The Wall Of Money

Source: Tribuneindia.com

Punjab Cricket Association president I.S. Bindra on Tuesday fired yet another salvo at the cricket board claiming that BCCI had lost Rs 44 crore by awarding telecast rights for ODI series against Sri Lanka and South Africa to Prasar Bharti.

"Doordarshan clinched the deal after offering BCCI a deal of Rs 7.5 crore per match. Another TV company had offered the Board Rs 135 crore for telecast of 12 matches as against Rs 91 crore what it will get now," Bindra said.

The former BCCI chief said the BCCI was playing 'fraud' with the country's cricketers and the cricket-crazy public as the rights for the 12 matches had been awarded to Nimbus for 1.75 million dollars as against Nimbus' own offer of 5 million dollars.

"It is a big fraud with the cricketers, state associations and the general public. Last year, the board lost Rs 350 crore by undervaluing what it could have earned by awarding various rights," Bindra said adding that he had on Monday approached Delhi High Court regarding the alleged fraud by the board.

Bindra, who has earlier on several occasions alleged that the board was not interested in marketing domestic cricket, said the board's reluctant attitude had cost domestic players Rs 37.5 crore in 2004.

Anyone who is aware of the niceties of cricket will know how true these allegations are. Jaggu Dalmiya, the mastermind behind BCCI, is the richest man and surely the biggest fraud in the history of cricket. Time and again cricketers have been criticized for match fixing. Fixing is a form of corruption, and that scam was nothing compared to BCCI's internal corruption. The administrators are the biggest frauds in cricket. Dalmiya is their kingpin. BCCI is also involved in several cases of tax frauds. If you remember, last year Zee TV got the TV rights for the cricket matches in India, only to be revoked after a few hours. It was Jaggu Dalmiya who botched up the TV-rights contract by creating a deadlock between Zee TV and ESPN Star. In the end, both the channels got nothing and Doordarshan got the contract once again. I don't have to rant about DD's incompetency and poor service. Doordarshan is the most undeserving TV channel to telecast a cricket match. Dalmiya is always on their side to gain political leverage and to stuff his pocket. According to some sources, BCCI has amassed such colossal amount of money that if they erected a wall their cash, the wall would never end, because of the speedy growth-rate of their unscrupulous earnings.

Raging Bull

Bluffmaster's Take on Raging Bull





The direction is flawless. From the initial inspired shot of Jake La Motta shadow boxing in the ring, we know that we are experiencing a work of true cinematic art. Scorsese's inspiring touch was to shoot the film in black and white. It adds atmosphere, underlines the brutal drama that is La Motta's life, and of course, enhances the gritty realism of the fight scenes where we join the boxers in the ring. There is no escaping the brutality of the fights. The confusion of sounds, glaring white light and Oscar-winning editing make these scenes unique and unmatched by any other film.

De Niro simply glows with brilliance in 'Raging Bull', like in none of his other films. His dedication to the role is astounding — going on a rigorous training program develop a boxer's physique and even competing in three actual boxing matches and then gaining 50lbs over a year to play a bloated overweight La Motta in later life. De Niro's presence, focus, remarkable attention to detail and great passion for the role all combine to make it the greatest acting performance in the history of modern cinema. Joined by two remarkable supporting performances from Joe Pesci as Joey and Cathy Moriarty as Vicky, the three main players bring the characters to life on screen with all their virtues and flaws in a way that is unfortunately rare to behold in films nowadays.

An example of true cinematic art, it combines brilliant and innovative film technique with a deep and provocative character study, and a raw unflinching look at the self-destructive element of masculinity. The violence and profanity must not deter anyone from appreciating this as a beautiful work of art. Simply put, Raging Bull is one of American cinema’s masterworks.

Cast: Robert DeNiro, Joe Pesci, Cathy Moriarty
Director: Martin Scorsese
Year: 1980

Ratings:
Story: A-
Acting: A+
Direction: A+
Visuals: A+
Bluffmaster's Grade: A

The Most Influential Perverts

The infamous squad of the most dirtiest manipulators in cricket:


10. Ricky Ponting: A peach of a batsman, but a jerk of a person! A narcissistic, pompous, crude bastard who claims to be most authoritative captain in the world. Anyone aware with the nuances of cricket will agree that he's an ordinary captain blessed with an outstanding team. He is nothing what Cricket Australia claims to be. You have greatest bowlers in the world like McGrath, Lee, Warne, and you still place defensive field settings — only to prove your are different to inflate your rotten ego. You chose to bowl first on a flat pitch at Birmingham just to boast your authority like some naive obstinate gremlin. When you realized you could lose the ashes, you shirked off your responsibility and demanded not to be made a scapegoat. You call yourself an "authoritative" leader! You admitted defeat even before the final test. You dork, it's just a game of cricket.

