George Orwell would have still safely chosen to write 1984 since what came 8 years hence was far from predictable. I remember myself as a hardly 6 year old sitting in front of newly subscribed "Cable Tv" with glitter in my eyes anticipating another batsman to get bowled on the first ball he faces so that I could watch the animated duck mocking the already embarrassed looser. It was the 1992 World Cup and no matter who was loosing or winning I was lovin it...
Some information for those who are least aware of the metamorphism 1992 WC was. It was the first WC that had players in fluorescent colors ( notice the word fluorescent. The colors were indeed pleasing... ). The first white ball, flashy screens, the invisible third umpire, the sparkling floodlights and the packed stadias gave a feeling of being at the center of a high profile tournament, a realization that every ball counted and so did every player and every single spectator. They would walk in their glamorous outfit with suncream all over their face, a handkerchief nevertheless adroitly tucked inside their trousers. Far from "clowns" as what described by Harold Larwoods , they were the vicious bowlers and the entertaining pinch hitters who were rendering a glossy touch to a game that was essentially labeled as a gentleman's monopoly.
1992 changed perceptions. Australians, I reckon, for long were the only people in cricketing fraternity concerned about actually "marketing" cricket. They introduced the concept of ODIs followed by successful ventures like Triangular series and World Championship Tournament .1992 WC was fresh breath of air. Even the most unnoticeable entities drew attention.The seats were visibly attractive and the umpire appeared more than just the dumb Christmas snowman he use to be in previous editions of the game.Alan Donald with his trademark suncream apparently became my favorite cartoon character before I realized my mom was just playing prank on me telling that it was he who inspired Walt Disney to sketch out the legendary sailer duck. Sachin was still young and Inzamam clean shave. Kiran More was loudest wicketkeeper in the world and I had incidentally started batting left handed, overwhelmed by comments from some "aunty" who told my mom that your son is as cute as Andy Flower! As a 6 year old, I could in fact educate my father "Papa, Don't watch cricket if players are wearing white. They play very slowly..."
"Change is unavoidable",one of the forgetful commercial during the recent IPL matches claims. But that is neither the statement of century nor the complete truth. Change, whether avoidable or unavoidable, is "fruitful" only if it is Change for better. And there is a defining difference between merely Change and Change for better. People expect something naive, you give them that something, people accept it happily, you are rich, This is merely a Change. People never thought about something, you give them this unforeseen "something", people accept it happily, you are rich. This is Change for better. IPL by merging Bollywoodish and Cheerleadish pomp and show with cricket did the former. 1992 coming with an unprecedented, unanticipated fresh face of cricket riding on the back of circumstantial advantage of onslaught of Cable TV ( in India ) did the latter.
Exploiting the lack of demand for innovation and emotional inclination towards Bollywood, IPL might successfully foray into cricket history books as a major milestone. The pseudo-innovative marketing involved in promoting IPL is akin to what Ekta Kapoor did to Indian television. Saas-bahu dramas were in nascent stage about 10 years ago when Ms Kapoor's K-series acid rained on Indian Television, their continuing success nevertheless proving the large appetite of Indian viewers to keep chewing the old gum stolidly. Same, if happens with IPL for next 10 years wont be a surprise hence.
Did IPL bring any culture to cricket?Is it giving new dimensions?Benchmarking with respect to 1992, is IPL a revolution? Did IPL change anything at all? No. The Ceat Ad suggests Change is unavoidable. Ironically, Its IPL that proves it is not :P
Packed MCG during the final. Pic lifted from Wiki :-)
P.S I wish I could credit the forgetful aunty. Andy Flower is still among my favorite players and I still bat left handed because of him :D
Some information for those who are least aware of the metamorphism 1992 WC was. It was the first WC that had players in fluorescent colors ( notice the word fluorescent. The colors were indeed pleasing... ). The first white ball, flashy screens, the invisible third umpire, the sparkling floodlights and the packed stadias gave a feeling of being at the center of a high profile tournament, a realization that every ball counted and so did every player and every single spectator. They would walk in their glamorous outfit with suncream all over their face, a handkerchief nevertheless adroitly tucked inside their trousers. Far from "clowns" as what described by Harold Larwoods , they were the vicious bowlers and the entertaining pinch hitters who were rendering a glossy touch to a game that was essentially labeled as a gentleman's monopoly.
1992 changed perceptions. Australians, I reckon, for long were the only people in cricketing fraternity concerned about actually "marketing" cricket. They introduced the concept of ODIs followed by successful ventures like Triangular series and World Championship Tournament .1992 WC was fresh breath of air. Even the most unnoticeable entities drew attention.The seats were visibly attractive and the umpire appeared more than just the dumb Christmas snowman he use to be in previous editions of the game.Alan Donald with his trademark suncream apparently became my favorite cartoon character before I realized my mom was just playing prank on me telling that it was he who inspired Walt Disney to sketch out the legendary sailer duck. Sachin was still young and Inzamam clean shave. Kiran More was loudest wicketkeeper in the world and I had incidentally started batting left handed, overwhelmed by comments from some "aunty" who told my mom that your son is as cute as Andy Flower! As a 6 year old, I could in fact educate my father "Papa, Don't watch cricket if players are wearing white. They play very slowly..."
"Change is unavoidable",one of the forgetful commercial during the recent IPL matches claims. But that is neither the statement of century nor the complete truth. Change, whether avoidable or unavoidable, is "fruitful" only if it is Change for better. And there is a defining difference between merely Change and Change for better. People expect something naive, you give them that something, people accept it happily, you are rich, This is merely a Change. People never thought about something, you give them this unforeseen "something", people accept it happily, you are rich. This is Change for better. IPL by merging Bollywoodish and Cheerleadish pomp and show with cricket did the former. 1992 coming with an unprecedented, unanticipated fresh face of cricket riding on the back of circumstantial advantage of onslaught of Cable TV ( in India ) did the latter.
Exploiting the lack of demand for innovation and emotional inclination towards Bollywood, IPL might successfully foray into cricket history books as a major milestone. The pseudo-innovative marketing involved in promoting IPL is akin to what Ekta Kapoor did to Indian television. Saas-bahu dramas were in nascent stage about 10 years ago when Ms Kapoor's K-series acid rained on Indian Television, their continuing success nevertheless proving the large appetite of Indian viewers to keep chewing the old gum stolidly. Same, if happens with IPL for next 10 years wont be a surprise hence.
Did IPL bring any culture to cricket?Is it giving new dimensions?Benchmarking with respect to 1992, is IPL a revolution? Did IPL change anything at all? No. The Ceat Ad suggests Change is unavoidable. Ironically, Its IPL that proves it is not :P
Packed MCG during the final. Pic lifted from Wiki :-)
P.S I wish I could credit the forgetful aunty. Andy Flower is still among my favorite players and I still bat left handed because of him :D
1 comment:
It's nice to observe lucid flow of thoughts. Language is impressive.
I liked thy philosophy on Change Management. Though have heard the same a lot many times, it's always in the bookish lingo. Thee presented it well.
I would like to thank regarding the research on the 1992 WC. It's knowledge to me.
Thy Master, I guess, would be perturbed with thee calling him names in the last para.
A minor correction, nevertheless. 1984 was written in 1948, published in 1949. Thy opening sentence didn't convey this.
Post a Comment