Origins of cricket on the subcontinent

[silentstriker]

Well, the subcontinental diaspora is about 30-40 million or so(i.e. 2 Australias) on top of the 1.5 billion back in the mothership. Practically every society, diet & climate is covered by a million+ of this starting from SE Asia through to North America (with Arabia, Africa and Europe in between). So the sample is diverse and yet, not one lander of the triple lutz (or swimmer of the fastest lap nor runner of the fastest mile). Not even close. Whether or not it's something in our minds, bodies or the victuals we were taught to prefer, this fact remains.

(And if/when it changes, perhaps so too might the standing of cricket in our minds and hearts.)

We've done a bit of practically everything else worth doing. Nobel Prizes. Successful entrepreneurship. Selling soda pop. Running large financial institutions into the ground. Even the odd rock star or two. So this does stand out a bit.

SS- If you're mileage varies, that's good too. Shows we are second to none in pointless chat group discussions.

I'd be happy to argue this point in OT. But just as an aside, only one science Nobel prize has gone to an Indian working in an Indian University (Raman back in the British Raj, while working at University of Calcutta). That's a pretty disgraceful record.

Actually, US, Germany and UK are by far the best places to get a Nobel Prize, especially in science, accounting for the very vast majority of nobel prizes.

 

[jeevan]

I'd be happy to argue this point in OT. But just as an aside, only one science Nobel prize has gone to an Indian working in an Indian University (Raman back in the British Raj, while working at University of Calcutta). That's a pretty disgraceful record.

Actually, US, Germany and UK are by far the best places to get a Nobel Prize, especially in science, accounting for the very vast majority of nobel prizes.

I had specifically included the subcontinental diaspora to take infrastructure variables out, there's been a couple more Nobels (still underachieving, but a bit better than being a no-show). For Indians in India, the clock starts about now - no more excuses of infrastructure. At least not for about 50 million who have a pretty decent standard of living - finally there's a critical mass of that. So now we'll see (I'd be happy to be wrong, of course).

The Caribbean offers a fairly interesting laboratory for the generalization that I'm making. There is a non-trivial population of Indian descent sprinkled in there and (I could be mistaken about this thing) they have no particular advantages or disadvantages compared to most other regular folks.

In cricket: For a Viv, there was a Rohan Kanhai. For Lloyd, there was Kallicharan. For a Gayle, a Sarwan and for a Lara, a Chanderpaul. Heck Ravi Rampaul even opens the bowling some times.

Caribbeans also seem to do well in other sports (relatively). But not much presence from the descendants of subcontinental ancestors there.

 

[Furball]

To some extent (which is also true in England - there were not a few excellent professional bowlers) yes. But it did not take very long to produce a great Black batsman, and Headley was certainly not the first Black batsman of any note either.

Assume you meant professional bats?

 

[Richard]

Actually meant amateur bowlers TBH. Will edit.

There were many excellent batsmen of both amateur and professional division - the typical pro style differed from the typical amateur style, however. Amateurs were typically more boundary-hitters and also typically more risk-taking and aiming to please crowds as well as do well for his team. The pro was typically concerned only about doing best for his team, so as to earn his next contract.

 

[Burgey]

I'd be happy to argue this point in OT. But just as an aside, only one science Nobel prize has gone to an Indian working in an Indian University (Raman back in the British Raj, while working at University of Calcutta). That's a pretty disgraceful record.

Actually, US, Germany and UK are by far the best places to get a Nobel Prize, especially in science, accounting for the very vast majority of nobel prizes.

If you wanted to do research in the early 20th century, you'd have wanted to fetch up at the Cavendish, wouldn't you?

 

[silentstriker]

If you wanted to do research in the early 20th century, you'd have wanted to fetch up at the Cavendish, wouldn't you?

Yea, most certainly - the quality was unbelievable. I just want to be in a departmental meeting with some of those minds. It would probably not be too far fetched to say the average achievement of that department was probably the highest of any department in any organization in history. I know at some point the Cambridge physiology group had something like nine total members and six of them had won a nobel prize. Totally ridiculous. If you were lucky enough to be trained at that time from that group - you just had to mention the words 'Cambridge Physiology', and doors would magically open wherever you went.

First half of the twentieth century was dominated by Germany and Britain, and the second half by the US. We'll see how this first half goes, as Japan and a few others are making strides, but the US has unbelievably good research universities - best in the world overall, so other countries would have to invest a lot in basic infrastructure and graduate education to catch up.

Much of Europe seems to have almost given up on quality research degrees and programs, which is pretty sad. The exceptions being universities like Oxbridge, both of whom seem to be holding down the fort in the face of an onslaught of mediocrity. Never for the life of me will I understand why being 'elite' is a bad thing - crabs in a barrel mentality I guess.

In terms of the two big growing economies - China I know is trying to build up a first class research universities (though mainly in the applied fields - which won't win you Nobels), but Indian research pretty much does not exist - as far as I know, no one is even trying to do anything about it. And both suffer from a lack of proper teaching in terms of going about scientific inquiry, and the creativity it requires.

 

[Furball]

Actually meant amateur bowlers TBH. Will edit.

Same diff.

