For those who think he is not the greatest - 2

He plays cricket to earn money, not to win matches. He doesnt play T20 then why IPL ?

Answer is simple. T20 is obviously younger people's game. It requires all hitting and no technique. Imagine how painful it would have been to see our senior players ( Sachin, Dravid, Ganguly etc) hitting the ball like Robin Uthappa (walking down the track) or Chris Gayle( hammering, literally) do. Their batting style, technique is what makes them world class batsmen. And ofcourse strike rate also does play an important role. None of them ( and none of us) want India to lose because they can not hit the ball with strike rate of 200. But its not the same with IPL. In IPL they are playing for their own clubs and its the presence of these players that brings the spectators to the ground. The players have nothing to lose, having proved themselves already in the other versions of the game. And of course huge money is involved. So why should anyone say no to IPL ? That Sachin and his team are unable to perform well in IPL is different matter. And who knows, just like the underdogs RR and DC won the previous IPLs, MI might win it next time !

Ponting/Flintoff/Peterson/Dhoni/Lara/Gibbs/Jaysuriya and the lot are better cricketers than him :

Frankly, whenever any cricketer is creating waves across international media for his unique style, better strike rate, better average or whatever, Sachin is often compared with him and we start finding the non-existent flaws of Sachin. Eventually the so called 'better' batsman fades out and goes out of the limelight. Sachin has remained where he was.

Consider Michael Bevan. Steve Waugh called him better than Sachin because of his ability to rotate the strike and to remain notout. He did that for quite some time. Where is he now ?

Consider Jaysuriya. He is no doubt one of the greatest ODI batsmen, but has he been even 10% consistent as Sachin ? I dont think so.

Consider Flintoff/Peterson. Even this is funny. These 2 players are out of the team for more time than they are in playing for the team. Morever, how many matches have actually been won by them ? Except for the Ashes triumph, Peterson hasn't been involved in many great victories for England. His performance in ODIs is also not consistent. Flintoff, all he could manage was 3 ODI centuries and 2 five wicket hauls( 5 centuries in tests and 3 five wicket hauls). Peterson, a great hitter of the ball, his T20 record has been disastrous(average 15).

The only player who comes close to him in runs, consistency, centuries or match winning performance is Ponting. But he still has a lot of catching up to do, especially in ODIs. In tests he still has a chance to surpass Sachin. Lets see how far he succeeds. Only if he does that, he can claim to be the greatest, not before that.
Dhoni can definitely go down in history as India's best captain; but even he can't be compared with Sachin in terms of his style, technique, temperament ( and all such crap you can think of :-). And please dont say that you like his helicopter shot ! ). He is obviously unable to score more runs as he comes too late down the order. And he has taken a rather softened stand now as compared to his earlier days of hardhitting. His T20 record is also not very good (strike rate of 102). There have been a few instances where despite his being on the crease, India lost the match because he couldn't shift gear to come back into attacking mode. And most importantly, its still too early to compare a 5 year old with 20 year old in cricketing terms, isnt it ? Agreed, he won us the T20 world cup with a bunch of 20-somethings, but a crucial factor for that win was that since nobody expected anything from the team, they were relatively pressure free unlike the 2009 T20 world cup, where they faltered in the first round itself, because of the immense pressure. So if someone says the earlier T20 win was a fluke, then what's wrong with that ?

All said and done, people who want to, will keep finding flaws in him. And he, as always, without being affected by them, will continue to play like a god. Like David Shephard said, if he is not the best player in the world, show me the best player in the world.

