No Ashes for India and Pakistan

[Sanz]

Trains ?! There is only one trainline that crosses the hoogly for local service. And those trains are packed tighter than a virgin in the morning hours...Ferries ? You got any ideas how many ferries capsise per month in Kolkata-Alipur area ? I am sorry but transportation in India is much slower universally than in the west, unless you live in New Delhi or Chandigarh. For same distance travelled, it takes longer in India.

There you go. Yes for the same distance it may take less but Here is the simple explanation, most of those who work in Kolkata, live in Kolkata, most of those who work in NYC/SFO/LA dont live in NYC/SFO/LA. If one has lived in SFO, the morning and evening traffic on 101 is hell. And I dont care how many trains or train lines are there, it isn't as bad as you portray. I was talking about Kolkata overall not just hoogly.

An engineer in the west lives in far more comfort than in India. Simply because they have more disposable income and disposable income means you can have fun with that money.

Only if you work in IT/Software/Compooters. Folks who work in Mechanical, electrical engg etc dont have that kind of disposable income.

 

[C_C]

Well it may be right for your friend and cousin, but as Eddie said, dont make gross generalization based on your limited interaction and (as you would prefer to say) very very tiny SAMPLE.

[quoteIndians come to the US because of the $$$ and the $$$ automatically translates to better lifestyle, since money buys you ammenities.

Most IT folks(those are the one who come to west) in India can afford all those amenities in INDIA, and except for electricity which doesn't require $$$$.[/QUOTE]

Well this is where i beg to differ. Obviously, i am not implying that every single joe works harder in India than in the west.There are a few lucky ones. But the overwhelming majority of the middle class has to work harder for less amenities relative to the west( with same jobs and same hours counted for).
And while in the west the middle class is the bulk of the population, in the subcontinent the bulk of the population are people deprived of even the most basic ammenities.

It's a misconception we do work 7:30-8 until 5:30-6 and only 8 hours as billable (and I work for top 4), most folks in my firm work that way...My friends in IBM consulting travel every week, leave on Monday, come back on thursday night, work from home on Friday.

Perhaps. But for equal labour output from equal qualified folks, the ones employed in the west has a higher disposable income( ie, money you can play with and do what you want) than in India, thus enjoying more comforts(comforts fall under disposable income). That is a categoric fact that has been often espoused in the views of several economic heavyweights( which is the reason i recommended Amartya Sen who's done extensive research on this and presented his research on this).

 

[C_C]

There you go. Yes for the same distance it may take less but Here is the simple explanation, most of those who work in Kolkata, live in Kolkata, most of those who work in NYC/SFO/LA dont live in NYC/SFO/LA. If one has lived in SFO, the morning and evening traffic on 101 is hell. And I dont care how many trains or train lines are there, it isn't as bad as you portray. I was talking about Kolkata overall not just hoogly.

You are very very wrong if you think that in Kolkata the average commute times are less than the ones in NYC. Roads in Kolkata are far more conjested and traffic jams are dime a dozen. As far as my potrayal goes, i was in Kolkata as recently as 2003 march. Its far more inconvinient to move around in Kolkata than it is in even the worst parts of Detroit( and Detroit is pretty close to being the absolute worst metropolis in north america).

Only if you work in IT/Software/Compooters. Folks who work in Mechanical, electrical engg etc dont have that kind of disposable income.

False. Economic surveys consistently prove that western folks have a higher disposable income than anywhere else on the planet. Check StatsCAN( Satistics Canada- a very comprehensive website that catalouges comprehensively for Canada and in most US states bordering Canada).
Folks in every walk of life have higher disposable income in the west relative to the subcontinent. A wal-mart cashier has a higher disposable income ( both actually and as a percentage of the paycheque) than the cashier at a grocery store in India. Same for waiters, servers, cooks, engineers, doctors, etc etc. This is not my 'personal experience' talking, this is economic surveys and reports- some of them available through StatsCAN.

