Play on..

Here is a numbers/stats crossword (not really crossword - it's a crossnumbers or whatever you call it)

Just a couple of things here

1. Could not use the symbol '/'. So a 5/30 is represented as 5.30 (the dot is necessary). Sorry to everyone who believes the sacrosanct representation of the average has been violated. Nothing I could do. Also if a team score is 75/5, it will be represented as 75.5

2. So wherever there is an average, there is likely to be a decimal (.)

3. The number of characters indicated in brackets will include the . (or /). So 45.6 is 4 characters

Otherwise the clues are more than enough I guess

Across

1. Mahmood's classic in Durban (3)

3. "You guys are history" (4)

5. Nobody helped defend a lower score (5)

6. Massie's debut overshadowed this classic (3)

7. Run aggregate and birthday (D-M-YY) the same (4)

9. X made 365, Y made 260, their stand was worth ? (3)

13. Most wickets in a calendar year (2)

14. Record series aggregate amidst ruins (3)

17. Best average among 200+ men in Tests (5)

18. Best match bowling in a defeat (6)

21. You start your career with 18 and 1, lose by a massive margin of X runs (3)

Down

1. "X and all that" (5)

2. Vinoo Mankad 1956, Waugh twins Jamaica 95, Tendulkar-Sidhu Sharjah 1996 (3)

3. He ended the series with X runs at 113.12 with 4 centuries (3)

4. Fractured hand, no problem (4)

5. Most economical ten-wicket haul (5)

7. Pair on debut but highest aggregate for his country (4)

8. Legendary stand between Don and the man who loathed him (3)

10. Nearly 42% of the team runs in the series but 3-0 loss (3)

11. The missing score in this game - 75, 127, _ , 276/5 (3)

12. Well. fill this one in - 286, 245, 300/9, ? (5)

15. Connects Graeme Pollock and Eden Gardens 2001 (3)

16. Connects Tendulkar-Azhar Cape Town and Nathan Astle (3)

19. 'FOT' and 'Bacchus' ended on the same number (3)

20. Stan the man (3)

Cheers

Complications by Atul Gawande - A brilliant piece of work

During my MBA at ISB, I wrote a book review as part of a course. The book was titled 'Complications'. Atul Gawande, a renowned surgeon-writer has produced an excellent write-up. Here is my (fairly detailed) review of the same.

In this unique book, the author Dr. Atul Gawande has done an excellent job of dissecting the existing medical system, especially the surgery process in major hospitals. Contrary to what most people feel, Gawande stresses that medical science is imperfect and that many doctors and surgeons also operate on a hunch many times. The charm of the field lies in the fact that there is a persistent gap between what’s known and what’s unknown. The author believes that the uncertainties arise when the simplicities of science mix with the complexities of individual lives. Throughout the book, Dr Gawande espouses the value of practice and more practice. Although he concedes that a few surgeons are more skillful than others, he firmly believes the difference in ability is almost always due to more practice and not natural talent. A recurrent theme through the book points to the ‘human’ element in doctors and how challenging decision making under uncertainty can be.

Dr Gawande discusses the fallibility of surgeons by citing examples from his own experience as a surgical resident. He believes that a resident’s perspective is fairly unique because of the learning process involved. The author himself struggled through many basic surgical procedures when he started out as a resident and slowly got the hang of things as time progressed. It is this part of the book that is extremely honest and revealing. Gawande recalls how he stared in awe at the precision and composure of senior surgeons. He cites an oft-repeated maxim ‘Sometimes wrong, never in doubt’ to illustrate how confident surgeons are when they begin their surgeries. Given the inadequate information, the ambiguous science and the imperfect knowledge, surgeons cannot take anything for granted. Their only hope of improving is through constant practice. The author’s idea resonates with the one in Mathew Syed’s ‘Bounce’. In the latter book too, Syed claims that natural talent is more of a myth and attributes much of an elite athlete’s success to hours of practice. Gawande too believes that while there are a few naturals, learning through mistakes and experience is what sets the field apart.

Interestingly, Gawande also indicates that top medical schools focus on this very trait when they have to decide on admissions. Conscientious, industrious students are preferred to the more ‘gifted’, lackadaisical ones. Gawande recounts how he fumbled through elementary surgical procedures when he was starting out as a resident. The episodes are funny, yet very genuine. After his initial woes, he recalls how he suddenly got ‘better’ one day and completed the procedure with consummate ease. I particularly enjoyed this section of the book because I was able to draw parallels with other fields too where the learning curve can be steep if not as challenging as the one for surgeons. Gawande also confesses that almost all published success rates for surgeries are those of the most experienced surgeons and not those of all the novices and beginners.