Sadly I'm not yet a cricket buff, however from what I've read, the sweeping generalisation that the Gentlemen batted and the Players bowled is a fair one though?

As far as excellent professional batsmen, I'm right in saying that Hobbs would be the prime example? (ignoring the money Grace made from the game.)

edit: sweeping generalisation 2: I think I'm right in saying that in the North, cricket was far more of a working class game than in the South?

 

[honestbharani]

It was only tongue in cheek. The fact is that we are good as a team only in cricket and kabbadi. The latter does not win universal accolades. Also the demi god Tendulkar came along who captured somehow the imagination of the entire nation. One can trace the exponential growth in cricket in India with the opening up of the economy and Tendulkar's career progress. India wanted heroes, Indian youth wanted role models for global success and Tendulkar offered both. The TV/cable revolution of the early and mid 90s helped to take it to all sections of the society.

It started with Kapil Dev and Gavaskar. Tendulkar was simply the hero at the time when the TV boom happened... The game's first big breakers as heroes were Gavaskar and Kapil Dev. Juz about every Indian knew them, something that had not happened with any sports stars before them, I think...

 

[jeevan]

In terms of the two big growing economies - China I know is trying to build up a first class research universities (though mainly in the applied fields - which won't win you Nobels), but Indian research pretty much does not exist - as far as I know, no one is even trying to do anything about it. And both suffer from a lack of proper teaching in terms of going about scientific inquiry, and the creativity it requires.

SS - question: do you have first hand exposure to Indian research institutions?
(I would speak from first hand exposure at one of the US institutions from the table that you linked to and prior to that at a pretty good one in India. As well as second hand / collaborative exposure to a handful of institutions in both countries. And while some aspects of infrastructure are incredibly better and the amount of money available larger, I'd be unable to back your observations in any meaningful way.Will stop here as this is seriously OT and a very serious subject as well, but I do wonder what your convictions might be based upon).

 

[silentstriker]

SS - question: do you have first hand exposure to Indian research institutions?
(I would speak from first hand exposure at one of the US institutions from the table that you linked to and prior to that at a pretty good one in India. As well as second hand / collaborative exposure to a handful of institutions in both countries. And while some aspects of infrastructure are incredibly better and the amount of money available larger, I'd be unable to back your observations in any meaningful way.Will stop here as this is seriously OT and a very serious subject as well, but I do wonder what your convictions might be based upon).

The only way you can judge science: total research output in terms of published papers. US has about three million publishes per year, while the figure in India is less than 200,000. And even that number is quite misleading, the quality is significantly different: both in terms of the subjects that are being published in, as well as the quality of the actual research in terms of citablity and journal ranking. In terms of the subject, most of those papers are more 'soft' science, instead of pure basic science. The actual amount of quality novel 'basic' science coming from India is negligible.

 

[jeevan]

The only way you can judge science: total research output in terms of published papers. US has about three million publishes per year, while the figure in India is less than 200,000. And even that number is quite misleading, the quality is significantly different: both in terms of the subjects that are being published in, as well as the quality of the actual research in terms of citablity and journal ranking. In terms of the subject, most of those papers are more 'soft' science, instead of pure basic science. The actual amount of quality novel 'basic' science coming from India is negligible.

I wasn't asking for google-quality statistics or an interpretation of them. Just if you had first hand exposure to any of the not-admittedly-numerous scientific institutions in India, so I could calibrate your opinion. Thx.

(p.s. You appear to be either highly opinionated on the matter, in which case of course I'll pass - or misinformed on account of insufficient exposure. In the latter case you need to be given a benefit of doubt as it is easy to not know about a few single-digit thousand people amongst a billion plus, my swag for the number of serious researchers in India. There's been an ironic crisis brewing gradually in research in India, but I'm afraid you've flown right past the whole field to be aware of or be able to appreciate this actual crisis).

 

[silentstriker]

I wasn't asking for google-quality statistics or an interpretation of them. Just if you had first hand exposure to any of the not-admittedly-numerous scientific institutions in India, so I could calibrate your opinion. Thx.

(p.s. You appear to be either highly opinionated on the matter, in which case of course I'll pass - or misinformed on account of insufficient exposure. In the latter case you need to be given a benefit of doubt as it is easy to not know about a few single-digit thousand people amongst a billion plus, my swag for the number of serious researchers in India. There's been an ironic crisis brewing gradually in research in India, but I'm afraid you've flown right past the whole field to be aware of or be able to appreciate this actual crisis).

In my field there is not much research in India so I have very little firsthand exposure. However, in science - the proof is in the pudding (eg, output). I can anecdotally see how little top quality research comes out and that anecdotal impression is backed by data.

I am not aware of any internal crisis (not that I pay partcular close attention) so if this crisis leads to better and more basic research - I would be absolutely ecstatic. Whatever the cause, the output sucks right now, which is the bottom line and what I was trying to get at. Obviously that does not mean there is zero research or that talented people don't exist or that facilities don't exist. But until there is actual output.....

I think your estimate of the number of good researchers is correct, and that is my point really. The numbers just aren't there yet. I am not necessarily blaming India, as it had other priorities until recently, but nonetheless, the output is not there. It's not there for China either of course, and China is ahead in infrastructure.

