Monday, March 26, 2007


To me 'classics' are some creations of art which goes beyond the boundaries of time, language, race, etc. etc. In short, a classic is something that can be universally appreciated, at any given time (of course, not before it has been created). When it comes to a specific manner of expression, called sarcasm, certain parts of our lives seem to dominate it. Cricket, and in particular the Indian version of it, has shown no aversion towards it time and time again. And when you come across something as spontaneous and appealing as the following, you can't help but call it a classic. With rather unbearable disappointment, let me quote the following questionnaire:

Q. What's the Indian version of hat-trick?
A. Three runs in three balls.

Q. Why don't Indian players need pre-tour travel injections?
A. Because they never catch anything.

Q.What's the Indian version of LBW?
A. Lost, Beaten, Walloped.

Q. What do you call an Indian with 100 runs against his name?
A. A bowler.

Q. What do Indian batsmen and drug addicts have in common?
A. Both spend most of their time wondering when their next shot will be.

Q. Who spent the most time on the crease of anyone in the Indian touring party?
A. The lady who ironed the cricket whites.

Q. Why are the Indian cricketers cleverer than Houdini?
A. Because they can get out without trying.

The above was being circulated over e-mail not a long time ago, and I doubt if it'll ever go out of circulation considering the regular debacles of the team. That's not saying I don't have hopes of burying these very words. And I do want the dubious classic status removed.

When can that happen? Only time would tell, I daresay!

No comments: