embassy maintaing that despite what the Kazakh embassy might try to tell you, rape and ping pong ARE in fact the two favorite pastimes of Kazakhstan.

It is childish and mean. It is irresponsible, and it is unnecessary. Media is powerful, and he should know how badly his words can hurt the image of a country. If his idea is to manufacture high-brow comedy then he shouldn't assume everyone will get it. And if they don't he shouldn' lash out at them.

Needless to say, I still think he is a genius, and the new Borat movie will definitely be worth a watch. But the joke is starting to go sour now. Let's hope it doesn't start to stink anytime soon.

armchair pakistanis

I was at a yuppie Paki dinner recently.

Which means I have recently been subjected to much discussion about the 'state of the nation,' as it were.

Of course, we, as concerned citizens, using a bird's-eye-view from our perch 7,470 miles away, debated most fervently the topics that affect us least. The rights of women, the state of education, recent news bites, how to eradicate feudalism, fundamentalism, and other deep-rooted problems that we are all so qualified to fix.

For the most part, it was intelligent conversation. Granted, it was not only hypothetical but also hypocritical -- what could be more hypocritical than an expatriate teacher complaining about the lack of good teachers in the country? Yet, as far as such things go, it was of a reasonable calibre. Except the one girl who would offer up her views in neat little platitudes, like "women are treated so badly in Pakistan," or "there is so much violence in Pakistan," without any examples or follow-up comments.

Which brings me to my point. Why do people talk when they have nothing to say? Did she think people were going to respond "Oh, what a wonderful point, I hadn't thought of that?" Did she think that she was saying was particularly groundbreaking? I just don't get it.

Much to my delight, however, she, and we all, were chided by an older member of our party, who proclaimed us to be "Armchair Pakistanis," loaded with empty opinions and devoid of meaningful action.

Of course, in the true tautological manner of an Armchair Pakistani, it makes me sad and concerned that there are so many of us. I'm not, however, planning to do anything about it anytime soon. Surely this makes my country weep.

To illustrate my point, here is an image of my weeping country, straight from my own messed up imagination.

staying abreast of the market

zDog posted a few days ago about the Finnish guy who paid 32,000 bucks for fondling a woman's breasts 10 times. Of course, I have something to say about this.

First, a simple calculation. If we assume, for the sake of underestimation, that he fondled both breasts seven of those ten times, but that the other three times he was too much of an idiot to make full use of his purchase, and only fondled one breast at a time, it works out to:

(32,000 / 10 ) / (7 * 2 + 3) ~ 188 dollars per breast per fondle.

Now, as every economist is taught, you can put a price on most things. However, certain goods are notoriously difficult to quantify. Yet, micro models are constructed that determine the cost of clean air, and actuaries work long hours to put a value on human life. The way prices work in unquantifiable markets has less to do with competition and more to do with the general public's "willingness to pay" for such a good.

This means two things:

1. If he agreed to pay, as he says he did, then the price is not too high. Clearly, this is not a regulated market. A monopoly by definition can set whatever price it wants. Since an unregulated market operates outside the law anyway, it is not subject to anti-trust laws, and thus the consumer is not protected from a monopoly entity. (Which is why a hooker or a drug dealer or a craigslister can rip you off without you being able to do shit about it). So the court basically has no business in this matter, unless it charges her with something akin to prostitution.

2. The court's verdict as far as determining the appropriateness of the price was completely arbirtrary. What amount, for example, would they have considered appropriate? 10 dollars? 175? Is there a threshold at which this is an acceptable transaction? What about other factors, e.g. how hot the woman is? On what basis did they make the deduction?

We here at billu.net believe that a referendum of some sort would have been a far fairer and more democratic method of determining the average person's willingness to pay for a breast fondle. And so, we ask you once again, dear readers, to tell us what you think, in this, our second weekly poll:

(Note: all prices below are in US dollars. For conversion to other currencies, please click here.)

How much is a breast fondle worth?

0-50
51-100
100-150
150-188
188-250
250+

View results

Free online surveys

speed dating for muslims

Here's a sample from an article in the New York Times about the whole marriage meat market thing that supposedly goes on at ISNA conferences.

The questions raised at the seminar reflected just how pained many
American Muslims are by the subject. One middle-aged man wondered
if there was anything he could do now that his 32-year-old son had
declared his intention of marrying a (shudder) Roman Catholic. A young
man asked what might be considered going too far when courting a
Muslim woman.

At the end there was an hourlong social hour which allowed
participants time to collect e-mail addresses and telephone numbers
over a pasta dinner with sodas. (Given the Muslim ban on alcohol, no
one could soothe jumpy nerves with a drink.)