For those who think he is not the greatest - 1

Ok, here's 4,961,280th article about him. Surely in cricket crazy country like us, the only authority everyone possesses and exercises to the fullest is the advice to our cricketers. Remember the Reliance mobile ad about advices "Ohh, Square cut maarna chahiye tha yaar !!!" ? I am no different than them, so being a responsible citizen (!) and a keen cricket follower( in fact cricket being theonly sport I can understand), I am jumping into the bandwagon of he-is versus he-is-not debate.Rather than going into how his stats prove he-is-the-best, it will be better to analyse the often said negative things against him and then proving them wrong, point by point( of course we'll need stats then). Often people criticize him on the basis of one or more of following points.
1. He is not a match winner.
2. He has won very few tournaments for India/He doesn't click in the final/crucial matches.
3. He is not a team player/He is a selfish cricketer/He is not a good leader.
4. He plays cricket to earn money, not to win matches. Thats why he doesnt play T20 but plays IPL..
5. Ponting/Flintoff/Peterson/Dhoni/Lara/Gibbs/Jaysuriya and the lot are better cricketers than him (and they try to prove this using the statistics, conveniently ignoring Sachin's stats).

He is not a match winner/He hasn't won India many tournaments/He doesnt click in the crucial matches:

45 ODI centuries, 33 resulting in winning cause. Yes he is not a match winner. After scoring 175 runs and single handedly bringing India to a thrilling win, he systematically and un-match-winneristically threw away his wicket. Had the other batsmean showed the courage of staying on for some more time on the crease, it could have been a different picture. Forget about the tailenders, if our top batting order had added even 1 run each to their paltry scores, we could have won the match. Criticizing him for not being able to finish that match is akin to that joke where a dog goes to a supermarket, buys groceries, pays the bill and comes back home only to be beaten by his owner for forgetting to take the door keys third time in the week. No matter how high he scores, critics will always find out some flaw or the other. He also supposedly failed to perform in the world up final 2003, and that we lost the cup because of that. Again the same dog joke applies. The only person because of whom we reached the finals was him, and his failure in the final match cost us the world cup ? How absurd is that ? Why couldn't a single batsman show the ability to stick to the wicket and give at least a fight (which Sehwag did by the way, but it was too late then) ? Same is true for the semifinal of 1996 World cup too. Harakiri is the only word that can best be used to describe what happened after he got out.
Cricket, at the very least, is definitely the game of 2 people, the batsman and the non striker. When people give references of how Ponting or Gilchrist or jaysuriya, single handedly won matches for their countries, they often forget the support provided to them by their partner at non-striker's end. Only in Sachin's case the person at non-striker's end is literally non striking. Remember the gem of an inning played by Ponting in World Cup 2003 final ( 140*). Throughout the knock he was supported by Damien Martin (88*) who came to the crease almost at the same time as Ponting, but chose to let Ponting do all the attacking. Or take the case of historic match between Aus and SA of the highest run chase. Ponting did score a classic 164, but not without the support of Katich(79) and Hussey(81 in 51) to get Aus to 434/4. In same match, when Gibbs outscored Ponting by scoring 175(111 balls), Graeme Smith scored 90 in 55 to give their team a headstart. Even Boucher scored a fifty to take the game away from Aus. Has that ever happened to Sachin ? definitely not when we are chasing big totals. Not when he scores 175, not when he scores 143 in Sharjah( we lost the match after he was given LBW wrongly), not when he scores 141 vs Pak (http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64882.html), and definitely not when he scores 136 in Chennai. Still we blame you-know-who.
Talk about Jaysuriya winning more matches for SL. True, he took SL till the semifinals of the world cup. But he failed in both the semis and finals. Despite this, SL won because Aravind Desilva played well in both the matches. In our case, when Sachin fails, we commit harakiri. The rare occasions when Sachin failed and still we won are far and few( Natwest series final and Dhoni's 183 knock against SL being few of them).
This was about his supposed failures. In the last few tournaments which India has managed to win, Sachin has played well in almost all of them. In the Triseries final in Aus, he scored 117 and 91 in the finals. In Compaq cup final, he scored a century to beat SL. Or the 166 in 131 balls against NZ. If these are not match winning knocks, then what are ?

