So, is Sehwag really the best?

Today, I was going through Aivjit Ghosh's blog post on the recent news in the world of cricket. Amongst all news, he talks on Sehwag in high esteem. Not that I do not hold Sehwag in high esteem. Infact, someone who has consistently appeared and performed well at international level, deserves an applause. But then, is it really the right time to start calling him the Indian best bastman of all time?

But, Avijit thinks he is the best. And here are the claims that Avijit makes in Sehwag's favour:

"Others can keep piling methodical hundreds, they can never dream of a 80-plus strike rate in Test cricket. Now even research papers show that he is better than anybody in India."

Oh yes, probably no one can dream of such a strike-rate. But then, stirke-rate is a deceptive statistic. It is not an unbiased measure of performance. This only means that Sehwag scores 80+ runs every 100 balls he faces. Which means, he might get out at a score of 8 or 9 after playing 10 balls in an innings, for 10 consecutive matches, and still end up with this strike-rate. In such a case, methodical hundreds might be more useful. I have blogged previously about the deceptive nature of statistical figures. This is yet another example of use of incomplete statistics to arrive at a conclusion.

Again, Avijit relies on some research papers that have claimed to have analysed that he is better than anybody in India. Frankly speaking, the reliability of research papers that combine human abilities and statistical data to arrive at conclusions should be sceptically looked at. I, definitely find in difficult to trust in such research, as we are never sure if the statistical data used is completely unbiased. And that the final conclusions are not sensitive to addition or removal of parameters.

Perhaps, the best comparison comes from Harsha Bhogle. His crininfo article on comparison between Gavaskar and Sehwag can be found here. And, quoting Harsha, here is the clincher

"But at the corresponding points in their career (79 Tests each), a mere 88 runs separate them. The difference in batting average is but 0.68."

I had once heard Shirish Kanekar on comparing different cricketers. Like every sane person, he said that it is impossible to compare players of different era, as playing conditions were different. Ranjitsinghji, Don Bradman, etc. never wore helmets or protective gear. They played differently and had to defend themselves against the possibility of getting injured due to a swinging delivery ramming into the body. The pitches were never covered, as they are today and hence batsmen were much more exposed to the vagaries of nature. Today, with protective gear, the batsman can be more aggressive and hence in turn score more runs. Kanekar had an interesting anecdote. He said, "There was no concept of nuclear warfare and its counter strategies during Shivaji Maharaj's era. That doesn't mean he was a king of lesser abilities than today's war strategists."

So, instead of pondering over which individual is best, there should be more concentration on building a team that is best.

Denouncing Hindu traditions is ticket to being "cool" and "progressive"

While the debate and outrage about the Khap panchayats in Haryana banning same-gotra marriage continues, many of the so-called neo-, liberal-Hindus have jumped on to the Hindu tradition bashing wagon. What the Khaps do, or prescribe is not appreciable at all, but why start bashing Hindu traditions on a whole, even without trying to understand it?

I came across this article by "youth icon" Chetan Bhagat.

What's Gotra Got To Do With It?

The great literary genius of today opens the article by saying, "I don't know why it was invented, or why it is still relevant. As if it wasn't good enough to divide people on caste, we needed one more level of sub-caste slicing to ensure as many Indians hate each other as possible." Well, honourable Chetan Bhagat, if you do not know, why are you commenting about it. Even Wikipedia has an explanation about the gotra system. If you do not believe in Wikipedia, it has a set of references given at the end of the articles, which you are free to explore. But no, you choose to bash the Hindu traditions left, right and centre. Because, that is what makes you the "modern", "progressive" and "cool" person that you are. That is what makes you the "youth icon". And it is you, who is making a baseless claim that by sub-dividing into gotra, we are making humans hate each other as much as possible. No sir, we do not "hate" any person from other gotra.

Remember, Hindu religion is the only one which gives mere recommendations and guidelines to its followers. You can be a Hindu even if you do not believe in Ram. But, if you openly express disbelief in Mohammed, you'll be persecuted. Or, in the Christian world, be thrown out of the church.