The man versus machine debate has been the focus of many books. Thankfully the topic has been accorded only as much importance as it deserves and not treated in too much detail. Just as Deep Blue trumped Kasparov in the chess contest, the machine triumphs Dr Ohlin, one of the finest cardiologists when it comes to analyzing electro cardiograms. Gawande also discusses the example of Shouldice hospital as a case of an institution that has excelled by mechanizing the surgical process. He uses the term ‘focused factory’ to describe Shouldice. Gawande, in this section of the book, does an excellent job of balancing his support for technology and his love for the human touch in medicine. While he concedes that bias and fatigue will almost always drive humans towards error, he firmly believes that the human touch and experience is vital for healing. When asked if the predictability in the nature of surgeries might make the experience boring, a surgeon at Shouldice remarks that ‘perfection is the excitement’. Gawande however believes that idiosyncrasies of patients have to be taken into consideration.

Gawande’s tone throughout the book is very candid. He uses beautiful examples from real life experiences in the surgical theater to illustrate the challenges faced by surgeons. He celebrates the learning process and supports the rather controversial procedure of getting inexperienced surgeons to practice (and learn) during complicated surgeries. The stories are crafted intricately and filled with a dash of humor. The reader at times might be stunned by the confessions and honesty but is likely to enjoy and appreciate the author’s ability to combine his professional expertise with a brilliant writing style.

Gawande also indicates that surgeons know and feel fear too. They are concerned about how they perform and are consistently worrying about their progress. He stresses however, that surgeons have to be able to hide the fear and nerves lest the patients spot the same. There have been many accomplished surgeons who have lost their way in their careers after a couple of failures. Often, Gawande feels, the surgeons who fail end up blaming everyone around but themselves. The author clearly values the contribution of technology in the field of medicine and believes that statistical analyses and simulation systems can be used to complement and aid surgeons.

Perhaps almost as recognition of human fallibility, most top hospitals have an M&M (morbidity and mortality) conference regularly to discuss their failures and improve on their performance. However, the author does suggest that very few hospitals manage to understand why these errors might be cropping up. Quite often, people expect surgeons to be perfect although they are fully aware of the complications involved in the surgical process and how these complications can affect performance. Also, some of the finest doctors, whose performance has fallen away, have been diagnosed with mental illnesses and erratic behavior. Gawande feels that the key to understanding surgeons and their performances lies in accepting the fact that they are humans too and that they can be overworked, stressed and unstable at times.

Gawande also goes on to discuss the increasing autonomy that patients have in modern day surgical process decision making. Not only do they have more choices – i.e. surgeries for obesity, surgeries to eliminate blushing, curing motion sickness etc but they also have the choice of opting for surgery or not even if it is a more critical one. The author talks about how stigmas attached to appearance and behavior have contributed to certain changes in how patients have started acting and what they have started demanding of doctors. How much of a say should doctors have and how much leeway should they give their patients when it comes to decision making?

The book makes for fascinating reading for anyone who is remotely interested in medicine and the advancements in the field. It is at once shocking to see the uncertainty prevalent in the profession and yet heartening to read a top-class surgeon admitting the flaws. Dr Gawande argues that the biggest challenge for doctors lies in trying to be rational in the face of uncertainty and pressure. He even cites an example from his own experience when he had to let another doctor take over the treatment of his child. Despite being a highly successful doctor himself, Gawande had the awareness and humility to realize that a specialist was needed and that it was not the time to bring up emotional attachments. He believes that the medical profession as a whole is guided by the need to know more and needs to focus on asking the right questions to obtain the best answers. Intuition is dangerous many times, yet could be a life saver too, Gawande reiterates. With an outstanding example of how he instinctively felt that the cause for foot redness might be the life threatening ‘flesh eating’ bacteria and not just any normal infection, Gawande illustrates the value of intuition in the medical context.

Blending compassion with knowledge, experience with wit and simplicity with a free-flowing writing style, Gawande makes a difficult, complicated topic seem extremely readable and enjoyable. There are few weaknesses in this excellent book. Maybe Gawande could have actually suggested a few changes and ideas to deal with certain medical situations instead of merely citing more and more examples. Most medical books are filled with incomprehensible jargon. Gawande refuses to take that path and has instead churned out an engaging read for any type of audience. ‘Complications’ is a highly recommended book for any individual who is inquisitive about the happenings in a mysterious yet simple science.

Grammatically yours

It's not uncommon to run into grammatical errors in day-to-day life at work and outside. Most people would agree. Some would cringe while some would just move on without paying any sort of attention. For a while now, I have been part of the former group. On occasions, I have just about managed to hold myself back and not make any comment. Correcting others is fraught with risk. While I am open to corrections and suggestions, not everyone is. Hence I silently suffer the traumatic experiences that come with terrible grammatical errors. Yeah, call me pedantic and captious. I don't have an issue with that. The term 'Grammar Nazi' has been coined to refer to those pompous humans who are finicky about correct grammar and usage. Again, I don't mind being called one. I decided, after much postponement, that I should try and discuss a few frequently committed, terrible-sounding, cringe-worthy mistakes. I shall aim to point out the incorrect usage and provide examples for each that will (hopefully) clarify the context. It is not an exercise in vanity, ladies and gentlemen! Instead, it is a humble request to one and all to learn and unlearn as is appropriate. If the error spree continues, I believe the language might actually spring to life and turn into a staunch advocate of 'linguistic euthanasia'. I know that last bit was random but guess you get what I mean.