He is not good team leader/ He is not a good team player/ He is a selfish cricketer:

Ok, his captaicy stint has been disastrous, and continues in IPL too. But how does captaincy record can hamper one's reputation as a great batsman? Lara, Jaysuriya, Flintoff and Peterson ( people with whom he is often compared with) have all been bad captains. In fact this is the only point where Ponting scores ahead of Sachin. But the point is, Sachin knew his limitations. He knew captaincy was not his cup of tea and resigned himself without being forced. He knew it was affecting both the team and his own batting too. He wanted to do what he can do best - Batting. What was so selfish in that ?
Yes he is not a good team player. Thats why he came back within 4 days after his father expired to play for 'himself' in the 1999 world cup. So what the century was against a minnows team, isn't the fact important that he could have easily excused himself from the rest of tournament without being questioned about it ever ?
People call him selfish because he didnt pay tax on the Ferrari. Now this one is really funny. Calling him a selfish cricketer just beause he allegedly applied for tax waiver for the Ferrari or that he wanted some plot in Bandra for concessional rates is like calling Amitabh is pathetic actor because he is involved in land fraud !! Why and how what happens outside the cricket field affects his genius inside the field ?
Ok, even if he becomes a not-so-great or li'l-selfish cricketer, then by applying the same standards, what do we make of Ponting ? Remember how he and his men pushed BCCI chief Sharad Pawar after winning the Champions Trophy ? Ponting has often been called as an arrogant cricketer. And Aussies are without doubt sledging kings, with their captain leading the way. Some of the other so called greats like Jaysuriya, Peterson or Flintoff have often been embroiled with controversies because of their behaviour within and outside the field. Compared to them Sachin is a saint, letting only his bat do all the talking. In fact after his comments about mumbai, he should be given some prize about national integration.

To be continued...

Some quotes from Catch-22

Some of the funniest and paradoxical quotes I have ever heard are from Catch-22(Not that I have read many books, frankly). A few of these keep repeating throughout the book making it funny without being monotonous. Though the book gets repetitive and monotonous sometimes, but that's something different.

Just listing down some of the quotes from the book. A complete list can be found on these links.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Catch-22

http://www.generationterrorists.com/quotes/catch-22.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22

http://www.workinghumor.com/quotes/catch22.shtml

• Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.
• There's no patriotism, that's what it is. And no matriotism, either.
• But I make a profit of three and a quarter cents an egg by selling them for four and a quarter cents an egg to the people in Malta I buy them from for seven cents an egg. Of course, I don't make the profit. The syndicate makes the profit. And everybody has a share.
• Dear Mrs., Mr., Miss, or Mr. And Mrs. Daneeka: Words cannot express the deep personal grief I experienced when your husband, son, father, or brother was killed, wounded, or reported missing in action.
• Yossarian, they can prepare as many official reports as they want and choose whichever ones they need on any given occasion. Didn't you know that?
• Doc Daneeka was Yossarian's friend and would do just about nothing in his power to help him.
• The case against Clevinger was open and shut. The only thing missing was something to charge him with.
• "They're trying to kill me," Yossarian told him calmly.
   "No one's trying to kill you," Clevinger cried.
   "Then why are they shooting at me?" Yossarian asked.
   "They're shooting at everyone," Clevinger answered.  "They're trying to kill everyone."
   "And what difference does that make?"
• The country was in peril; he was jeopardizing his traditional rights of freedom and independence by daring to exercise them.
• The Texan turned out to be good-natured, generous and likable. In three days no one could stand him.
• He had decided to live forever or die in the attempt.
• How can he see he's got flies in his eyes if he's got flies in his eyes ?
• Yossarian owed his good health to exercise, fresh air, teamwork and good sportsmanship; it was to get away from them all that he had first discovered the hospital.
• Anything worth dying for, is certainly worth living for.
• Of course they had a right (to lie to you). Don't be such an ass, Scheisskopf. People have a right to do anything that's not forbidden by law, and there's no law against lying to you.
• It's better to live on one's feet than to die on one's knees.

When do you become uncle ?