 

[luckyeddie]

Because people will take the time out from their jobs,schools, etc., sink 100-200 rupees for a ticket if there is a great spectacle at hand. People used to come and watch Tendulkar bat in his pomp. Afridi has the flair and if he clicks, its gonna be an insanely entertaining mayhem, so people come. But there is simply no point in comming for a day when the result is not gonna be decieded in a day. Its much easier and convinient to catch the action in bits and pieces over the course of the game unless something magnificient is happening. That is the subcontinental mentality towards test cricket. Doesnt mean it isnt popular- all it means is people would rather sit around a radio at the local restaurant during the lunchbreak following the action, peeking at the tv 10-15 times a day in small timeslots than sink an entire day watching a contest that wont be decieded.

Thank you.

 

[Sanz]

You are very very wrong if you think that in Kolkata the average commute times are less than the ones in NYC. Roads in Kolkata are far more conjested and traffic jams are dime a dozen. As far as my potrayal goes, i was in Kolkata as recently as 2003 march. Its far more inconvinient to move around in Kolkata than it is in even the worst parts of Detroit( and Detroit is pretty close to being the absolute worst metropolis in north america).

what has convenience got to do with commute time ? For the last 10 years I have either driven to work or taken public transport to reach my work place and almost every day my commute time was more than what I spent in Jaipur, Delhi, Chennai and Mumbai (few cities where I worked in India).

Folks in every walk of life have higher disposable income in the west relative to the subcontinent. A wal-mart cashier has a higher disposable income ( both actually and as a percentage of the paycheque) than the cashier at a grocery store in India. Same for waiters, servers, cooks, engineers, doctors, etc etc. This is not my 'personal experience' talking, this is economic surveys and reports- some of them available through StatsCAN.

May be, but how much disposable income one needs to watch a day of test cricket 100 Rs. which is about 2 $ and 25 cents. Now tell me how many Americans can buy ticket for an NFL/NBA game with that kind of money. Yeah an American engineer has 100 USD ((4500 Rs.)and an Indian has 300 RS of disposable income, yet an Indian can buy a tickets and still save 200 RS, american cant even buy a ticket to a game with his diposable income.

 

[Sanz]

And while in the west the middle class is the bulk of the population, in the subcontinent the bulk of the population are people deprived of even the most basic ammenities.

Wrong on all count. Basic ameneties are provided by the govt and you get same road, electricity, phone, water etc regardless of your class (middle, lower, upper etc etc) or income and not because people are not able to afford it. Subcontinent is a developing region and people are deprived of those basic amenities not because they are poor or they have less disposable income but because of lack of infrastructure and slowly we are getting better (in 80s we used to live months without electricity, now it is couple of hours every day, huge improvement)

Rest of your post is quite irrlevant to the discussion so there is no point in reading Mr. Sen's theories of economy, doesn't mean I dont respect his work. I do, but just that I have no interest in that subject and I dont think reading his book is going to help in this discussion.

 

[C_C]

what has convenience got to do with commute time ? For the last 10 years I have either driven to work or taken public transport to reach my work place and almost every day my commute time was more than what I spent in Jaipur, Delhi, Chennai and Mumbai (few cities where I worked in India).

Well you are the first Indian dude i've ever run across who thinks its faster to travel in India than in the west. Everyone i've met or know consider the Western transportation system to be far quicker in commute times.

May be, but how much disposable income one needs to watch a day of test cricket 100 Rs. which is about 2 $ and 25 cents. Now tell me how many Americans can buy ticket for an NFL/NBA game with that kind of money. Yeah an American engineer has 100 USD ((4500 Rs.)and an Indian has 300 RS of disposable income, yet an Indian can buy a tickets and still save 200 RS, american cant even buy a ticket to a game with his diposable income.

False and incorrect.