1. Lose/Loose - I start with one of the most astonishing errors. There is absolutely no reason to misspell and use one in place of the other since they are completely unrelated. Lose is the opposite of win. Loose is the opposite of tight and is used to refer to anything that is free and unbound. Correct usage - Please lose the habit of using loose in place of lose. Such loose usage will not go unnoticed.

2. Reply/respond/revert back - There are two different errors to be discussed here. Let me start with the more obvious and common one. Whenever the words reply & respond are used, there is NO NEED to use the word back. The prefix 're' serves the purpose itself. So, never use I must reply back to his mail. Instead, say I must respond/reply to his mail. Now the second mistake - usage of the word revert. This word is often incorrectly used in place of reply/respond. Let's take an example. I shall revert to you on this issue. Firstly, revert does not mean reply/respond. Revert means to go back to an earlier state/position/statement/strategy. An example would be - Following the injury to Neymar, Scolari was forced to revert to the 4-3-3 formation. So don't ever use revert in place of reply/respond and compound the error by adding a 'back' following the word.

3. Your/You're - The use of the apostrophe is risky unless one is certain about his/her grammar. When in doubt, it is best to avoid an apostrophe. However, for those who seek adventure, read on. The word your is used to point to something that belongs to you. For example, I could say - Where is your book? How is your preparation coming along? The word you're, however, is nothing but a shortened form of 'you are'. An example sentence would be - If you're tired, you should consider taking a rest.

4. Many/much - An interesting error. People with fairly impressive grammatical know-how have blundered on this front. Many is used when it is followed by a 'countable' quantity. Many runs, many wickets, many people etc. However, much is used along with words that are 'non countable'. Examples include much knowledge, much emotion etc. Never use - He knows much people. It's always many people.

5. Amount/Number - A concept similar to the previous one. Use number whenever you can count and amount in scenarios when the word that follows cannot be counted. The correct usage would be number of coins but amount of money. And all you 'legendary' commentators out there who enlighten us with their brilliant, insightful lines - it's number of runs and number of wickets. Quit using amount of runs, amount of matches. As far as I know, it's incorrect!

6. Less/Fewer - An extension of the same concept. Use fewer when you can count and less in sentences where the word that follows cannot be counted. Lesser money but fewer coins, lesser respect but fewer friends.

7. Don't/doesn't - Another of those errors that almost always passes by unnoticed. This is a classic subject verb agreement error. Use doesn't with the singular forms - he/she and don't with the plural form - they. However, when the pronoun is I/you, always use don't. Example - He doesn't believe in working hard. I don't agree with his views.

8. Went/gone - It does not seem like a common error but believe me, it does occur with an alarmingly high frequency. Went is the direct past tense of 'go'. So an example would be - he went to the movie yesterday. On the other hand, gone is a part participle form of 'to go'. The usage would be - He had gone home by the time I arrived. I have gone to that city before. Never use 'he had went'.

9. Its/It’s – Lets/Let’s - Yet again, the apostrophe strikes. It's refers to 'it is'. Let's refers to 'let us'. One's refers to 'one is'. Examples - It's a great day today. Let's go out in the evening. One's supposed to stay home during a curfew. However, its is a possessive form like his/her. Example - The dog is sleeping in its kennel. Lets is used in a similar manner too. Example - The school lets the students take a week off before the final exams.

10. Their/there/they’re - They're stands for they are. Example - They're happy to travel to Bangalore next week. 'There' can be used in various contexts. Examples include - there is a dog outside the house. Keep the book there. 'Their' is a possessive form. He brought their book today. Their performance in this tournament has been encouraging.

11. Than/from - Less common but does crop up occasionally. Than is more often used in a comparative sense. Example - Jim's performance on this exam is better than Tom's. From (and not than) is used to indicate some kind of a difference. Example - His taste in music is different from mine. Ideally don't use 'different than' even though American English seems to accept the usage of different than.

12. I/me/myself - I is the nominative case and is used as the subject. Example - John and I are going out. I am responsible for this incident. 'Me' is used as an object form always. Never say 'Ram and me'. Instead - She gifted me a book. My friends dropped me off at the airport. 'Myself' is a reflexive pronoun. So it is mighty inappropriate to say 'Myself is X' when asked what your name is. Instead - I hate myself for the stupid performance in the game is correct.