When you say something about someone like oh that person is an old guy, or call someone an 'uncle' types or 'aunty' types, what makes you feel or say it ? Is it only their looks ? or their clothes ? A common answer 
would be the way they carry themselves. Now by carrying themselves in a certain way may mean a lot of things here. Things that sometimes other people say or do makes you feel that person is an old guy or an 'uncle' types. Even those people are not aged as such, but it’s just that their mannerisms, their way of talking, their knowledge of certain things which I am totally unaware of( and hence makes me think, ok he's been there n done that, which implies he's an experienced person, which implies he is uncle !). Or even the lack of knowledge of most common things contributes to the stamp of being an uncle.
Try remembering your colleges days or think of all your colleagues one by one. Invariably there are or were at least a few people who we felt were uncle types. Again, they are not very old; but there was something about their behavior that made us feel so about them. For some it was their looks, for others may be it was clothes, for some others may be their way of talking and attitude to things. Or sometimes it was their maturity that I mistook for this uncleness. In college, people who had moustaches were uncles for me, as were people who always wore plain shirts, or those who never wore jeans automatically qualified as uncles. Or people who didn’t take as much interest in girls as much as we did, or who did not understand non veg jokes, or who were not all that interested in watching porn! Of course these rules had exceptions too. Sometimes I mistook geekyness of some people for uncleness. Sometimes they didn't do anything crazy or silly or stupid ever hence becoming uncles. Another thing was that I looked for criteria as the absence of only those things that I did myself. All the  above mentioned things I enjoyed wholeheartedly. So people who didn’t enjoy what I enjoyed became uncles. I know all these are silly definitions but that’s what I thought back then. I was being utterly stupid and demeaning and selfish by thinking on these lines. And later on when I got to know some of them it became clear that they were the most enthusiastic, funny and crazy people I have ever known. How deceptive first impressions can be. And how silly was I to judge people by their appearances.
Also it could be that while I was busy in making my own definitions for uncleness, some other person was interpreting me as an uncle because I didn't enjoy some 'hip' stuff that a few others did. Like I didn't ( and still don't) listen to rock music. Or any English music for that matter. I didn't start read english books till about 3rd year of college and the first English novel that I read was some nonsense Sydney Sheldon book, which took me about 4 months to finish.
Then came the job after graduation. Once job started, all the definitions changed. I was in Bangalore at the start of my job, and south is the place where moustache is the symbol for masculinity. You don’t have it, you are not man enough. Even people wearing the hippest clothes and sitting in the plushest restaurants and pubs seemed to have it. Ok, I thought, may be my perception was wrong. People with moustaches CAN be young too. Other thing that started to crop up in my mind about uncleness was that of marriage. People who were married became big time uncles. That’s because marriage equaled Too-much-responsibility equaled Loss-of-freedom equaled Fixed-routine equaled Always-worrying-abut-saving-money-for-future equaled No-Lukhhagiri equaled No-time-for-friends equaled No-roaming-out-late-at-nights. And if this was the case for married lot; people with kids, howsoever small they may be, were even bigger uncles. Again, there were bound to be exceptions to these rules because some of my most wonderful and funny and childish colleagues are happily married and have kids too. Other definitions were people who worked too hard for their jobs, or people who did not watch latest movies or who didn’t listen to latest music. Or people who said they prefer watching old movies or listening to old songs, but actually enjoyed watching those crap movies of the late 80's. I have a colleague who says his favourite movie is Govinda starrer 'Hatya' that came in 1987 ! And that nowadays movies aren't that good anymore. I would have still understood if he had said QSQT or JJWS or some crap Salman or SRK movie. Now will you still blame me if I call him uncle ?
Most of these definitions have now changed too. Nowadays I often wonder if I have become an uncle. Coz all these definitions directly or indirectly apply to me now.
Looks have definitely changed, including addition of a paunch-> does this contribute to being uncle ?
Can't-stay-awake-till-late-night-otherwise-it-will-be-late-for-office-tomorrow -> does this contribute to being uncle ?
Have to wear formal clothes for most of the week which I hated the most in beginning but now have gotten used to-> does this contribute to being uncle ?
Have to think twice before taking stairs instead of lift -> does this contribute to being uncle ?
Can identify only orkut, no facebook and forget about twitter -> does this contribute to being uncle ?
Cannot recognize the singers and the movie when listening to new songs -> does this contribute to being uncle ?
Have stopped remembering new records in cricket and old ones being broken -> does this contribute to being uncle ?

I still don’t have answer.