Disposable incomes calculated in real money terms can only be applied within one economy. If two seperate economies are being compared, exchange rates, inflation and relative currency values must be suitably adjusted.
And every single economic report indicates that the west has a higher disposable income for every comparable job description than the subcontinent/east.
Just to give you an example, the average American engineer takes home ( after paying taxes) approximately 40,000 US$. Their disposable income is almost a third of that, given that food, gas,bills and rent doesnt add up to 40K per year- it adds up to far less.
In India for example, the average engineer takes home significantly less( again inflation and currency-rate adjusted) and has far less of a disposable income. You may be supporting family back home and as such the equivalent benchmark for you would be workers in the same job field in India who are supporting their family back in the villages or small towns. And in such a category, you'd find that for same # of dependents and same qualifications, you ( a western employed worker) has a higher disposable income absolutely( ie, taking into account the inflation, real value of money and exchange rates) than your counterpart in the subcontinent. Which is why in the west there is a much higher % of people with their own vehicles, television with 300 channels, plasmatron tvs, ipods,computers, feng shui decorations, etc etc. All those are from disposable incomes. Not necessary ammenities. Necessary ammenities are defined as what it takes to put food in yer belly, roof over yer head and clothes on yer body. Beyond that, the rest are disposable incomes.

The prime reason why the west has much better entertainment infrastructure ( movies, sports, leisure activities, etc.) is because the western economy generates far more disposable income than the eastern economies ( why and how are domains of economic policy discussions and its rammifications, not here).

 

[C_C]

Wrong on all count. Basic ameneties are provided by the govt and you get same road, electricity, phone, water etc regardless of your class (middle, lower, upper etc etc) or income and not because people are not able to afford it. Subcontinent is a developing region and people are deprived of those basic amenities not because they are poor or they have less disposable income but because of lack of infrastructure and slowly we are getting better (in 80s we used to live months without electricity, now it is couple of hours every day, huge improvement)

Rest of your post is quite irrlevant to the discussion so there is no point in reading Mr. Sen's theories of economy, doesn't mean I dont respect his work. I do, but just that I have no interest in that subject and I dont think reading his book is going to help in this discussion.

Same road ? Tell me how many freeways are there in India and what is the road-to-population ratio ( miles/km of paved road per capita) in India compared to the west. The lack of infrastucture directly boils down to disposable income in the economy. Ie, income that doesnt go directly to clothe, feed and put a roof over you and dependents. This is undisputable in economic theory.
His book is relevant in explaining the impact of disposable incomes on the economies and how infrastructure depends on disposable income ultimately.
Which ties in directly to the fact that living in India is harder life than living in the west for an equivalent job.

 

[Sanz]

Well you are the first Indian dude i've ever run across who thinks its faster to travel in India than in the west. Everyone i've met or know consider the Western transportation system to be far quicker in commute times.

Trust you to completely twist the argument..In case you forgot you claimed following :-

"The average Indian spends over an hour getting to the job or back. I spent 1.5 hours in the bus every morning going to my highschool(i lived in Kolkata) and i've found the same commute times when i visited Delhi a few times over the summer. "

In case you missed, the key word there was JOB. Now do you have any data to make that claim of its just a figment of your imagination ? As I said my post was based on my experience in commuting to various downtowns from my residence and I dont think commute time in US was any less than the commute time in India and I worked in Delhi, chennai and Mumbai.
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Ranking/2003/pdf/R04T050.pdf
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2005/Commutesextremes.pdf
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Ranking/2003/pdf/R04T160.pdf
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Ranking/2002/R04T160.htm

(Above are for ONE WAY Commute, within the city)

Disposable incomes calculated in real money terms can only be applied within one economy. If two seperate economies are being compared, exchange rates, inflation and relative currency values must be suitably adjusted.
And every single economic report indicates that the west has a higher disposable income for every comparable job description than the subcontinent/east.
Just to give you an example, the average American engineer takes home ( after paying taxes) approximately 40,000 US$. Their disposable income is almost a third of that, given that food, gas,bills and rent doesnt add up to 40K per year- it adds up to far less.
In India for example, the average engineer takes home significantly less( again inflation and currency-rate adjusted) and has far less of a disposable income. You may be supporting family back home and as such the equivalent benchmark for you would be workers in the same job field in India who are supporting their family back in the villages or small towns. And in such a category, you'd find that for same # of dependents and same qualifications, you ( a western employed worker) has a higher disposable income absolutely( ie, taking into account the inflation, real value of money and exchange rates) than your counterpart in the subcontinent.