Plus, I am not at all a fan of the path Chinese research is taking in general, but that is another topic.

 

[Richard]

Same diff.

Nah, one means totally different to the other. Re-read my now-correct post in the context of yours.

Sadly I'm not yet a cricket buff, however from what I've read, the sweeping generalisation that the Gentlemen batted and the Players bowled is a fair one though?

It's a sweeping generalisation yeah, but it's far from enough of a pattern to be called a rule. There probably were more good amateur batsmen than pro batsmen and certainly as I say there was a style characteristic to amateurs and a style characteristic to pros. But there were any number of outstanding professional batsmen. There were certainly far more good professional bowlers than amateur bowlers but equally if you took the amateur bowlers out you'd weaken the standard substantially.

As far as excellent professional batsmen, I'm right in saying that Hobbs would be the prime example? (ignoring the money Grace made from the game.)

Hobbs was the best pro batsman of the amateur\pro era in England (he's very possibly England's greatest-ever batsman anyway, so that's no big news) but he was far from the only outstanding one - to name a few others, his partner Sutcliffe, their number-three Hammond (who later turned amateur so he could captain England), George Gunn, and I'm sure Mr Chandler could name you a fair few more.

edit: sweeping generalisation 2: I think I'm right in saying that in the North, cricket was far more of a working class game than in the South?

Pretty much, yeah. But again, not invariably. Even the northern clubs were generally "run" by amateurs.

 

[jeevan]

In my field there is not much research in India so I have very little firsthand exposure. However, in science - the proof is in the pudding (eg, output). I can anecdotally see how little top quality research comes out and that anecdotal impression is backed by data.

I am not aware of any internal crisis (not that I pay partcular close attention) so if this crisis leads to better and more basic research - I would be absolutely ecstatic. Whatever the cause, the output sucks right now, which is the bottom line and what I was trying to get at. Obviously that does not mean there is zero research or that talented people don't exist or that facilities don't exist. But until there is actual output.....

I think your estimate of the number of good researchers is correct, and that is my point really. The numbers just aren't there yet. I am not necessarily blaming India, as it had other priorities until recently, but nonetheless, the output is not there. It's not there for China either of course, and China is ahead in infrastructure.

Plus, I am not at all a fan of the path Chinese research is taking in general, but that is another topic.

Though you need some quantity for critical mass, it's always been about quality imho.
A few thousand good people can be phenomenal and that small number was not the problem - the resources they had were. So the output - when calibrated to $ spent - was/is quite good. India did not have money period, and so there were /are severe limitations on what could be done (except in extremely theoretical areas, but even there you eventually need a basis in something).

The crisis, and irony, is that the Indian economy is booming. One would think that the resource problem would finally get solved. But what seems to be occurring is that the discrepancy in remuneration between the tech sector and academia is enormous. Was always a factor (one of my professors said 2:1 or 3:1 always existed, but now it can even be 10:1 or more) , so far fewer of the really bright people opt for an academic life and indeed many even leave mid-career (know several who have left these type of institutions). The talk of multiplying the number of such institutions will be tempered by the extreme inability to fill those spots (e.g. talking of 20 IITs is almost a cruel joke, the existing 7 are having trouble filling faculty spots as they haven't - yet- diluted their standards).

 

[silentstriker]

Though you need some quantity for critical mass, it's always been about quality imho.
A few thousand good people can be phenomenal and that small number was not the problem - the resources they had were. So the output - when calibrated to $ spent - was/is quite good. India did not have money period, and so there were /are severe limitations on what could be done (except in extremely theoretical areas, but even there you eventually need a basis in something).

I've actually been dissapointed at the lack of purely theoretical stuff too. But overall the money is obviously the issue. In terms of the quality vs. quantity - that too is dissapointing. However, part of that is in modern science, few thousand is absolutely nothing. My city has more than that. The problem, as you suggest, is that of funding and priorities.

How many jobs are there for theoretical physisicst that has no chance of ever realistically making money for the institution? That has always been the issue in all countries with the purely theoretical fields.

The crisis, and irony, is that the Indian economy is booming. One would think that the resource problem would finally get solved. But what seems to be occurring is that the discrepancy in remuneration between the tech sector and academia is enormous. Was always a factor (one of my professors said 2:1 or 3:1 always existed, but now it can even be 10:1 or more) , so far fewer of the really bright people opt for an academic life and indeed many even leave mid-career (know several who have left these type of institutions). The talk of multiplying the number of such institutions will be tempered by the extreme inability to fill those spots (e.g. talking of 20 IITs is almost a cruel joke, the existing 7 are having trouble filling faculty spots as they haven't - yet- diluted their standards).

Exactly. And look at even IIT. It's as elite and competitive as any university in the world - and harder to get into than any - but how much research output does it have compared to MIT in computer science or engineering? If you're a young Indian wanting to do something at the forefront, you have almost no opportunities in India. There is just no money for it so they can't do it.

And coming back to the issue of Nobel Prizes, you don't often win a nobel for a practical application. It's usually given to those working at the edge of understanding - where practical applications are not a consideration.