9. John Bracewell: A big sick perverted bastard. New Zealand coach and tormentor responsible for ruining a good team with the help of selectors.

8. Rudi Koertzen: One of the most temperamental umpires. Known to have close relations with David Graveney and Ray Illingworth. Being an umpire makes him ICC's lethal weapon in controlling matches. The worst thing, is, he's highly inconsistent in his umpiring. A very prejudiced umpire who works like ICC's puppet. Another noticeable fact is the cricket authorities keep him clear of the media. Unlike some other umpires who seem to be media's targets due to their sour relations with some influential cricket officials.

7. Robert Merriman: Chairman of Cricket Australia's Industrial Relations, International, and Remuneration committees. Merriman is among the most influential men in cricket. Regardless of his prowess, cricket is still a failure in Australia — as a business — in spite of being the best team in the world. Holds the power to manipulate matches and pitches. He was responsible for manipulating the pitches during India's tour in 2003-04.

6. Allan Border: Has carved the image of an angel in cricket, especially in Australian cricket circuit. But deep down this mistaken angel, lies a selfish ogre. He was the kingpin behind Steve Waugh's exclusion from the one-day side, using smart marketing antics. Later on, it was he who pressurised Steve Waugh to retire from test cricket to glamorise India-Australia series and to also protect his record that was being threatened by Steve Waugh.

5. Ayaz Memon: Fake twang, fake comments, thinks himself as Fisk, but in reality is just a Dalmiya's puppet and writes whatever he tells him to. Extremely efficient at promoting the mediocre team India. Team huddle, seven captains, and all the s*** was glorified. I must add, he is an extremely biased journalist. For more details click here.

4. Ian Bell: The favourite brat of English selectors who ended legendary Thorpe's career.

3. Ehsan Mani: The money-making machine of ICC, can go up to any limit to earn money even if that means manipulating the outcome of the match. He had hot pants for USA, but the move backfired. Secretly operated to make India-Pak series of 2004 a roaring success by fixing matches.

2. Malcolm Speed: Another influential man in cricket who can make his team lose to generate money. Also responsible for retiring Steve Waugh and Mark Waugh.

And the Number One is... Jagmohan Dalmiya — the most dirtiest influence on cricket.

The last man standing. Menace to cricket.

1. Jagmohan Dalmiya: The most influential person in cricket who uses cricketers like his puppets. He has the power to manipulate even big world cup matches. He holds the authority to make or break a cricketer's career at will. His wish is ICC's command. Dalmiya is a clever 'politician' who is well versed with the nuances of the cricket politics. He's a guy who's stuck onto cricket like a leech.

Super Conspiracy II: Appeasement

The super test just finished. The result was inevitable owing to the defective and flashy team-selection. What's going on, Mr. Gavaskar? You are a respectable man in cricket. Be a man to reflect it in your work! Experts are criticizing World XI for lack of team spirit and intensity, but that's all nonsense. They always come up with theories and manipulate them as per "the wind's direction". It's a sacrilege to expect good results when some players get into the World XI by moaning and throwing tantrums.

The team selection in the Super Series is based more on popularity and less on logic. There are some in-form players who haven't performed well in the super series; hence, it's unfair to criticize the selectors for that. However, there are a few questionable selections in the World XI. They could have been a more potent team. They could have easily picked five regular bowlers in their team for they have a genuine all-rounder Flintoff: perhaps Pollock/Shoaib, Harmison, Flintoff, Murali, and Vettori. I am not a blind supporter of the five-bowler bandwagon, but it depends on team to team. Flintoff works best when he's not overloaded. England's key to the Ashes was their 'fatal five' bowling attack. World XI couldn't afford to play five bowlers because they had to accommodate a few star batsmen.

