Another Test. Similar result. India struggled once again to beat the WI resulting in a frustrating draw. Clearly, the current Indian bowling combination is incapable of bowling the opposition out twice in a Test match.
Pathan badly needs a longer rest. He has lost pace and appears to be struggling. VRV lacks penetration and appears to be too green to be at the Test level. Thankfully, Munaf had a good Test. That leaves only Kumble. Though one can argue that the burden is way too much on Kumble, one can’t help get the feeling that he appears to have lost his edge. He no longer seems to have the ability to run through a side. Viru certainly stepped up to the plate and put up a fine show. But it just proves how weak the Indian bowling side is. Dropping a batsman might be a luxury India can ill-afford at this stage. I suspect the the team management might bring in Powar/Bhajji for Pathan and Sreesanth for VRV in Test 3.
Another seamer or an all rounder in place of D. Karthick in the 15 might have certainly given the team management more options. Given the way the seamers have performed in this series it makes sense to play three spinners. But unfortunately India does not have a true all rounder in its ranks to accommodate this strategy. A daring gamble might be to drop a batsman (Yuvraj or Laxman) and play Pathan as an all rounder and play three spinners. The team management is certainly capable of taking this drastic step under more favorable circumstances. Having lost the last Test to England because of a batting failure (and the same in Pak), I suspect it would take some serious “guts” on the part of the Team management. In any case, India certainly holds the psychological advantage at this stage of the series for whatever it is worth, no matter what Lara says!
“When America gives its word, it will keep its word” US President George W Bush on his surprise visit to Iraq (now that the coast is clear of Zarqawi).
“You crusaders, what will happen in the coming days is something that will turn your childrenÂs hair white Â battles that will reveal the falsehood of (your) might, the weakness of your soldiers and your lies”, Zarqawi’s successor. Full Report
What’s with these people? It sure sounds like both parties rent similar bollywood films! Well, at least they have something in common.
I am using Firefox 22.214.171.124 and I find that it crashes more often than the earlier version of Firefox. Wonder why.
I go to a website and click on a link to see another page and this just causes it to crash! It happens randomly with no apparent pattern. I wonder if it has anything to do with browster incapatibility with the latest Firefox? Maybe not. Just a thought, because I have the same Firefox installed on another computer with similar specs which does not crash as often.
The column went on to say that GM posed a serious threat to America’s future! Obviously, the PR guys over at GM wanted to respond to it. They sent a letter to the Editor of NY Times, who in turn wanted to publish the letter after some serious edits. Finally, the two could not come to an agreement and neither version made it to the press. What makes this interesting is that, the old world behemoth, GM, which not to so far back jumped into the corporate blogging bandwagon, published both their original response and the NY Times edited version on their blog (including the email exchange with the Times editors!)
Ironically, the original piece by Tom Friedman is available only to paid subscribers! (Btw, if you subscribe to SJ Mercury News hard copy, you get to read NY Times columnists’ articles).
To get the low down on this check out the GM blog.
This is clearly a big positive for Corporate blogging. Traditional PR folks strongly believe that blogging can backfire for a company and does more harm than good. For such skeptics, this is a good case for how blogging can actually benefit a company if done right. While one could argue that Tom Friedman’s article has “some” merit (though I think he was stretching it way too much!), GM has clearly come out on top from a PR perspective. As always, in the blogosphere, things happen fast and recovery time is almost non-existent. In this case, what the original article said is almost off the table as a topic of discussion. It has become more about NY Times not giving GM adequate “space” to appropriately defend itself and GM finding its listeners in blogopshere instead! Another example of how bloggers step in when traditional media attempts to exercise excessive control (especially, when bordering on unfairness!).
I am sure left to himself Mr. Friedman might wish to respond (defend himself!) directly to GM’s response. But in the “command and control” world of traditional media this is a definitely “no-no”. The Times is clearly on backfoot on this one and maybe its time for the it to even re-think its Times Select paid service?