13. Was/were - Was is the past tense of is. Were is the past tense of are. There is generally no confusion on this front since was and were are used with the singular and plural forms of the nouns/pronouns. Also ensure that you say everyone/everybody was, none of them was. But the scenario where an error usually occurs is when the subjunctive (hypothetical, supposition) mood is used in a sentence. Never say 'If i was the king'. It is not possible (or is nearly impossible and is more like a wish). So say 'If i were the king'.

14. A/an/the - Now why on earth would someone mess up articles? Sometimes the simplest of rules can be the hardest ones to matter. Use 'A' before a consonant sound and 'An' before a vowel sound. Most examples are obvious. The interesting ones are 'a European' because the sound is that of 'Y'. It is also 'a year' and not 'an year'. People tend to believe that 'year' starts with an 'e' sound but it doesn't. There is a subtle difference. Also, use an MBA and an MS (starts with an 'e' sound) but 'a Master's'. Use 'the' when you are being more specific. Example - The car he came in was damaged in an accident. Also when 'the' is followed by a word beginning with a vowel sound pronounce 'the' as 'dhee'. Example - 'dhee apple, dhee elephant'. Otherwise pronounce as 'the'.

15. Quiet/quite - Ah, focus guys. Just a slight misplacement can change the meaning rather drastically. It is quiet inside the library. Something is not quite right today.

16. Between/among - Use between when you have two people involved and among when the number of people involved is greater than two. Example - It is extremely difficult to predict the result of a contest between the two teams. There is a consensus among all students in the college. Also use between whenever there is a clearly defined one-to-one relationship - like say agreement between the merchant and workers etc.

17. Of/off - Of is mostly used as a preposition. The Merchant of Venice is one of Shakespeare's finest works. 'Off' can be used as an adverb (turn off the fan before going out) or as a preposition (During a fight, he threw his brother off the cliff).

18. Said/told - Said is the past tense of say and told the past tense of tell. There are subtle differences between the two and can be clarified better with the help of a few examples. - He told me a story. Tell/told need an object. Said can be used without an object too. 'He said he was busy' but 'he told me that he was busy'. Also for quotes, said is used. Churchill said "blah..blah..blah".

19. Stationary/stationery - Very very common mistake. Stationary refers to something fixed or immobile. Example - The batsman's powerful shot flew past the stationary fielder. Stationery, on the other hand, refers to office supplies. Example - He went to the stationery store to pick up his monthly quota of office supplies.

20. Everyone/everybody makes (and not make) - Now this classic subject verb agreement discussion. When in doubt think singular. It's everyone/everybody makes mistakes (although make 'sounds' good). None of us likes (not like) to lose. Ram, together with, (along with) his friend, goes to the school. But when you use 'all', go with the plural. - All of us want India to win the final.

21. Who/whom - Toughie and often confusing. Typically, who refers to the subject in a sentence. Example - Who is coming home today? Who bought this car? Whom, on the other hand, refers to the object. Example - Whom are you going to pick in your team? It becomes easy to think of he/him first and then work backwards to decide if who/whom should be used. He is coming home today - so say Who is coming home? Similarly, you will pick him in your team. Hence use whom are you going to pick?

Of course there are many more errors that we encounter. But I guess this set deals with the ones that occur with high frequency. I believe this is quite a useful resource. Mastering grammar is not easy and requires tons of effort and constant reading. I certainly am striving to get better every day and remain hopeful that people around also do the same. If that happens, I can lead a cringe-free life and avoid writing such blogs.

A strange, but appetizing contest

South Africa's cricket history can clearly be defined by four separate periods - the first when they were a fledgling Test nation for a good part of 60 or more years (1900-1960), the second between 1960 and 1970 when they promised so much but were cruelly cut short because of the nation's apartheid policies that led to a ban, the third between their readmission in 1992 and 2007, when Australia's galaxy of stars retired, providing other teams with a chance to rise to the top and the fourth between 2008 and 2014 when they have oscillated between the sublime and ordinary but stayed on top of their game a lot more often. In the seminal, much chronicled series just before their ban in 1969-70, Ali Bacher led South Africa trounced Bill Lawry's jaded Australian side 4-0 with Barry Richards, Graeme Pollock and Mike Procter demonstrating just what the Test cricket world was going to muss in the next decade or so. It is a fascinating exercise when one tries to simulate West Indies-South Africa Tests in the 1970s. Perhaps the Proteas would have been the only ones to stand up to the mighty Caribbeans in their pomp. Time to move on though to reality.

Ever since they were readmitted to the fold in 1992, South Africa have consistently remained one of the top three teams. Both home and away, they have been a force to reckon with. In ODIs too, they have played an exciting brand of cricket only to disappoint when it matters the most by falling at a crucial hurdle in global tournaments. That a team of South Africa's ability has only a solitary trophy (Champions Trophy 1998) to show for its efforts is unfortunate. However, to this day, the onea team South Africa have never quite managed to dominate has been Australia. Be it luck, ability, Shane Warne, South Africa's legendary 'choke-ability' or a combination of all these, the Proteas have never quite been able to master the men from down under. Perhaps even more surprising is the fact that their only two series wins against Australia came only recently (2008-09 and 2012-13). South Africa are yet to win a single home series against Australia since 1992 but have in the meanwhile crushed every other team at least twice in home series.

They have had a few memorable moments though. In Sydney 1994, they clawed back from the dead in near Aussies fashion to clinch a thriller by five runs with Fanie de Villiers picking up six wickets in the Australian second innings. As has been the case almost every time, they were unable to hold on to a series lead and the contest ended 1-1. In the subsequent series in South Africa, Steve Waugh and Greg Blewett batted the hosts out of the match in Johannesburg and Mark Waugh followed up with a stunning century in Port Elizabeth to lead Australia to a two-wicket win. Shane Warne, who picked up 12 wickets in the SCG defeat in 1994, was already proving to be a nemesis for South Africa. He ended his career with 130 wickets against South Africa, a tally second only to his Ashes haul of 195 wickets. This period between 1993 and 1998 was South Africa's best chance to upstage Australia. For the next ten years, they virtually had no chance against an all-beating unit that broke every possible team record in Tests.

Steve Waugh took over from Mark Taylor in 1999. His reign started rather inauspiciously with defeat in Kandy and a 2-2 draw against a Brian Lara inspired West Indies team. But the joy for opponents was short-lived. Waugh's deadly team had a stellar batting line-up and boasted one of the finest bowling attacks in the game's history. Add to it the presence of Adam Gilchrist, one of the most destructive wicketkeeper-batsmen ever. Surely, no team stood a chance against this outfit. South Africa maybe? Not quite, actually.

In the 2001 series in Australia, South Africa were swamped 3-0 by the Aussie juggernaut. In the return series in South Africa, Adam Gilchrist was in spectacular form scoring a double century in Johannesburg and a brilliant 138 in Cape Town. Ricky Ponting too began his love affair with the South African bowling attack with a superb match-winning fourth-innings century in Cape Town as Australia chased down a massive 334. South Africa salvaged some pride with a win in the third Test in Durban but the writing was clearly on the wall. They could not think of winning against this team for a few more years at least.

Their fears were well and truly justified in the 2005-06 series. While they did manage a draw in Perth, they were thrashed in Melbourne and Sydney. The MCG defeat must have been the most painful for they let Australia off the hook from 248/9 and conceded a century stand for the last wicket between Mike Hussey and Glenn McGrath (not joking!!). In the final Test in Sydney, Graeme Smith gambled to eke out a win and declared in both innings. A stiff target of 288 was made to look shockingly inadequate by Ponting as he scored twin centuries in his 100th Test, a fantastic feat for a batsman at the peak of his prowess. In the follow-up series in South Africa, the Aussies won 3-0 and sealed the triumph with another close win in Johannesburg. South Africa's inability to win the crucial moments & contests was on show yet again. On the same tour, however, the hosts created a record by chasing down Australia's massive 434 to win the Johannesburg ODI to take the series 3-2.

How long could this extraordinary dominance last? Surely, Australia v South Africa had to be a tighter match-up thatn it was proving to be. With the retirement of Shane Warne, Glenn McGrath, Damien Martyn and Adam Gilchrist, Australia were definitely not the same again. An aging and injury-hit team took on the Proteas in a three-Test series in Australia in 2008-09. Despite conceding a big lead in the first innings in Perth, the visitors stunned one and all by chasing down 414 to take a 1-0 lead. Dale Steyn's superb spell in Melbourne combined with a fantastic rearguard fightback brought another win and a 2-0 unassailable lead. This was SA's first ever series win against Australia since readmission. Australia fought back to win the third Test and take the momentum into the series in South Africa. A tired South African team was not on top of the game and went down rather meekly 2-1 giving Ponting the much needed boost after the demoralising loss at home.

Australia's decline continued steadily in the next 2-3 years and they went on to lose the Ashes in England and at home. They came up against South Africa once again in an abridged (two Test) series in 2011. A seesaw first Test in Cape Town saw the Aussies take control after Michael Clarke's stunning 151 when they bowled the hosts out for just 96. In response though Australia folded for just 47 after being perilously placed at 21/9 at one stage. SA completed an eight-wicket win and started firm favorites in Johannesburg. But not for nothing are Australia the team to beat in any situation. They stormed back to square the series with a two-wicket win chasing a competitive target of 310. In the series in Australia in 2012, Faf du Plessis rescued SA from certain defeat in Adelaide before the visitors' pace bowlers and batsmen set up a big win in the final Test in Perth.

