SA vs PAK 2nd ODI on 15/3/13

Another 180 degree turnaround in performance of the two teams. So the script was written. But not before the match had gone the same way as the last ODI between these two till first 4 overs. The odds in f/o SA coming down from about 1.56 to 1.38, as a result of continuing brisk scoring by SA. And then the sudden turnaround, giving no chance to punters backing SA to control their losses or square up their positions. There must have been an overwhelming majority of them, with the impression of last ODI between the two sides fresh in their mind.

 And thereafter Pak maintained its supremacy throughout. An example of how scripts were similar to last script/s up to a point and then suddenly turned around to leave punters high and dry, as mentioned in the book 'Inside the boundary Line.'

Would next ODI be another 180 degree swing? I hope not. But it is just a guess. Also may not be one-sided through and through. All this is besides the point.

Opportunity to clarify something more. Before SA innings ended prematurely at 191, when expected score was around 205, the odds were about 1.48 in f/o Pak. SA innings folding at 191, the odds at start of Pak batting should have been around 1.42, at best. But even after first boundary was hit early in the Pak innings, the odds were 1.52 or so in f/o Pak. This is what I call fixers' bluff, necessary once a while, so that one can never be sure of anything, as mentioned in the book. One could have expected/suspected some quick wickets or so for the match turning at least once in f/o SA, but nothing of the sort happened, at least odds hardly ever crossing 1.52 or 1.55 in f/o Pak during their innings.

Also it is not always that 180 degree swing takes place between two consecutive matches between two teams. So one can't be sure to expect so either.

As the book says, the fixers are the proverbial spiders and the punters, the proverbial spies, howsoever smart they could be.  

WI vs ZIM First Test 12/3/13 to 14/3/13

The match ended in just over two days and the pre-match favourites WI won comfortably. Nothing to complain, though Zim captain Taylor, who was batting so well in BPL a few days back, forgetting batting on this tour of WI, may make one raise eye-brows. But in international cricket, one may always so easily lose form or gain/regain form, at one's whims. 

Let us see something more concrete. Before start of match, odds in f/o WI were a meager 1.22 or so. At the end of first day's play WI were 18/2 in reply to 211 scored by Zim, with odds of about 1.1. With a strong batting line-up comprising Gayle, Darren Bravo, Samuels, and Chanderpaul still there, probably this could be justified. When Gayle fell at 81 for 4, the odds were almost same at about 90/4. Being 1.1 at fall of Gayle's wicket. And remained same with further 50 runs scored! Not able to think of any rational in cricketing terms, With fall of 5th wicket at 144, the odds were 1.12, rising to 1.13 just before fall of 6th wicket. With Chanderpaul gone at 151 for 6, the odds rightly shot up to 1.19 or 1.20. But very briefly. Just 10 more runs scored, and the odds came down to 1.14. Incongruous both in relative and absolute terms. With all illustrious batsmen of WI back in the hut and WI having to bat last on a deteriorating pitch.

Surely, the biggest partnership of the match, a match-clinching one, was to follow for the 7th wicket between Ramdin and Sammy, and Zim were to lose badly without coming into reckoning thereafter at any stage.

Certainly cricket is the game of glorious uncertainties. For the public. But a game of glorious certainties for the fixers and/or bookies.    

A Fixing Analysis

Here is the fixing analysis of the first ODI between SA and Pak held on 10/3/2013.

It was the first limited overs match between the two teams after the T20 match held on 3^rd Mar, 2013. In that match, SA were thrashed by Pak in a one sided affair. Pak batting first had scored 195, and chasing, SA were bundled out for 100 in 12.2 overs.

Now in this match, Pak won the toss and elected to field. SA started cautiously but started scoring freely from 4^th over onwards (something to do with session betting as well, but I shall not discuss that here). The odds increased very slightly in f/o SA, up to about 1.75 in those first 3 overs (nothing wrong with that), and went on decreasing thereafter, being about 1.5 even after loss of first wicket. After quick loss of 2^nd wicket, odds in f/o SA must have shot up a bit, but after quick addition of further 30-40 runs, same came back to about 1.5. Nothing much wrong, as with the score then, a score of around 300 plus in 50 overs was on the cards.

But with the score at 271/4 at the end of 47 overs, innings score of even 300 not being in sight (SA had lost a wicket in the 47^th over and scoring momentum in last 5-6 overs, in fact after 40^th over had been slow), the odds in f/o SA stood at about 1.18. And SA scored 44 runs in last 3 overs of their innings (something to do with session betting also). The odds at the end of the innings were about 1.15. A clear indication that inspite of their superb batting display in last T20 against almost same/similar bowling attack, inspite of Pak fielding a strong batting line up, inspite of commentators saying that pitch was good for batting and that a close finish was on the cards, Pak were going to lose this match in a no-contest. And it happened so.

315 in 50 overs is not considered an insurmountable total now a days, though by all means it put the team posting the total first in an advantageous/winning position. There was no Steyn or Philander or Morkel in SA bowling attack, and Pak did have a strong batting line up. In past, in such situations, the odds have been as high as 1.5 in f/o team having batted first, and if my memory serves me right, on such an occasion the team batting 2nd not only competed well, but also chased successfully.

With Pak at 42/0 at the end of 7^th over, considering everything, from cricketing angle, it was an even contest. But the odds in f/o SA were a meager 1.33 or thereabout. What would any unsuspecting punter at that stage do? He/she, 99 out of 100 (unsuspecting i.e. who are not aware that it is staged cricket), would place bets as per his/her capacity backing Pak for a net return of about $ 3 for every  $ 1 wagered.

Then first, the first wicket was gifted, and soon after, the second wicket fell as a result of scripting ingenuity (though whether Hafiz was given out rightly also remains debatable). The third wicket also fell soon, and even after a partnership of 49 runs in 58 balls, the two stalwarts getting set, the odds in f/o SA remained about 1.07 only, just before the fourth wicket fell. Wickets continued to tumble, even though Shahid Afridi hitting some lusty shots for public consumption, such that the odds never went beyond 1.05 thereafter. Pak, who had scored 195 in last T20, were all out for 190 in 36.2 overs. The commentators had no problems in justifying this capitulation by Pak as a result of batting against score-board pressure.

What I would like one to understand from above is that the Pak innings was so scripted that the odds in f/o SA remained well below 1.10 from 12^th over onward.

Now, why it was done so and how the fixers would have gained? To start with, the punters (unsuspecting) would have expected Pak to do well after their showing in the last T20 (and in that T20, no one even in dreams would have expected Pak to do as well and SA to do as poorly as they did after their performances in the preceding Test series). And they must have hoped them to come back and compete, throughout, even when chips were down. The odds on offer remained quite tempting to back Pak for most of the match, especially in initial overs of Pak batting, as mentioned above. Most of the unsuspecting punters, thus, would have lost in this match, never getting opportunity to square their position in one-sided affair. Must have meant wind-fall for the fixers.

Some can say, and many would say ‘bosh and non-sense, how could run-out of Hafiz be pre-scripted?’ Why not? There could always be pre-scripting to try it, and if not successful there could always be plan B for Hafiz to get out soon after. 

One more thing comes to mind. Considering everything was pre-scripted, why was the first Pak wicket scripted to fall on 42, why not on, say, 34 or 51? Could be that syndicate/s knew from rich experience beforehand that this would be about the score for the purpose (for first wicket to fall) to optimize/ almost optimize their gains. Another reason could be, and more likely so, that a net sum total of very large bets were placed to back Pak just before that, and a message was conveyed during over change or otherwise through sign language for wicket to fall i.e. for Jamshed to get out. 

Correlation between Match Odds and Fixing

Here is a recent example of how the odds on offer during matches indicate that odds-makers/book-makers know before-hand what was going to happen. That would mean pre-scripting of matches, and connivance of most of those involved/concerned,.Could be foolish ignorance/helplessness of a few as well.

Two test matches took place one after another. Ind-Aus 2nd test 2-5 Mar,13, and NZ-Eng 1st test 6-10 Mar,13. In both matches, a similar situation in course of match was arrived. Australia started their 2nd innings trailing by 266 (India had batted only once) with over 2 days still left. England started their 2nd innings trailing by 293 (NZ had batted only once) with a little less than 2 days but more than 180 overs still left. England had lasted only 55 overs for their 167 in the1st innings. 

Now look what the odds on offer were (say betfair odds) for similar situations and what happened in the matches thereafter. Odds in Ind-Aus match at that stage were less than 1.25 in f/o India and in NZ-Eng match same were less than 2 in f/o draw. India went on to win comfortably from thereon, odds rising only to 1.33 for a very brief period till fall of first Australian wicket at 56, remaining much below 1.25 for remaining match. And the NZ-Eng match ended in a comfortable draw, England losing only 6 wickets in 170 overs in their 2nd essay, on a pitch spruced up by rain on last 2 days of a test match. The odds in f/o draw just went on decreasing all the time, England losing their first wicket at a score of 200 plus. It may also be noted that with 1st wicket partnership of NZ reaching 50 plus, NZ were the first favourites, the odds in their favour being about 1.85. And with NZ doing better and better, scoring fast establishing lead of 293, weather not deteriorating much, the odds in f/o NZ remained higher thereafter. 

But probably I am a moron. Still some intellectuals, especially those in position of authority, will say that there is nothing wrong about this and bookies could foresee correctly knowing the pitch condition and teams composition. I, the moron, would salute such intellectuals rather than argue further with them.

The above is not an isolated example, though a recent one. I must have come across thousands (many times over in a single match) of such and worse incongruities over last few years.

Let us see what happens in the next SL-Bangladesh 1st test match being played now. SL are favourite at the start of the match by odds of about 1.5 and they declare their first innings at 570/4. After Bangladesh lose their first wicket, odds are 1.2 in f/o SL at score of about 35-40 for 1. Soon Bangladesh lose their 2nd wicket at 65 and soon after that the odds start galloping. Please note here that with 50 plus opening partnership of Aus in their 2nd innings, the odds had increased only to 1.33 from 1.25, as mentioned above. At the end of 2nd day, with score at 135/2, the odds were about 1.5. About 40 minutes into 3rd day and score just 170/2, the odds had changed drastically to 1.8 in f/o draw. There was a reason to this madness. With two quick wickets to fall, keeping in with the odds being offered on 2nd day, the odds on offer at this stage should have been in the range of 1.2 to 1.25. But due to the drastic change having been affected earlier, the odds on offer after fall of 4th quick wicket  at 177 were 1.6 in f/o SL. Now question will be why all this jugglery, why would bookies purposefully keep odds higher in f/o SL after loss of 4th Bangladeshi wicket. The answer lies in what happened thereafter. An unbroken 261 run fifth wicket partnership by the end of 3rd day's play and penning of these lines. Regarding pitch, I am told by the commentators that no past match here had gone to 5th day.

Probably above will make one understand better how Dhiren Shah of 'Inside the Boundary Line' could read into pre-scripting of matches, through changing odds also. Many other factors confirming the same to him further.

  

Men's Cricket - Nothing but staged Drama

If someone were to question me on my public claim of staged cricket:

Q. In an interview you have said that your book ‘Inside The Boundary Line’ aims at making the readers understand that cricket now is nothing more than a staged drama. How do you say cricket is staged?

A. It is not very complicated. Rather it is simple. Anyone who has knowledge of the betting (satta) market and sees the matches being telecast continuously with an open mind should know it. Most of the bookies and many bettors should be knowing it. Though the catch lies in being able to see the matches with ‘open’ mind. With commentators’ words and expert-analysis bombarding one, and so much hype being created about cricket matches in and through print and electronic media, to have an open mind becomes rather difficult for an average viewer, and it may be difficult for him/her to comprehend this fact of staged cricket.

Q. Yes? Please go on.

A. General public knows that there is betting on a team winning or losing. They don’t know that the odds for betting are continuously changing with the progress of a match and more importantly they don’t know that there is also continuous betting, known as session betting, on number of runs to be scored in a bracket of overs, say 1-10, 10-20, and so on for major part of a match. This fact has also been brought out in Hawkins’ book, published after (almost simultaneously) my book. It is knowledge of this session betting that led me to understand years back that the cricket being played was continuously scripted.

Q. Can you please elaborate how knowledge of session betting led you to know about match-fixing?

A. In fact match-fixing may not be a proper word. Because it is not that some odd match is fixed as people generally have come to believe. It was years ago – an ODI between Zimbabwe and Australia. Australia were batting first, with openers Gilchrist and Hayden on the crease. In 13 overs, the score was 80 and odd runs. Still the next two overs were played maiden by these two most explosive batsmen of that time. Those times session betting used to be for brackets of 1-15, 15-30, and then up to innings end (for first innings of an ODI). This experience finds a mention in my book, though with names changed and a sprinkling of fiction..

It is worth mention here that Gilchrist is considered to be the top honest cricketer. And he is. It was he, the only playing cricketer, who while still playing in IPL, said about a year ago that it would be naive to think that cricket was not fixed. I consider it as supreme honesty; to have been playing scripted cricket could have been a professional necessity for the cricketers as a result of our evolution process.

Q. Just on the basis of those two overs, you reach such a scandalous conclusion?

A. Certainly I won’t be such a fool. That was just the beginning of opening of my eyes. After that I have experienced viewing peculiar scoring patterns in sessions with all the subtleties, in hundreds of matches (thousands of sessions) from domestic leagues like Friends T20 in England, Bangladesh Premiere League, IPL, to the international matches, played all over the world and shown on TV. Giving some recent examples, crawl by India between 21^st to 30^th over and 31^st to 35^th over (both brackets for session betting), and then heavy scoring thereafter (just after one of the set batsman was out) in first ODI against Pak; Australia crawling from 11^th to 20^th over (20^th over, the last over of the bracket, being maiden), hitting more than 12 runs in the 21^st over in the recent 5^th ODI against Sri Lanka; Crawl and then suddenly scoring of 15 plus runs in the last over of the two brackets (1-6 and 7-10) by Rangpur Riders against Khulna in BPL on the 25^th Jan, 2013; all are dictated by session betting.

Thousands of such peculiarities can be seen from the recordings which many times don’t have much cricketing explanation. Through these sessions, each and every cricketer over last few years, without naming anyone, can be seen to be acting like a puppet being controlled by external forces, once eyes are opened.

Q. Is session betting all, that leads one to the knowledge of staged cricket?

A. While knowledge and thorough understanding of session betting makes the existence of continuous staged cricket very obvious and clear to one and is essential for the purpose, there are many other things that supplement/complement it. Some of those readily coming to mind are listed below:

a) Sea- change not only in form of individual players but teams as a whole from one match to next within a couple of days or so, not once a while, but time and again, across formats (i.e. T20 or test match or ODI), across countries.

 A recent classic example: In the last bilateral ODI series between Ind and SL in SriLanka, India scores 315 runs in the first ODI after having lost first wicket cheaply i.e. strong batting performance by the middle order. In the very next match on 24/7/12 from 31/0 in 3 overs they get bundled out for 138. Chasing, SL are 78-0 in 10 overs, surely no devils in the pitch. As one can easily imagine, at Ind 31/0 there must have been overwhelming betting in favour of India winning (with India’s strong batting performance fresh in the minds of the punters) and sudden collapse and no reprieve for Ind at any stage from there on would have ensured a kill for the bookies and fixers.

Hundreds of such examples involving various teams may be seen over a couple of years. To name a few: Newzealand, during their last tour of SA, losing two consecutive test matches to SA by big margins of an innings and then consecutively won the two ODI’s to follow, England dictated the last test series against India in India after losing Ist test match and came back to get dictated by India in the ODI series to follow.

b) Teams ‘throwing’ matches such that it becomes too obvious to any viewer: Happens very frequently now a days because of T20 leagues and large number of matches taking place.

Apart from tens of matches in T 20 leagues, classical recent examples would be- India losing last T 20 to Newzealand, Pakistan losing last ODI to India, Australia losing last test match to Newzealand in Australia. There are many more. A test match thrown by England to Australia years back and another thrown by Australia to India in Mohali have been taken inspiration from, in the book.

Caution: A word of caution here. The common mistake people do is in feeling that only the matches so clearly being lost by teams from sure winning position are the matches fixed. No. The book is meant to make one understand that it is not so. Pre-scripting of matches, even those that look natural enough on the surface, is a continuous process.  

c) Hundreds and thousands of individual shots played, balls bowled, or acts in the field which have been inexplicable. Many times even commentators say so. Why should players supposed to be playing to win do self-defeating inexplicable acts time and again? A classical example is: In the 14^th over of the 4^th ODI of bilateral series between India and SL on the 31^st July, 2013, a faint edge off Dilshan’s edge goes straight into Dhoni’s gloves. Dhoni can be seen to be deliberately throwing it out of his hands. Only explanation can be that Dilshan getting out at that point was not scripted. Another prominent example- Md Hafiz getting out caught at leg slip in the last ODI between Ind and Pak, a match Pakistan are commonly believed to have lost willingly. See the recordings and the list will be endless.   

d) More often than not, may be 80% of times, the predictions of the experts go awfully wrong. See the recordings of matches over any continuous period of a month or more and you will know. One could say that a prediction could go wrong. But why should it happen repeatedly and why services of such experts, who fail miserably in their assessment, should continue to be utilised over years? Low scores are made on pitches said to be full of runs (for example England were all out for 155 in the 3^rd ODI of last series with India, though curator (in newspaper headlines) as well as experts proclaimed it to be 350 plus pitch) and large scores are posted on pitches said to be tricky.

Examples: Ravi Shastri (probably it was) expecting a draw in the last test match between India and Newzealand in India in the test series prior to last one- the match indicated in the epilogue of the book. Ganguly telling 150 to be a formidable/winning total in the last T20 between Ind and England-India score 177 and lose. Again see the recordings and see how often and how much off the mark the experts have been.

e) Very often the captains and the players brag publicly about their team’s forthcoming performance to follow it with abysmal performance in reality. Happens too frequently across teams and nations to be brushed off as a coincidence. Some classical examples in this regard have been indicated in the book.

f) Other than session betting, for betting for a win/loss etc, one would think that odds were changing objectively based on some mathematical formulation. It would appear so but many times the odds or changes in odds are too whimsical, mostly showing in the end that the bookies had the right whims.  

g) Some players acquire/ are credited with the reputation of big match winners on their own. After such reputation is permanently attached with them, they fail nine if not ten out of ten times, hardly ever winning a game for their team. Why does that happen? Because bettors expecting them to perform lose rather than gain when they fail. Names of Shahid Afridi, Chris Gayle (while playing for W. Indies) readily come to mind. 
 

Q. Do you mean that above proves beyond doubt that the cricket now is a staged drama?

A. The book clearly tells that nothing can be proved in a court of law through above. That can happen only if those involved spill the beans or fixers are caught. And that is very unlikely. But applying the principle of preponderance of probabilities one would understand as one should understand. I expect an intelligent cricket enthusiast to be much wiser after reading my book. And if people become aware, the evil will go away slowly but surely.

Q.  How does awareness help in getting rid of match-fixing?

A. Everything is done to befool the bettors/punters and attract large crowds through manufacturing thrilling matches now and then.  If bettors become wise that they are playing into the hands of the fixers and stop betting, the fixing will die a natural death. Otherwise to cleanse the system through establishment, all the existing players, experts, commentators, coaches, and officials will have to be sacked and to my mind that won’t be possible because on date they combined are powerful enough to influence those in power, across the world.

Q. Don’t you feel what you say is quite shocking?

A. Yes, it is shocking beyond comprehension. But one can’t escape truth forever. Better to face it sooner than later. Very recently a large scale fixing in world football has been detected. Though detection is now, fixing was taking place all the time and people had been  viewing fixed matches passionately. I feel people must know that what they view is not a game but staged drama controlled from outside the boundary line. Then it would be up to them whether they want to spend time and energy for such cricket or not. But one has a right not to be cheated - by making one view staged cricket as natural cricket.

Q. Do you want an investigation to start based on what you say?

A. Who will investigate whom? If those at the helm of the affairs don’t know, they have to be living in some other world or have to be first rate fools. Thousands of people who run the betting market have to know that cricket is cooked. Only utter fools/novices among them won’t be knowing.

Q. But those running cricket will have their arguments to counter what you say.

A. Yes, they will have. I am ready to face them for a fair public debate with nothing but recordings of matches to assist me. And before that let them counter the examples I have given. Just saying that anything can happen in cricket should not suffice. When one counters them with particular shots, balls bowled, or acts in the field through past recordings (there will be thousands of those), they will have no legs to stand on in people’s court. And I may have no legs to stand on in a court of law if law doesn’t value common-sense. On a larger canvas, it also goes to show that law and truth are two different things.

Past cricketers having alleged match-fixing from time to time has not been my doing. All such allegations and stings surfacing now and then have conveniently been swept under the carpet by the authorities and the staged cricket has been allowed to continue.

And when Hawkins came out with a book (at about same time as my book was published) based on the script of an Ind-Pak world cup match he had come across before the match, ICC even refused to take cognizance of what he had to say, leave alone starting an investigation.

Q. How is your book different from Hawkins’ book?

A. Hawkins’ book has been written as a non-fiction and my book as a fiction. A non-fiction has its limitations. The only worthwhile revelations that seem to come out of Hawkins’ book are- prior knowledge of a world cup match script that to a large extent comes out true, the trapped Pakistani trio not having been motivated by any spot fixing but just having been trapped, a few glimpses from illegal Indian betting industry, and the belief with the bookies that cricket was fixed. In contrast, the book ‘Inside The Boundary Line’ is a very comprehensive book on staged cricket that attempts to address all the related issues, and there are many of those, much beyond what has been said above. Fiction becomes a necessity in conveying things as comprehensively as I had to. I have tried to find answers to many questions that staged cricket raises. All my answers may not be perfectly correct but would certainly be indicative to an intelligent mind. My book also visits the civilization around me beyond cricket. The two books are on the same subject but miles apart in approach and reach. Yet the two complement each other. It is a great coincidence that these two books written in isolation in different parts of the globe got published around same time.

Here I have an interesting story to tell. Like Hawkins, I came to know after half time of the last T 20 World Cup final between WI and SL (after having written the book) that the rumour was for WI to win and while chasing SL would be 50 for 2. Exactly that happened. One would say that if the scripts leak out correctly, then bettors can make a killing and bookies will lose. Right, but these rumours are not always correct. As part of the script leaked to Hawkins was incorrect. (Hawkins grossly misinterpreted that since part of the script involving Indian batting was incorrect, probably India were not involved. If Pakistan batted in the second half with a purpose to lose, would they be doing so just on their own, without others being aware of it?). It was rumoured that India would win the last test match against England. My sense told me it won’t be so and this was a rumour to mislead. I tweeted (a matter of record) to this effect on the second day of the test that I expected match to be a draw against rumour of Indian win. For the final ODI between Ind and Pak, the rumour was that India would win, by the 35^th over. India did win but they were in a hopeless position at the end of the 35^th over. It is from there on that Pakistan seemingly threw the match. So the rumours are planted to be-fool the bettors and make them fall in trap. Bettors can’t know beforehand which script will be correct and to what extent. But such rumours, coming true even once a while, would go to show that there is pre-scripting and there is execution as per those scripts.

Q. What has been your motivation in writing the book and coming out with interviews thereafter?

A. I want to share my knowledge (though others may call it belief but I consider it nothing less than knowledge just as 2+2=4, if there is something called common-sense) with the passionate cricket viewers the world over, millions of them, that the matches we feel so passionate about are nothing more than staged drama. My doing could also be said to be revenge/reaction of an individual being and having been cheated day in and day out of his existence through bombardment of cooked cricket as real cricket by the media and the cricketing and other celebrities. I won't blame the players so much as probably, though a beneficiary of the fraud, they are powerless as mentioned in Hawkins' book.

Q. Would you like to say anything else?

A. Yes. I would just like to spell/repeat some of the implications of what I am saying. 

i) Either all cricket bodies in all the cricket playing nations (of course including ICC)  must be knowing of staged cricket, or these must being manned by fools of the highest order, or are living in fool's paradise.

ii) So much analysis of, discussions and coverage (apart from the news regarding outcome of specific matches) on cricket appearing in print and electronic media, the world over, has no meaning and is a total waste of time and energy, apart from being outright ridiculous.

iii) It also means that media, at least Indian media, is the greatest facilitator of this greatest or one of the greatest organised international frauds, through the hype it creates or allows to be created through it for promotion of the game as it exists.

iv) The involvement of hundreds of big names in cricket, past and present, players as well as those having run or running cricket, big politicians included, across the globe.

v) But this doesn’t mean to undermine the talent of the cricketers on the scene. Even for staging drama, they have to be very good in cricket. In fact, at times, they have to have more talent than necessary for playing natural cricket.

vi) The passionate millions of cricket fans and viewers across the world have been led to be fools all these years by a few hundreds or a few thousands.

Media - The Facilitator of Corruption

Media, especially the Indian media at large, is the greatest facilitator of corruption, and yet they are the one who make so much noise against corruption and the corrupt. Before I proceed further, this is what one of them had to say about them, quite recently.

“……but then, one reason why the game is today left in the wretched condition that the book only partly reveals is that India’s media, exceptional interludes notwithstanding, basically clothes it in glamorous habiliments because it has a vested interest in normal service never being interrupted: segments of it are in the IPL and, collectively, it is more interested in the glamour conferred consensually on it than on the degradations attendant upon the enterprise…….”

This is sports editor of The Statesman talking about corruption in Cricket while reviewing a book on match-fixing. And very ironically, typical of Indian media and unlike The Statesman, this media house also chose to keep its eyes closed when the crunch time came and they were presented with the real explosive and comprehensive stuff on corruption in cricket. International cricket, on date, is the largest or one of the largest organised frauds, the Indian media being its greatest facilitator.