Pleasing individuals has become more important than the team. There's a madam curie in the World XI, named Inzamam ul-Haq, who sulked, moaned, cried like a sissy after not being initially selected in the team. Pakistan Cricket Board held an emergency meeting with the ICC, and later on they squeezed him in the place of injured Tendulkar. It's a simple case of appeasement where an individual is given prominence at the cost of the team. He virtually cried his way into the team like an obstinate kid crying for a candy or a ride in the Disneyland. I don't deny Inzamam's credibility, but this is World XI, and it's only possible to pick eleven players in a team. There are several world-class players who could have sulked at their exclusion form the World test XI. Some of them probably deserved to be there more than Inzamam or even Lara. Players like Sangakkara, Jayasuriya,Yusuf Youhanna, Shivnaraine Chanderpaul, Andrew Strauss, Ramnaresh Sarwan, Taibu, and above all, Laxman — who has a wonderful record against Australia and even Gilchrist expressed surprise over his absence — were all worthy of finding a place in the World XI, but none of them whined like sissies. What would have ICC done had all the above players grunted and whinged over their exclusion?

After the series, Inzamam whined that he couldn't motivate himself. His commitment wasn't the same. Hahaha. Look at his double standards. First he forced himself into the team to earn million dollars — only to score one run in two innings; and later he gave excuses and trashed the series. Loser!

Inzamam is a disruptive influence in his own national team. His own teammates aren't fond of him. When the World XI team was in the huddle, he just didn't look a part of the team. This guy has a history of brawls and verbal spats with his teammates.

Pakistani cricketers Younis Khan (L) and Inzamam-ul Haq (2nd R) are separated by Saeed Anwar (2ndL) and Shahid Afridi during a dispute while playing football during a practice session at the Queens Sports Club in Bulawayo.

The above picture is from the 2003 World Cup when he actually brawled with his teammate Younis Khan, who is now the vice-captain of the team. He has had tussles with Shoaib Akhtar, Yusuf, Aamir Sohail, Wasim Akram and many more players.

There's Brian Lara who hasn't played any international cricket for last 6-7 months and he finds himself a place in the World XI. They will continue to struggle until the team is more balanced and the selection is unbiased without any elements of appeasement.

The New 007

It's official: Daniel Craig is the new James Bond! The actor has been signed to a three-picture deal starting with the upcoming 007 film, Casino Royale. I haven't yet seen any of Daniel Craig's movies so I can't pass my judgement on him. His filmography includes Lara Croft: Tomb Raider and Road To Perdition. He is the sixth actor to play the role of the suave secret agent double-o-seven.

After a long 4-year hiatus since Die Another Day, they have finally moved ahead. Die Another Day, although a huge commercial success, was undoubtedly the worst Bond film ever. The director, Lee Tamarohi, and the extra defensive producers were responsible for that. Casino Royale will be directed by Martin Campbell, who has also directed Goldeneye (1995), Brosnan's first Bond movie.

It's sad not to see Pierce — "Pyrus" as Maddy calls him — as 007. He could have been there for a couple of more films.

Since the release of Dr. No in 1962, Casino Royale will be the twenty-first Bond movie. The shooting will begin from January, 2006 and is due for worldwide release on November 17, 2006. The director, Martin Campbell, has confirmed that Casino Royale will be a "grittier" movie — with more character, and less gadgets and technology: "However, the traditional key elements that had attributed to the success of the series would still be there in good measures."

A Buffoon Named Tapan Joshi

A lunatic sports journalist named Tapan Joshi, from Times of India, who thinks he's in the genus of Robert Fisk, has written an article about the captaincy issue in team India. This spineless coward has mentioned that good players don't always make good captains. Does that mean you stop trying and accept the destiny of Indian team? Or perhaps Parthiv Patel or Ajit Agarkar would be the best options to lead India. Good players don't make good captains. Is he suggesting that Steve Waugh (the most successful captain of Australia) wasn't a good player? In his career, he scored 32 centuries, 10 927 runs @ an average of 51.06 per innings. As a captain, he made 15 centuries, 10 fifties at an average of 52. Don't forget, he was 34 when he became the captain. So in last 5 years, as a captain, he scored 15 hundreds. How about Imran Khan? Was he a 'bad' captain or a 'bad' cricketer? According to some buffoons Rahul Dravid is too 'old' to lead India. Steve Waugh was 33 when he became the ODI captain of Australia and 34 when he became the test captain. Had Cricket Australia followed that moron's philosophy, they would never had taken the 'risk' of appointing Steve Waugh as their captain.

This mendacious jerk has listed Rahul Dravid's weaknesses in his column:

1) "Too diplomatic. Prefers to make his willow (performance) speak." Is diplomacy a bad quality? Isn't your uncle Gavaskar a diplomat? You silly bastard, Tapan, what else do you imagine? Do you expect him to reveal all the dressing-room secrets to you? Or you want him to make comments on Chappell-Ganguly spat like the uncouth Harbhajan? He is a person who never creates any controversy and this, according to Tapan, is a weakness.