How does one define this strange contest? For years, the teams have seemed even and capable of producing thrillers at will. They actually have done so too in both Tests and ODIs. Australia dominated for a few years and looked unbeatable. Even during their fall, Australia have always managed to find their mojo when it comes to matches against SA. SA, on the other hand, were near invincible against other teams at home but have struggled to close the door on Australia. Mentally, they have been second best. In recent times though, South Africa have proved to their fans that they can play an almost Aussie brand of cricket - relentless, aggressive and exciting. With Australia coming in on the back of their stunning 5-0 win in the Ashes, the stage could not have been set better for yet another crackerjack contest. And this time, the odds on it being a mighty close one are rather high.

The special voice

I cannot claim to know a great deal about music. In fact, I consider myself an insult to a family that is steeped in classical music. But growing up in such a family has a number of advantages. Exposure to some of the finest renditions has been one of the biggest gains. I remember my dad buying me a cassette which featured an assortment of old Hindi songs. My guess is I was about 8-9 years old then and not really old enough to appreciate the lyrics. However, the simplicity and beauty of the music captivated me. Soon I was in a position to understand the language better and grasp the nuances. When I heard the voice of Mohammed Rafi, I was quite literally transported to another world. How could a man's voice be this soulful? Rafi sang hundreds of brilliant songs and many have left a lasting impression. While Rafi's singing overflowed with technical brilliance, Kishore Kumar's genius lay in his ability to challenge the norm and innovate. Kishore could thrill you with one line and infuse a sense of melancholy in the very next line if he so wished. His versatility was scarcely believable. Add to this Mukesh, who had one of the most mature voices I have come across. His Kahin Door Jab Din Dhal Jaaye from Anand is one of the crowning glories of Indian film music. There were the two sisters Lata and Asha, each with varying but effective styles. Lata was the embodiment of perfection and remained the most sought after playback singer while Asha was peppy and the ideal complement to Kishore.

But then there was one voice which I believe trumped all. It was that of Manna Dey. The fact that a singer as good as Dey remains largely lower down the pecking order on the list of great vocalists is Hindi playback singing's biggest paradox. Dey started out as a replacement for his uncle K.C Dey and was sadly typecast as an expert in classical and semi-classics tunes. I did not have as much access to Dey's songs as I did to the others'. However, the more I listened to Dey, I realized that the clarity and control in his singing elevated him to a different level. He was often asked to sing the most difficult compositions which he did with ease. His classical training, although a bane at times, proved to be his biggest strength. Mohd Rafi remarked more than once that Manna Dey was the kind of singer he aspired to be. Given am a cricket lover, the apt analogy would be Bradman telling Stan McCabe that he wished he could bat like him (Stan). Bradman, like Rafi, had all the numbers but when it came to mesmeric performances, he could not match McCabe. This was also true of Dey. When you listen to his Poocho na Kaise maine rain bitai in Meri Surat Teri Aankhen, it makes you wonder if anyone else could ever come close. Dey sang a number of other gems including 'Aye mere pyaare vatan' from Kabuliwala, 'Laga Chunri mein daag' and the immortal duet 'Pyar hua ikrar hua'. He also sang the comic yet brilliant 'Ek Chatur Naar' from Padosan where Mehmood (voice of Dey) and Sunil Dutt (Kishore singing) go head to head in a singing match to woo Saira Bano.

Of all the great songs, his 'Ketaki Gulab Juhi' from Basant Bahar stands out. Dey had to share the stage with the legendary Hindustani vocalist Bhimsen Joshi. Dey was understandable nervous and had to be convinced and encouraged by his wife and the music director duo Shankar Jaikishen to go ahead. What followed was history. Dey matched Joshi and the two produced a classic for the ages. Joshi in the end acknowledged Dey's extraordinary ability to pick up the complex Raagas and excel. This to me is the essence of Manna Dey- he was never the most sought after name in Hindi playback singing but whenever a song that could not be attempted by even the best came up, the answer was Manna. Long live the memories of the genius. His stirring voice will never go away.

Metamorphosis

"True life is lived when tiny changes occur." - This line by Tolstoy prompts me to wonder about how my life is heading. The last few years have truly been eventful, albeit rough at times. Everything was smooth through school and college days and not a day passes without me yearning to go back to those halcyon times. Then came the trip to the US. This changed everything including my persona. I wasn't quite a different person but was subconsciously transformed into a more independent, confident individual who sought knowledge more and cared less for academic success (read grades). A struggle for over a year during the recession taught me to respect the uncertainties and vagaries of life and to stay humble. This is a lesson I have not and will never forget. Even as life was pretty much in its doldrums, I learned the value of focusing on my passion and more importantly, making the gutsy call of pursuing it. Working at Cricinfo was a pleasure and a most unforgettable experience. The joy of the game, together with the fantastic crowd and the intellectually stimulating discussions made every moment of my stay worthwhile. Nothing can come close! But then, life had to move on and I chose to pursue my MBA at ISB. I had indulged in what I loved the most for nearly three years but felt I had much more to achieve and offer.