The prime reason why the west has much better entertainment infrastructure ( movies, sports, leisure activities, etc.) is because the western economy generates far more disposable income than the eastern economies ( why and how are domains of economic policy discussions and its rammifications, not here).

You know what I can pooh pooh all the claims made above, but a. I dont have time b. dont see the relevance.

 

[C_C]

You know what I can pooh pooh all the claims made above, but a. I dont have time b. dont see the relevance.

No you cannot. Disposable income for the west is higher than that of the east. Disposable incomes determine the comfort level of existance for any society that bases its economic structure on 'payment for work done'(as opposed to doing what you wanna do and money comming from the government). That is a categoric fact in the economic circles.

The average Indian spends over an hour getting to the job or back. I spent 1.5 hours in the bus every morning going to my highschool(i lived in Kolkata) and i've found the same commute times when i visited Delhi a few times over the summer. "

In case you missed, the key word there was JOB. Now do you have any data to make that claim of its just a figment of your imagination ? As I said my post was based on my experience in commuting to various downtowns from my residence and I dont think commute time in US was any less than the commute time in India and I worked in Delhi, chennai and Mumbai.

My post was based on my personal experience and experience of every single subcontinental person i've ever come in cotact with ( barring you) who's travelled to the west or lived in the west.

 

[Sanz]

Same road ? Tell me how many freeways are there in India and what is the road-to-population ratio ( miles/km of paved road per capita) in India compared to the west.

I guess my english is pretty bad, I meant In USA same basic amenities are available to all the people regardless of what their siposable income is.

The lack of infrastucture directly boils down to disposable income in the economy. Ie, income that doesnt go directly to clothe, feed and put a roof over you and dependents. This is undisputable in economic theory.
His book is relevant in explaining the impact of disposable incomes on the economies and how infrastructure depends on disposable income ultimately.
Which ties in directly to the fact that living in India is harder life than living in the west for an equivalent job.

Blah Blah Blah...USA is a developed country, india is still developing. People in China have much less disposable income than Indians yet, china has better roads, electricity, drinking water etc etc. Why go that far, Cross the border and go to Pakistan, It has better roads, better electricity and better infrastructure than India depite having equal or less disposable income (again trusting my friends from Pakistan and India who had opportunity to visit both the countries).

 

[Sanz]

No you cannot. Disposable income for the west is higher than that of the east. Disposable incomes determine the comfort level of existance for any society that bases its economic structure on 'payment for work done'(as opposed to doing what you wanna do and money comming from the government). That is a categoric fact in the economic circles.

And that is the reason people dont go to Stadiums to watch test matches, yet pack stadiums for ODIs. I guess the disposable income gets a jum every time there is an ODI played in in India.

And guess what amartya sen's books will prove that.

 

[C_C]

And that is the reason people dont go to Stadiums to watch test matches, yet pack stadiums for ODIs. I guess the disposable income gets a jum every time there is an ODI played in in India.

And guess what amartya sen's books will prove that.

I explained the phenomeon in this post:

Because people will take the time out from their jobs,schools, etc., sink 100-200 rupees for a ticket if there is a great spectacle at hand. People used to come and watch Tendulkar bat in his pomp. Afridi has the flair and if he clicks, its gonna be an insanely entertaining mayhem, so people come. But there is simply no point in comming for a day when the result is not gonna be decieded in a day. Its much easier and convinient to catch the action in bits and pieces over the course of the game unless something magnificient is happening. That is the subcontinental mentality towards test cricket. Doesnt mean it isnt popular- all it means is people would rather sit around a radio at the local restaurant during the lunchbreak following the action, peeking at the tv 10-15 times a day in small timeslots than sink an entire day watching a contest that wont be decieded.