The gotra system was devised to identify people according to a set of genetic composition. How did this system evolve, may still be a mystery, but it doesn't mean that it was born out of thin air to satisfy someone's ego. There is a rationale behind it. Try to explore that. But, you do not have the time to do it. It is easier to bash the tradition rather than explore the logic behind it. And marriages within the same gotra were avoided so that the diversity of the genetic pool is maintained and there is less chance of aggravation of the weaknesses that people belonging to the same set of gene pools would have.

Sir, in the kind of social circles that you live, you might be meeting wildlife activists and conversation experts. If you sit and talk with them, they would tell you how dangers inbreeding is. That is, the dangers of allowing a pride of tigers to breed amongst themselves. The mother of the pride forcibly kicks the young ones out of her zone so that they do not inbreed with the females. You see, nature too has its own way of ensuring genetic diversity. And this is why, when a tiger and two tigresses were transferred into Panna National Park, they were chosen from different sanctuaries. So, let us leave all your mathematics and calculations of only 0.1% of DNA may be sibling like. All the mathematics and computer simulations of your fellow MBAs and investment bankers couldn't prevent the financial recession.

Many of the ancient Indian customs and religious activities have a reason for existence. The responsibilities of "educated" people like you is to try to search the reason behind it and weed out all that is not correct. For e.g., the ghungat system, dowry, etc. But, you choose to bash and berate every tradition of the Hindus. To add, you are an IIT engineer and an IIM-A MBA holder. You should be scientifically decimating the theory that same-gotra marriages are harmful, but you choose to play with emotions. And you play to the gallery of the neo-Hindus.

I would have liked your article if it was against the dictator-like rule of the Khaps. That is completely unacceptable. That high-handed rule of the Khaps has got nothing to do with the gotra system. It is just that this is one of the issues they are using to flex their muscles. But you choose to centre your article around "regressive ideas" of the Hindus.

Shouldn't journalists be only reporting?

Before writing this post, I was just checking the definition of a journalist. Wikipedia says

A journalist collects and disseminates information about current events, people, trends, and issues.

This means that a journalist should convey the train of events in a manner that they have occurred. A journalist should not be colouring the report with his or her own opinions or political leanings. That, I guess would be the forte of a good journalist. And the job of colouring events with opinions should be left to analysts, is what I feel.

But now-a-days, journalists are trying to become analysts themselves. News channel reporters go over the top in making conclusions in less than 30 seconds. The Times of India is known for its pro-Congress stance. Being pro-Congress is fine, but it is anti-BJP. And hence, its reporters, and probably editors too, try to paint every reaction of a BJP leader in a way so as to prove that Congress is much better than the BJP. Just see this headline-

Congress did not initiate anti-Sikh riots in 1984: Gadkari

The headline meant to say that the BJP has exonerated the Congress from its role in the anti-Sikh riots. Subtly, it means that the BJP is withdrawing from its earlier stand, which maintained that the Congress party members actively supported the riots. And hence, trying to show that the BJP is a party which flip-flops on its stand.

But, read the interview carefully, and you will realise that Nitin Gadkari has never made such a statement. The statement Gadkari made, in reply to a question was

"Look, some people might be involved in those riots but it would not be entirely correct to say that the riots were initiated by the government."

This statement never ever has the same meaning as the headline. While the journalist writing this report may feel that the headline justifies the content, it is his/her opinion. And that is precisely what a journalist should not be doing. That is a columnist's job. Leave that to them, else they will have to find new avenues to work. But will our media, affected by the "breaking news" syndrome, ever improve? They do not have to go too far. Just read BBC's website and see how they write their headlines. No sensationlisation at all. And the same is true about BBC News. The reporters are one of the most objective ones, the news readers never take sides. But our media is trying to model itself along the Fox-News type of reporting. More sensation than content. And the print media too, is going along the same lines. The fourth estate of the democracy should not be influenced by political leanings, but should be objective in its work. Let people form their opinions. You need not force yours onto them.