Intellectuals are often critical of sports fans. They have a very good reason. Most of the sports fans are bigoted, fanatical, stupid and extremely jingoistic. Let it be fans of cricket, football or pro-wrestling, they all are the same. Of course not all sports fans are stupid. There are many rational, intelligent sports lovers. My cousin, Bundy, is a big fan of football and has very good knowledge of cricket. But unfortunately such people are a minority. Here are some outrageously asinine remarks or acts of some cricket fanatics:
—“Pakistani bowlers are considered to be legends, yet none of them feature in the list of top-ten highest wicket takers in Test cricket. [Followed by a laugh.]”
This is such a stupid argument. Judging a cricketer on statistics alone is ridiculous. Statistics don’t reveal the quality of the bowling, conditions and many other factors like injuries. Every great batsman who faced Malcolm Marshall considers him the greatest fast bowler ever but he doesn’t doesn’t even feature in the list top fifteen wicket takers. In fact, apart from Courtney Walsh, none of the great West Indian fast bowlers including Marshall, Curtly Ambrose, Michael Holding feature among the top ten. Does that mean they were inferior bowlers? Any batsman would agree that Marshall, Ambrose and Holding were the most difficult bowlers to face. Mashall took 376 wickets. Compared to him Muralitharan and Warne had 800 and 708 respectively. Does that mean he was only half as good as they were? Surely not.
If statistics alone were to judge greatness, then Sachin Tendulkar never scored a triple century. In fact, he doesn’t feature in the list of top-90 highest scores made in a Test innings. Does that mean he’s not the best or one of the best?
Number of wickets are also dependent on the matches played. Imran Khan played cricket for twenty years but he only played 88 Tests, simply because Pakistan didn’t play enough cricket in the 1980s.
—“Md. Hafeez has a better batting average than Ian Botham, Mike Atherton and Nasseer Hussian. Hence, he is better than them.”
Obviously, the idiot who made his claim knows little about cricket. Comparing two different eras of cricket is ridiculous. Firstly, Botham and company didn’t have the luxury of featherweight, ultra-powerful bats of today and they faced much higher quality of bowlers than Hafeez does. Moreover, most of Hafeez’s runs have come against weak bowling attacks. Hafeez has a batting average of 39, which would be equal to an average of 25 in the ‘80s and the ‘90s.
If Javed Miandad and Vivian Richards played today, they would have averaged 70. Saeed Anwar was a great opener. Statistically his average is only six runs higher than Hafeez’s but he was a vastly superior batsman. In fact, he never scored a double century in his prolific career. But that doesn’t mean that he was an ordinary cricketer.
—“Sponsors and TV channels like Twenty-20 cricket because it draws more audience. But when it comes to films, people should only watch highbrow movies.” There is nothing wrong with this argument in isolation but the same hypocrites cry like sissies whenever Anurag Kashyap’s movie fails to float at the box-office. They abuse people who don’t see his movies. They ridicule common people for choosing entertainment over austerity. They belittle most of the blockbusters with their bigoted, inflammatory remarks. Akash Chopra shares propaganda videos that criticise blockbusters but gets offended when anyone criticises IPL. If public prefers T20 cricket over Test cricket, then they also prefer movies of Salman Khan or Akshay Kumar over the likes of Anurag Kashyap. If broadcasters want more of T20 cricket, then the same way distributors and exhibitors prefer 3 Idiots over Raman Raghav 2.0. Their double standards only reaffirm the fact that they are stupid Fascists.
With such irrational, jingoistic arguments any reasonable discussion is unexpected from such hardliners. One thing is for sure, Adolf Hitler would be proud of them.
—“Pakistani bowlers are considered to be legends, yet none of them feature in the list of top-ten highest wicket takers in Test cricket. [Followed by a laugh.]”
This is such a stupid argument. Judging a cricketer on statistics alone is ridiculous. Statistics don’t reveal the quality of the bowling, conditions and many other factors like injuries. Every great batsman who faced Malcolm Marshall considers him the greatest fast bowler ever but he doesn’t doesn’t even feature in the list top fifteen wicket takers. In fact, apart from Courtney Walsh, none of the great West Indian fast bowlers including Marshall, Curtly Ambrose, Michael Holding feature among the top ten. Does that mean they were inferior bowlers? Any batsman would agree that Marshall, Ambrose and Holding were the most difficult bowlers to face. Mashall took 376 wickets. Compared to him Muralitharan and Warne had 800 and 708 respectively. Does that mean he was only half as good as they were? Surely not.
If statistics alone were to judge greatness, then Sachin Tendulkar never scored a triple century. In fact, he doesn’t feature in the list of top-90 highest scores made in a Test innings. Does that mean he’s not the best or one of the best?
Number of wickets are also dependent on the matches played. Imran Khan played cricket for twenty years but he only played 88 Tests, simply because Pakistan didn’t play enough cricket in the 1980s.
—“Md. Hafeez has a better batting average than Ian Botham, Mike Atherton and Nasseer Hussian. Hence, he is better than them.”
Obviously, the idiot who made his claim knows little about cricket. Comparing two different eras of cricket is ridiculous. Firstly, Botham and company didn’t have the luxury of featherweight, ultra-powerful bats of today and they faced much higher quality of bowlers than Hafeez does. Moreover, most of Hafeez’s runs have come against weak bowling attacks. Hafeez has a batting average of 39, which would be equal to an average of 25 in the ‘80s and the ‘90s.
If Javed Miandad and Vivian Richards played today, they would have averaged 70. Saeed Anwar was a great opener. Statistically his average is only six runs higher than Hafeez’s but he was a vastly superior batsman. In fact, he never scored a double century in his prolific career. But that doesn’t mean that he was an ordinary cricketer.
—“Sponsors and TV channels like Twenty-20 cricket because it draws more audience. But when it comes to films, people should only watch highbrow movies.” There is nothing wrong with this argument in isolation but the same hypocrites cry like sissies whenever Anurag Kashyap’s movie fails to float at the box-office. They abuse people who don’t see his movies. They ridicule common people for choosing entertainment over austerity. They belittle most of the blockbusters with their bigoted, inflammatory remarks. Akash Chopra shares propaganda videos that criticise blockbusters but gets offended when anyone criticises IPL. If public prefers T20 cricket over Test cricket, then they also prefer movies of Salman Khan or Akshay Kumar over the likes of Anurag Kashyap. If broadcasters want more of T20 cricket, then the same way distributors and exhibitors prefer 3 Idiots over Raman Raghav 2.0. Their double standards only reaffirm the fact that they are stupid Fascists.
With such irrational, jingoistic arguments any reasonable discussion is unexpected from such hardliners. One thing is for sure, Adolf Hitler would be proud of them.
No comments
Post a Comment