I am not saying this in the coziness of my drawing room. I have written a book conveying so, and have conveyed it directly through an interview published in the Deccan Chronicle and Asian Age dated 27/1/2013. The interview is reproduced below:

Q  What are the revelations we can expect from your book?

A The book conveys to the readers that match-fixing in cricket is not something sporadic, but it is there all the time. To such an extent that men's cricket on the international scene is nothing more than staged drama, ball by ball. Cricket on ground is continuously dictated by the betting and fixing syndicates outside and not only are the officials, cricket experts and commentators in the `know', many other experts assist in misleading the viewing public.

Q Which country do you think is the biggest player in match fixing?

A It is easy to comprehend that with T20 leagues like IPL taking place everywhere, there are no clear demarcations left between countries in this context. Some countries like Pakistan have earned a bad name, but there is no bigger or lesser player. All countries are neck deep in this.

Q Has match fixing reached World Cup levels too?

A Without any doubt. Vinod Kambli, not long ago, talked about fixing during a World Cup match he participated in, years ago. Hawkins (the British author) has written a book detailing suspicion of fixing in a match during the previous World Cup.

Q What prompted you to start this book?

A Four years ago was when I became sure that cricket on TV , between any two teams, was pre-scripted. I tried to share this newfound knowledge with my friends and family members and they told me I was talking crazy . So I understood that I had to explain things in detail for people to start grasping this truth. And then I started writing the book. Today same people tell me, “What is so great about your opinion on match-fixing?

Everyone knows about it.“ But they still don't know its extent and depth. I aim to tell them that through my book.

It took me about three years in completing and then another year in refining and getting published.

Received no moral support from anyone during the writing of this book and getting it published from a reasonable publisher wasn't easy either.

Q Did you face any threats while writing this book?

A No. I never faced any threats because, other than a few ones close to me, nobody had a clue that I was writing such a book. But I did feel scared all the time while trying to keep my book a secret. My family was always discouraging me. But now I realise my fears were ill-founded as those running international cricket are least bothered and feel way too secure in their power. It took them a day in dismissing Kambli's allegations and a minute in dismissing Hawkins' book as nonsense. There is no one to ask them questions. Even Kambli and Hawkins seem to have gone quiet. Not being taken seriously may be a blessing in disguise.

Q Do you want people to stop watching international cricket?

A International cricket is a big source of recreation for the masses. What is happening today is the sum-total result of how things have evolved. It may not be in power of one to change the course of evolution. But one should know the truth. I would simply like people to know and understand what is happening, and will happen for some time. Then it would be up to them whether they watch cricket as staged drama or not.

Q Can match-fixing ever be wiped out?

A No. As long as large-scale betting continues. Hawkins also ends his book on the note that fixing was there and will be there. Also, fixing will remain proportional to the betting going on.

And then I went ahead with the press conference/meet, I had called before publication of this interview, to convey that international men's cricket was no more a game but continuous staged drama. I myself was amazed at what I had set on doing. A non entity had decided to take on the combined might of the cricketing world (that as well controls the world by the look of things). I expected them to devour me. But the Indian media showed its true colour. Most of the big names chose to remain indoors and I am not aware if any of those who attended covered what I had to say.To ignore a truth that they couldn't stand/face/challenge suited them the most and they did just that. 

The above facts prove it beyond doubt once again, at least to my mind, that the Indian media at large is the greatest facilitator of corruption, contrary to the general public opinion about it. Probably it is professional necessity for them as to play staged cricket is for the cricketers.

Three Things

There are 3 important things and 3 type of people.

A.  Philosophy (What it/we should be)

     1.  People who have read 'The Book of Mirdad' and have grasped/understood it.

     2.  People who have read 'The Book of Mirdad' and have not grasped/understood it.

     3.  People who have not read 'The Book of Mirdad.'

B.  Civilization (What it is/we are)

     1.  People who have read 'Animal Farm, and Catch 22' and have grasped/understood these.

     2.  People who have read 'Animal Farm, and Catch 22' and have not grasped/understood these.

     3.  People who have not read 'Animal Farm, and Catch 22.'

C.  Cricket

     1.  People who have read 'Inside The Boundary Line' and have grasped/understood it.

     2.  People who have read 'Inside The Boundary Line' and have not grasped/understood it.

     3.  People who have not read 'Inside The Boundary Line.'