He also said, " Dravid prefers to make his willow speak." I know there are several slobs in Indian team who only talk and brag about how good they are, and they only perform once in 10-12 matches. They have to boast about themselves, because their performances are nothing. Here is a player who lets his performance do all the talking, and this is supposed to be his drawback according to Tapan! Are you sure, you moron, you don't smoke marijuana or some weed? How else do you expect him to prove his class? Should he stop scoring runs, and make big statements, and join the Jaaggu's bandwagon. Of course, a batsman is supposed to establish himself by scoring runs. What else do you imagine? Is he a Bollywood star who has to carve a phoney superstar image? Or flex his muscles? Get into a boxing match with his rival cricketer, or perhaps, have a brash 'I-am-the-best' attitude like some inept Bollywood star. What are you ranting about, moron? He's a class act who doesn't need any fake propaganda to be in the team. It's Dalmiya's good-for-nothing crew who needs such dirty tactics to get lifetime membership of the team.

2) "Mild. Can be steamrolled by coach Chappell." Tapan Joshi, you poltroon, aren't you steamrolled and manipulated by the BCCI? Is Chappell a monster? Even the imbecile Harbhajan protested against him. Why are they paying millions to Chappell if he's just going to sit, keep quiet, and be the captain's scullion? Wasn't John Wright steamrolled by Ganguly? Foreign coach is just fashion statement in India. If team wins, Jaggu and his favourites get all the credit and if they lose, coach gets all the flak.

3) "Lacks Ganguly's aggression." Oh, get a life, you hideous monster! Aggression doesn't mean profanity or making presumptuous and narcissistic statements to the media, and depicting brash and ostentatious image to the world. That's true he can't match Ganguly's madness. After all he keeps away from blasphemy. To match him he will have to arrest his mental growth to the age of 16. Perhaps, the peevish and cantankerous slobs, Harbhajan Singh or Zaheer Khan would be ideal successors of Ganguly.

Their definition of aggression is also very inconsistent and subjective. Is stripping off one's shirt, and hurling abuses aggression? Is acting like a haughty, phoney, grumpy rogue called aggression? Or swearing at other cricketers is aggression? Or acting like an overcharged, overheated, pompous asinine called aggression? Well, I agree Dravid can't emulate this. Neither Steve Waugh, Imran Khan or Kapil Dev did such acts to gain publicity.

4) "Has seldom stuck his neck out for his mates." Should he stick his neck out just like that dunderhead Harbhajan did? Would you be happy if he criticized Chappell/Ganguly or became a disruptive influence on the team? If you are also hinting at team selection, how can you expect him to take sides or 'stick his neck out for his mates' when he's not a captain. There are other senior players in the team like Tendulkar and Sehwag who don't stick their neck out for their mates. At least, be consistent in your views, you biased bastard!

Perverts like Tapan Joshi are responsible for creating hoopla, unnecessary media hype and controversies. The newspapers blatantly trash politicians in their articles, but when it comes to cricket they pee in their pants at the very mention of Jaggu Dalmiya, particularly Times Of India and Hindustan Times. Indian Express is the only newspaper that is not biased. It's sad how cricket politics has steamrolled true journalism.

There's another perverted sports journalist named Ayaz Memon who is a wannabe, with his fake twang, influenced opinions, but he is a moron who has no opinion of his own. The worst part, is, these guys think they are some sort of Howard Zinns or Robert Fisks. They are nothing more than a bunch of phonies who only write what BCCI and some players tell them to. I have just one thing to say, "Get a life, friend!"

Politics Galore

Rahul Dravid has finally got a "long term" stint as the captain of India. Interestingly, this "long term" is only restricted to two ODI series. Furthermore, the selectors have done their best to select the worst possible team by holding back talents like Laxman, Mongia, and Kumble. With Kaif also out of the way due to injury, Jaggu's plan is obvious i.e. to make the team lose by selecting mediocre and raw players like Venugopal, Agarkar, Raina, and ignoring Laxman, Mongia, and Zaheer Khan. I must say Sreesanth is a good choice, but he will take time to settle down. Besides, Sachin will also take time to get into his groove. Zaheer Khan's omission is baffling, considering he's the only experienced pace bowler in Indian team who bowls well on flat Indian pitches. Pathan has struggled on Indian pitches and with Nehra's injury Indian bowling has become too weak. Two big series losses (thanks to the poor team selection) will put Jaggu's pet, Ganguly, back on track.

I watch cricket as an escape from dirty politics, but sadly I see the same politics has engulfed Indian cricket. BCCI, media, and cricket experts are calling him a long-term captain, which is absolutely ridiculous. Right now, he's neither an adhoc captain nor a full-time captain. How can you appoint a full-time captain without officially dethroning the current captain? This is highly unethical and political. Dravid should have been the permanent captain or the selectors should have chosen Dravid or someone else for an adhoc job. This two-series-captain mess is utterly nonsense. When Steve Waugh became the ODI captain in 1998, he was appointed for the 1999 world cup and futher on. It wasn't just for 1-2 series. In 2002, Ricky Ponting held the position on a long-term basis, even beyond the 2003 world cup.

Super Conspiracy?

Australia has annihilated the World XI in the Super Series ODIs. They were under tremendous pressure after losing the Ashes. Aussies had everything to lose, but World XI had nothing to gain.

World XI looked out of sorts. Now that the series is over, many cricketing psychiatrists will explain why World XI lost and give their rubbish theories, but the fact is the selection criteria was more on popularity/market value and less on performances. The selectors were awed by the stars and pressuried by some cricket boards to include certain players. Shane Bond's absence was absolutely shocking! He has recovered from injury and made a strong comeback against India and has shown he can still bowl at 150 Kmph and swing the ball. He can still take heaps of wickets and win matches for his team. Sadly, his outstanding record against Australia was also ignored because they had to include "stars". He has troubled the Australian batsman more than the other World XI pacers. He has picked 22 wickets in 6 matches at an average 10.45 and a strike rate of 15.00 against Australia. The result is evident from the fact all the World XI fast bowlers struggled against the Aussies.

I wonder, somewhere, Bangladesh would be laughing at the World XI. In contemporary cricket, things aren't the way they appear on face value. Some morons can again brag about how only India can beat Australia. Ironically, Australia has won 8 out of last 9 ODIs against India and they even won the recent test series in India.

Natural Calamities

Today I woke up with the shocks of tremor — another natural calamity. They seem to have been occurring too frequently with a great deal of vehemence. Earlier in July, Mumbai (India) submerged due to excessive flooding as result of heavy rainfall, causing many deaths and financial losses.

Last year, Tsunami devastated the lives of hundreds of thousands in Asia, including financial losses worth Rs. 70,000 crores. Then Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.

The numbers are too heavy. Is it the nature’s vengeance for global warming and pollution we cause by abusing natural resources? According to some research environmentalists, pollution and global warming enhance the intensity of such natural calamities.

Perhaps it’s the time to turn on to renewable sources of energy for the amelioration of civilization.

Marketing Moguls

Sunil Gavaskar's quotes:

Sunil Gavaskar on how some cricketers achieved success with dignity without having to show undue aggression and 'ugly' body language: "Anyone who says that toughness is shown by ugly gestures and body language is talking nonsense. Vishy, Mohinder Amarnath and Dilip Vengsarkar are prime examples of players who went about their jobs quietly, without fuss and scored runs when the situation demanded."

Gavaskar on the near perfect behaviour of champion performers Sachin Tendulkar, Pete Sampras and Tiger Woods: "Pete Sampras, Tiger Woods, Sachin Tendulkar are three sportspersons who are colossuses in their respective sport and wonderful role models too. You won't find them creating a scene on or off the courts, courses or fields."

I agree with his comments, but why different yardsticks for different players? Guys like McGrath, Donald, Shoaib Akhtar are always condemned for sledging and called all the bad names in the world whenever they happen to intimidate other cricketers. Steve Waugh's team was ostracized for sledging. However, when cricketers like Harbhajan Singh, Zaheer Khan, Andre Nel vituperate opposition players, they are touted as aggressive heroes by the media and other cricket experts. These guys are the most notorious cricketers who are actually lauded for their filthily abusive vociferation and lewd gestures. Hypocrites like Gavaskar hail their 'attitude' and always kiss their ass, but then if others do this, they are mercilessly detested. It's sad to see how marketing moguls have taken over the game of cricket. The notorious Indian cricketers are backed for their evil deeds, only to be used as marketing tools to boost TRPs. Unfortunately, these notorious acts are given more prominence than the game of cricket. In reality, the marketeers use the brash 'attitude' of such scallywags a positive light to promote them, because their performances are just not good enough to have them in the team. This is what they are good at: manipulating facts, cheating, and stealing.

A marketing executive once said, "In contemporary cricket, you are only as good as you are promoted." It's up to the marketeers to make an ordinary cricketer look talented and to hold back a talented player who isn't the captain's favourite or who poses a threat to his favourites.