First of all, what an inane thing to report, and second, what's with the tone? Isn't the Times supposed to be a respectable publication? Do respectable publications print articles in which they blatantly mock people's lifestyles and place them right next to foreign policy analyses? This is almost like the idiots who mock the people at the Scientology stands by shouting vehemently about how they "want to make noise when they give birth."

I'm the first to say I absolutely disagree with whatever goes on at these ISNA matrimonial events, but if this is how people choose to reconcile their conflicting cultures, then so be it. It's not as if Muslims are the only ones getting arranged marriages. And it's certainly not as if Muslims are the only ones who get pissed about their children being exogamous. Finally, it's not as if the entire concept of speed dating and online dating is immune to mockery, so why not start there first. Seriously man, report on some real shit for God's sake.

an incendiary comment

Woohooo! My blog has officially received its first incendiary comment! Omar has come through with a scathing response to my "saving face...book" post. To which I feel I must now respond.

First of all, I completely rescind my statement about facebook and 'keeping in touch' with people. I intended for it to tie into my argument, but looking back on it I realize it comes off as merely an unnecessary addendum and a spiteful comment. The statement I am referring to is:

"Now, to those who claim that they're on facebook to keep in
touch with people, I ask why your friends list has people on it
whom you can't even remember having met. Are these the
people you want to keep in touch with? And are you really
keeping in touch by asking them "wot dey r up 2" every six
weeks or so? "

Fair enough, I understand that people have different ways of keeping in touch. As for the rest of it though, I am still not sure I see what the problem is. But Omar definitely made a couple of statements that I feel I would be chickening out by not addressing. Here's one:

"Yes, I may like to put me and blah are going out, but that is
relying on the fact that this information is not going to
broadcast across my 400 'friends'. If I knew that was the case,
I would not have put up the relationship status." [then some
lines later] "Those 400 people on your list are not all equal and,
though they may each be able to find out what you're doing,
390 of them don't give a hoot."

Here's what I don't get. First, if 390 of them don't give a hoot about you, why are they your 'friends'? Second, even if they are your 'friends', if they don't care what you're up to, what difference does it make if what you're up to is broadcast to them? It seems like you want to have your cake and eat it too. Put yourself out there for all to see, and then hope that only certain people actually do.

The way I see it, the crux of the argument lies in this remark:

"There is a line between how much one is willing to show to
the world through a web profile, and how much the web
profile is projected to the world itself."

This is where I believe there is a fundamental disconnect in our thinking. I just plain don't agree with this statement. I feel like this line may have existed some time ago, but it is fast disappearing. Sites like flickr and youtube and even this blog are making it so that what you put online is there for everyone's consumption. As for projecting it, to me that is merely a side issue. To others, that is the issue.

But thanks for the comments. And keep them coming. Since there are only about three people that read this blog, it looks as if I should try to post as many things that will piss them off specifically… hmm…

saving face...book

So there is this new facebook feature called a news feed that shows you what your friends are up to.. as in, who they recently added as friends, what parts of their profile they changed, and what they wrote on other people's walls, in an up-to-the-minute newsreel format.

And people are pissed!

I am not a facebook user. But I get the idea. And I do use my defunct, neglected account to look people up from time to time. So I ask, then, what is the big deal?

The way I see it, anyone can check your friends list at 10.14 and again at 10.16 and note the changes, but if that same person has a feed that tells them whom you added at 10.15, this is a problem.

Apparently this is some major breach of privacy. Privacy? On facebook?? Chances are if you've put up your pictures and birthday and favorite movies and books and quotes you're not a huge fan of privacy. In fact, I would argue you're something of an exhibitionist.

Yes, you don't want anyone to see except those you deisgnate as your “friends”. But who on facebook has friends who are actually their friends? If you've met someone once, or know someone who knows a friend of yours, chances are they’re on your friends list. And they can see all your friends and your favorite books and when your birthday is. So obviously you are letting them into whatever farcical facebook world you subscribe to. The newsreel feature only reports on activities among your “friends” anyway, so what's the problem?

So some friends are better than others, I see that. Only certain friends need to know certain things. But even then, what's so private about what you're putting up for all to see? Granted, I am not a user, and maybe I would understand if I were. But I don't get it. It's not as if facebook posts are incredibly profound. They generally range from the mundane -- "Yo! long time! let's get 2getha dis week sumtime!" -- to the arcane -- "hmm... ure shirt looks familiar ;)" -- to the inane -- "why do elephants have eyebrows neway =P?"