I was discussing with you the cause of that which invariably ties in with disposable incomes and its rammifications.

 

[Deja moo]

That's not true, I lived in India for close to 25 years and as per my experience people were not interested in watching TEST Cricket at all except for the 5th day (or Final day of the test). They do flock to the stadiums when an extra ordinary performance is going on..e.g. Lax 281 and Dravid 180 @ Edens, Stadiums were empty until the 3rd day but from 4th afternoon onwards..it was packed.

Well, I live in India, and I find it true, thank you. During my 6 years in college, I could be pretty sure that if there was a significant drop in attendance any particular day, it would be because a game was on. Sure enough, I'd land at my friends' apartment, and invariabely the telly would be tuned to one, ODI or TEST, more so during the 2004 series. Have you been to an Indian stadium ? Have you used one of the 'toilets' ? Have you ever roamed all ver the stands for a drink of water just because they wouldnt let you carry yours inside ? Watching a cricket match in India is not a pleasurable experience. Still folks throng the stadia for ODIs simply because of guaranteed entertainment, even if the ODI involves Zimbabwe or Kenya. Now would your assertion then be that Ind-Ken ODI cricket is better than Ind-Pak test cricket ?

20 years ?? I guess you need to watch the series in 80s and late 90s. They were fairly competitive for the most part. Yes 2000s were fairly one sided but the last ashes series topped every ashes I have followed so far.

Over 20 years approx, before the last Ashes series, which no one disputes, 16-5.

Yeah a 3-2 and 2-1 until the 4th test (3-1 after 5th test) are one sided sided games worse than 0-0 series played on dead tracks.

Again, as I said, people need to shed their myopia and not form their conclusions based on just one frikkin series . Talk of jumping the gun.

 

[Sanz]

Have you been to an Indian stadium ? Have you used one of the 'toilets' ? Have you ever roamed all ver the stands for a drink of water just because they wouldnt let you carry yours inside ? Watching a cricket match in India is not a pleasurable experience. Still folks throng the stadia for ODIs simply because of guaranteed entertainment, even if the ODI involves Zimbabwe or Kenya. Now would your assertion then be that Ind-Ken ODI cricket is better than Ind-Pak test cricket ?

But we are not talking about ODIs..Test Cricket in the subcontinent is not popular and that is a fact. And yes I have been to an Indian Stadium..last one I went to was Ind-SL @ Wankhede in 1998. Still Remember Chauhan's hostile spell..before that I almost watched every match played @ my home ground (Keenan Stadium @ Jamshedpur)..I even used to watch Domestic games..One particular match(Duleep Trophy If my memory serves me right) I remember was where Rashid Patel and Raman Lamba had a fight..Kapil was leading North Zone...Shastri West Zone...

No..Ind-Pak test cricket is better than Ind-Ken but fact is that people do ignore test matches in general even if it involves two high quality teams yet flock to the stadiums to watch Ind-ken play

Over 20 years approx, before the last Ashes series, which no one disputes, 16-5.

I guess you need to check your figures about 20 year...

Again, as I said, people need to shed their myopia and not form their conclusions based on just one frikkin series . Talk of jumping the gun.

Its friggin 125 years of test cricket I am talking about..Its you whose conclusion is based on 3 series...out of which two were rather ordinary. Those two recent series did make a lot of noise in the media all over the world..not for the cricketing reasons though...

 

[Deja moo]

But we are not talking about ODIs..Test Cricket in the subcontinent is not popular and that is a fact. And yes I have been to an Indian Stadium..last one I went to was Ind-SL @ Wankhede in 1998. Still Remember Chauhan's hostile spell..before that I almost watched every match played @ my home ground (Keenan Stadium @ Jamshedpur)..I even used to watch Domestic games..One particular match(Duleep Trophy If my memory serves me right) I remember was where Rashid Patel and Raman Lamba had a fight..Kapil was leading North Zone...Shastri West Zone...