ISB is a place respected for its diversity. After all, the students are the creme de la creme of the top colleges and companies in India. It has done a fabulous job of bringing together some of the most fascinating minds. The course structure is superb and the professors are world class. The facilities are on par with the best. Isn't everything sounding perfect? Not in my opinion. At least not so far. It might well be the case with few other top institutes too in India (based on discussions and not assumptions). What is it that plagues me then? For starters, it is an 'INDIAN' school. Now you might wonder what the hell that means. India has for long dived so deep into the sea of grades and marks that it finds it nearly impossible to think of an alternate way of measuring a student's abilities. Personally I have no issues with exams. But the very attitude of students, with tension writ large on their faces makes me ponder if it's the only way out. Every second person complains about lack of time, sleep deprivation, pressure, stress and every other problem one can envisage. Is this what one paid to go through? Wasn't it supposed to be a place one came in, learned, networked, learned more, experimented both in courses and extra-curricular activities? Why has this entire vision vanished? Why are students so hell bent on gaining the five marks even as they fail to take advantage of the amazing peer quality around them? Isn't the vision myopic to say the least? Don't the immortal words - "lose the battle, but win the war" come to mind? Why and when did acquiring knowledge cease to be the priority?

I have tried to answer these questions with varying degrees of success. Maybe my stint in the US helped. Scratch the maybe, it is surely. My outlook was altered positively. I began to think of subjects and topics very differently and realized that the best aspect of that country lay in the fact that you were respected for what you were as a person and not the qualifications, which was (and still is) the case in most parts of India. We were always taught to believe that the higher the marks, the greater the respect in society. Somehow this belief has never quite changed. One can continue to blame society till the cows come home. But introspection can be quite revealing in this regard. If each individual were to start analyzing why he/she is caught up in this vortex of grades/marks/scores/exams/tests and realizes that the only way forward is to adopt a more holistic knowledge-based approach, then society stands to gain at large. This in turn is likely to change the perception in the years to come. Easier said than done though I must say!

Quite a few professors who teach in US schools visit ISB and many of them have expressed their surprise at the academics-focused atmosphere. I don't blame them for they have not been witness to this for years now. It is sad that most students fail to leverage the extraordinary knowledge that the professors bring as most interactions end up being restricted to classroom-centric discussions. Quizzes and club events tend to record scant attendance. Interesting ideas tend to be classified as 'spam' while the real spam often goes unnoticed. The diversity in the batch at the beginning is slowly eroded as the group converges towards the mean over the year. How does this augur well for the students as well as the institute? Why should people be told or taught that a career in 'X' is better than one in 'Y'. Why not let them play to their strengths and figure out? Peer pressure, wrong guidance, ill-informed choices and most of all, a tendency to follow the herd are noticeable in most batches. Maybe it's just me though I wonder at times. Am I not changing enough to fit in? Where did the whole Roman in Rome policy go this time around?

Change is constant they say. I'd like to believe so too. But change ought to be for the better too. I have, after much deliberation, realized the right way (at least I'd like to think so) way of going about in my career and life. Money is vital but not all important. Success has no single definition. Never live life by others' rules. Ultimately, education can be valued only if one can claim to have gained knowledge and never otherwise. Studying at such an institute is a wonderful opportunity to interact with and learn from the best in the business. It is also a place where one can attempt to trace paths that are usually avoided. Most importantly, it is perhaps the final chance to forge great friendships and develop personal and professional contacts for a lifetime. Academic success is important but comes well below in the pecking order for me. At least that is the way I think nowadays. I might not have been able to prioritize the same way ten years back but am glad the metamorphosis has had a positive influence. It is hard to speculate how things are likely to be but I am hopeful the attitude around changes soon.

Courage under fire

Often, in this bat-dominated modern age of cricket, it is very easy to lose sight of the fact that batsmen did have it tough on quite a few occasions in the past. For many years, playing on uncovered pitches after an overnight downpour was as challenging as it ever got. 'Sticky Dogs' as the pitches were referred to, were minefields that could be most unpredictable and surviving for an hour on them could be deemed as an achievement. There has been the rare occasion in the last twenty years when pitches have been as treacherous. A quality knock in these conditions has always been a stand-out feature on a batsman's resume. For many days, I have been pondering about those lesser-known, almost forgotten classics on dangerous pitches. The knocks may hardly carry the weight (in terms of runs) of a triple-century on a featherbed at Antigua or the SSC, but outlive them in memory simply because of the quality, guts, concentration and technique on display.

Here is a selection of a few of the finest such knocks. Of course, the list is hardly exhaustive and there is a significant possibility of missing out on a few gems.