So what's there to hide?

Now, to those who claim that they're on facebook to keep in touch with people, I ask why your friends list has people on it whom you can't even remember having met. Are these the people you want to keep in touch with? And are you really keeping in touch by asking them "wot dey r up 2" every six weeks or so?

Now I mentioned I am guilty of the occcasional stalking on facebook. So defenders of the facebook boycott try to corner me by asking "What if everyone could see every time you visited somebody's profile? Would you like that?" And I answer "No. I would hate that." But here's the thing. I never put anything up about having visited these people's pages, never published it, never shared it with anyone, never spoke about it or wrote about it. In fact, I meant it to be discreet in every possible sense. You, on the other hand, put up your relaionship status for all to see. And now you're complaining that they saw it. I was merely accessing publicly available information. You were making it publicly available. There is a difference.

This is cyberspace. If you're putting something up, you'd better be damn sure you want people to see it. If you don't, don't let people in, or don't put it up.

You wanted to be connected. So now you are. Get used to it.

the art of coin tampering

So Omar discovered a website called Howstat which has the most detailed cricket stats I've ever seen. So I decided to do a completely inane analysis on the luckiest captains, by number of tosses won. Obviously I found nothing mindblowing, seeing as I was studying the frequency of a coin coming up heads or tails. But here are the results anyway.


ODIs (captains that have captained 20+ matches):
Each team has won between 46.7% (WI) and 53.6% (Ind) of it's tosses. Except Sri Lanka, which has won the toss only 30.7% of the time. This is mainly due to Arjuna Ranatunga's reign as captain, in which he captained the side a mammoth 193 times, while winning a meagre 10 tosses(5.2%). Surprisingly, he still managed to win 51% of his matches. Other unlucky captains are Carl Hooper of WI (34.7%) and Aamir Sohail of Pak (31.8%).

The luckiest captains have been Jimmy Adams of WI (69.2%), Ramiz Raja of Pak (68.2%). Interestingly enough, both have lost over 54% of their matches.


Tests (captains that have captained 10+ matches):
Again, no surprises. Each team has won between 46.7% (Pak) and 54.9% (SL) of their tosses. Ranatunga has fared better in tests, winning 51.8% of his tosses in 56 matches.

Luckiest captains are Arthur Hassett of Aus, Robert Wyatt of Eng, and Hubert Deane of SA, all of whom have won 75% of their tosses. All also lost less than 35% of their tests. Incidentally, all played before 1955, when cricket was cleaner and happier. And coins, apparently, were nicer. The only post-1975 captain to win over 70% of his tosses is Shivnarine Chanderpaul of WI (71.4%). Unfortunately, he has also lost 71.4% of his tests.

Unluckiest captains are Frederick Brown of Eng (20.0%), Glenn Turner of NZ (20.0%), and Bevan Congdon, also of NZ (23.5%). All have lost over 40% of their matches.

It is important to note that although many captains have very low toss-win ratios, Pakistan have never had a captain who won less than 32% (Akram) of his test tosses. Lanka and the Windies have fared even better, their unluckiest captains winning 45.5% and 41.7% of the time, respectively. Surely there is foul play at work. Perhaps it's time for the ICC forensics team...

Spreadsheets are available for anyone who has even less to do in life than I.

popping my cherry

In order to gain support for my blog idea, I convinced Omar to create his own blog. Turns out he already had two. Both had one post each. The two posts had a total of three words between them.

His latest attempt, following my encouragement yesterday, is this.

Umm.. yeah.

In other news, Darrell Hair is a choot. I was going to write a long scathing piece about him, but thankfully my rage has subsided slightly. At least it's no longer like last Sunday, when I was nearly catatonic and threw a bottle of pomegranate juice on my bed. Luckily it was nearly empty, because otherwise not only would my bed have been a mess, it would also have been worth like a million dollars more, given the exorbitant price they charge for that shit. $4.99 a bottle my ass.

For now, I have only this to say: I wish I could accuse an athlete of cheating, not provide any proof, and then in the subsequent ruckus ask my employer to give me a half million bucks to never have to work again.

And why does everyone keep talking about how he was 'technically following the rules.' Of course he's following the fucking rules, because the rules basically say "the umpire can do whatever he wants whenever he wants." Evidently, if Darrell Hair feels like taking a piss on Inzamam's shoe in the middle of the pitch, he will still be following the rules... of course, if Inzi protests, he will probably be charged with 'bringing the umpire's dick into disrepute.'

Asshole.