No..Ind-Pak test cricket isn't better than Ind-Ken but fact is that people do ignore test matches in general even if it involves two high quality teams yet flock to the stadiums to watch Ind-ken play

But the point is that stadium attendance cannot be equated with popularity in the SC. When theres television, why take the trouble of going to the ground ?

I guess you need to check your figures about 20 year...

I got them from C_C's post.

Its friggin 125 years of test cricket I am talking about..Its you whose conclusion is based on 3 series...out of which two were rather ordinary. Those two recent series did make a lot of noise in the media all over the world..not for the cricketing reasons though...

Thats your opinion. To me those 2 series were a lot better than most series I've seen, irrespective of media noise. And 125 years would be relevant if you're talikng fo the same bunch of guys. Have you watched those series before 86 ? Do those form the majority of your viewing or the ones after ? If they don't, you're simply going on past glory.

 

[Sanz]

But the point is that stadium attendance cannot be equated with popularity in the SC. When theres television, why take the trouble of going to the ground ?

To watch some live cricket...for the same reasons you would go and watch an ODI in a stadium..for the same reasons Barmy Army and aussie fans go to their stadiums to watch test cricket. In 2004 India were playing Pak after 6 years and still the stands were empty. I remember Pakistani cricketer making remarks that no one wants to watch test cricket in Pakistan.

Thats your opinion. To me those 2 series were a lot better than most series I've seen, irrespective of media noise. And 125 years would be relevant if you're talikng fo the same bunch of guys. Have you watched those series before 86 ? Do those form the majority of your viewing or the ones after ? If they don't, you're simply going on past glory.

Well, yeah I dont think 2004 and 2005 series come even close to some of the Ind-Pak series I have watched. I would even put Ind-Pak 1986 and 1989 series above 2004 and 2005 series. In those series Pak had real attack testing our batsmen..as opposed to Indian batsmen feasting against Sami and a half fit Akhtar..There was no contest really.
As for Ashes..honestly I dont recollect much of anything played before 1985-86..I do remember reading reports about those matches in the newspapers..but thats all I know about Pre-1985-86 ashes..but in 1986 I clearly remember Chris Broad and Bill Athey opened for England and Eng won that series..After that It has been a one sided affair for the most part but there have been phases where England have competed well and that's all I care. When you are talking about Ashes rivalry, Past glory cant be discounted..Just like Ind-Pak contest is worse than Aus-NZ contest if you take out Imran-Gavaskar rivalry.

 

[C_C]

To watch some live cricket...for the same reasons you would go and watch an ODI in a stadium..for the same reasons Barmy Army and aussie fans go to their stadiums to watch test cricket. In 2004 India were playing Pak after 6 years and still the stands were empty. I remember Pakistani cricketer making remarks that no one wants to watch test cricket in Pakistan.

And the whole stuff is irrelevant, given how many folks follow Test cricket through tv/radio in the subcontinent. People are not interested to take time out and go spend a whole day watching cricket when there is no result decieded. But they do follow it while working through tvs and radios. There is no rule stating that one has to go to the ground to be a fan of the game.

 

[Sanz]

And the whole stuff is irrelevant, given how many folks follow Test cricket through tv/radio in the subcontinent. People are not interested to take time out and go spend a whole day watching cricket when there is no result decieded. But they do follow it while working through tvs and radios. There is no rule stating that one has to go to the ground to be a fan of the game.

Is that why TRP Ratings of Test cricket are much lower compared to ODIs ?

 

[C_C]

Is that why TRP Ratings of Test cricket are much lower compared to ODIs ?

??!?
You actually pay attention to the wonky and rickety rating system in place in India ? Why not just take a stroll through the city while a match is on ? If you honestly havnt seen bajillions of people with a radio strapped to their ears or huddled around a tv screen when test matches are going on, then it is yet another thing that is unique for someone who's lived in India- for that kind of a thing is present in every galli-mohollah.