1. Wally Hammond's 32 at the MCG in 1936-37: Now this match is far more renowned for Bradman's brilliant 270 and his 346-run sixth-wicket stand with Jack Fingleton, who made 136. But then, why would this 32 stand out? The match was played on a terrible MCG wicket which had turned into a 'sticky' after heavy rain. When Australia batted first, the wicket was normal and most batsmen managed to get off to good starts. England, who were up 2-0 in the series, had the upper hand at the end of day one when Australia finished 181 for 6. Overnight downpour, however, turned the match on its head. Australia's total was now more than useful. In Morris Sievers (fast medium), Bill O'Reilly(leg spin) and Chuck Fleetwood Smith (left arm chinaman), Australia had the ideal bowlers for the surface. Hammond batted beautifully for his 32, taking a few risks, and faced 88 balls, more than a third of what the England team managed (224 balls). He was out eventually to an extraordinary catch at short leg. Bradman, realising the demons in the pitch, promoted the tail-enders and came in to bat when the pitch was docile. The rest, as they say, is history!

2. Len Hutton's 30 at The Oval in 1948: Hutton, the Yorkshire classicist, had started his career with a bang, scoring 364 at The Oval in 1938 as England beat Australia by a massive innings and 579 runs. However, his superlative 30 out of a total of 52 against Lindwall, Miller and Johnston at the same venue ten years later easily ranks as one of his finest displays. England were being outplayed totally by Bradman's invincibles and trailed 3-0 going into the final Test at The Oval. Heavy rains had lashed the ground leaving the pitch completely unprepared. Lindwall was lethal and burst through the England middle order after lunch with 5 for 8 in eight overs. Hutton played a masterly knock dominated by a solid defence. He was the last man out to a leg side catch off Lindwall for 30 off 147 balls. In all, the entire England team managed to last a total of just 253 balls. The match though, is more famous for Bradman's duck in his final Test.

3. Len Hutton's 62 in Brisbane in 1950: Harold Pinter, the great English playwright once wrote a one-line poem that said "I saw Len Hutton in his prime. Another time, another time". The period just after the war must have been Hutton's prime. England had done well to restrict Australia to just 228 with Neil Harvey scoring 74. A storm left the ground inundated and play resumed only late on the third day. By now, the pitch was totally unpredictable and tested every aspect of a batsman's technique. England declared their innings at 68/7 in the hope of making Australia bat on the dangerous track. Australia were rocked by Alec Bedser and themselved declared at 32/7, the lowest ever a team has declared on. The target of 193, however, proved to be virtually impossible as England were reduced to 30/6. Hutton, who had been asked to bat lower down the order to provide stability, responded in a manner that left Australia stunned. With only the tail for company, he launched an assault on the bowling playing drives and lofting effortlessly. Neither the turn nor the bounce in the wicket fazed the great batsman as he kept producing superb shots. It was not to be, however, as the remaining two wickets fell. Hutton remained unbeaten on 62 in 90 minutes - perhaps one of the all-time great batting performances.

4. Brian Lara's 45 in Barbados in 1997: Lara took over the captaincy of West Indies after a period of turmoil. The home team had managed to score 298 with the help of Shivnarine Chanderpaul's century. India, led by Tendulkar's excellent 92, managed to eke out a small, but valuable lead of 21 on the surface. In the second innings, the pitch had turned into a minefield. Alternate balls skipped along the ground and bounced over the wicketkeeper. Even a moderate Indian attack was looking extremely dangerous. Lara, West Indies' solitary hope, brought out his repertoire of strokes and played a few gorgeous drives. He was fifth out with the total on 86. A few runs from the tail took the target to 120 which eventually proved more than enough on a Barbados pitch, which lived up to its reputation of being a result-oriented wicket.

5. VVS Laxman (69), Sachin Tendulkar (55) in Mumbai 2004: Led by Adam Gilchrist in the first three Tests, Australia had produced a stunning team performance to take an unassailable 2-0 lead going into the fourth Test in Mumbai. With humiliation staring them in the face, India responded by going for a wicket that was likely to turn square from ball one. And the wicket did not disappoint! India were bowled out for just 104 with Dravid standing amidst the ruins with 31. Australia, led by the in-form Damien Martyn, grabbed a lead of 99 which was massive in the circumstances. In India's second innings, Laxman and Tendulkar, who had both done little of note in the series (Tendulkar missed the first two Tests and Laxman had a poor run), combined to turn the match around. Tendulkar was more aggressive and pulled off high-quality shots against both the pacemen and spinners. He reached his half-century in just 62 balls and fell eventually for 55. Laxman gained in confidence soon and provided glimpses of his shot making during the immortal 281. The innings ended swiftly after Laxman fell but India had the runs on the board. On a wicket where 38 wickets fell in just two days, Australia fell short by 13 runs chasing 107.