I shall share some snippets here.
I shall share more if and when I ever get the entire book.
But first, a word or two on cricket books in India.
+
I suppose a lot of us are still upset, so let me share something amusing.
This concerns this book, one that I had been unaware of until I came across a report by Andrew Lang in The Times.
In a piece in 1922, EV Lucas hailed the author as the Indian Nyren.
+
I shall share some snippets here.
I shall share more if and when I ever get the entire book.
But first, a word or two on cricket books in India.
+
In 1867 a Hindi coaching book was published in Agra. It was translated in Urdu in 1868.
In 1889, a Marathi coaching book was published in Baroda.
+
In between all this, this book came out in 1891. As you can see, it has a long name.
I shall refer to this as Cricket Guide.
Here are the promised excerpts, mostly taken from Lang's piece.
+
Excerpt 1:
"Even those who are very good and noble turn so rash and inconsiderate at certain moments that their brains lose the balance and begin to take fallacious fancies."
+
Excerpt 2:
"Devout lovers of the duty [of umpiring] call last but one at the fourth ball, a very common practice, although by mistake prevailing."
+
Maybe this used to be standard practice. It certainly seems helpful.
+
"Each and every one of the umpires must avoid using insulting terms, or playing on bets, with any one of the fielders, in his capacity of being an umpire."
Was insulting cricketers commonplace for umpires? It would have been a refreshing revenge in reverse timeline.
+
Was it really necessary to *legally* prevent the umpires from betting with fielders? Why? Did it usually happen?
Additionally, was it okay to bet with batsmen? Or the other umpire? How did this syndicate operate?
+
"The fielders must take special care not to exchange jokes with one another or try funny tricks that do secretly divide their attention and produce a horrible defect in their fielding."
I do not like Mr Mohammad at all. :(
+
"During one and the same over the bowler is allowed to change his ends as often as he may desire, but cannot possibly bowl two overs in succession."
First, some context. Until 1889, a bowler was allowed to bowl consecutive overs *twice* in an innings.
+
But Mr Mohammad seems to have taken things a bit further.
But my favourite bit is "as often as he may desire".
Does this mean that he could bowl the five balls from alternate ends?
+
Excerpt 6:
"The bowler is allowed to make the batsman stand in any direction he may choose from the wicket he is bowling from."
+
Excerpt 7:
"Two trial balls are only allowed in every match to each party."
This is nice. Trial balls still exist in gully cricket, and back then, used to be in vogue in serious cricket as well.
+
Mr Mohammad puts an upper limit of two. He would have prevented Armstrong from doing what he did.
+
"I would like this man [wicketkeeper] to be of a grave demeanour and humble mind, say the Captain of the Club, whose duties are to guide the fielders, order the change of their places if necessary guard himself well against the furious attacks of the sweeping balls.
+
"He should also stand with the stumps under his arms."
I get the duties, the extra responsibilities, but what is with the demeanour and humility? Why should the others get away without being humble?
"Stumps under his arms" was probably poor phrasing.
+
"He [the point fielder] must be a very smart and very clever man, of a quick sight and slender form. His place is in front of the popping-crease, about seven yards from the striker.
+
At seven yards this is more of a silly point, but that is not the point (intended).
+
Or was there a chance of the fast man bowling wide enough to decapitate the fielder?
Also, why should he be smart and clever?
And
WHY IS THIS A LAW?
+
"The fielders must never sting the player with taunts, if they turn him out, for this often results in something disagreeable to the human mind."
Spirit of Cricket, basically. I do not have a problem with this, because it is a law, and therefore not vague.
+
"If one of the strikers is run out , then the remaining one must not leave his wicket, unless next player comes in, and even then both the parties must agree to the proposal of the striker leaving his position to complete his innings."
+
Excerpt 12:
"Behave like gentlemen after the game is over; avoid clapping and laughing in faces of the persons you have defeated.
+
More from Abhishek Mukherjee
More from Book
People have wondered why I have spent 3 days mostly pushing back on this idea that "defund the police" is bad marketing.
The reason is, it's an example of this magic trick, the oldest trick in the book.
It's a competition between what I call compass statements. And it matters.
There are a lot of people who think "defund the police" is a bad slogan.
But it's a directional intention. A compass statement.
The real effect of calling it a bad slogan, whether or not intentional (but usually intentional), is to reduce a compass statement down to a slogan.
Whenever there is a real problem and a clear solution, there will be people who benefit from the problem and therefore oppose the solution in a variety of ways.
And this is true of any real problem, not just the problem of lawless militarized white supremacist police.
There are people who oppose it directly using a wide variety of tactics, one of which is misconstruing anything—quite literally anything—said by those who propose solutions—any solutions.
They'd appreciate it if you mistake their deliberate misrepresentation for confusion.
The reason they'd appreciate if if you mistake their deliberate misrepresentation for confusion is, it wastes time that could have been spend on the solution trying to persuade them, with different arguments and metaphors or solutions.
Which they intend to misconstrue.
The reason is, it's an example of this magic trick, the oldest trick in the book.
It's a competition between what I call compass statements. And it matters.
There\u2019s a magic trick that\u2019s going to get played on us every day during the 2020 election cycle. It\u2019s a fairly simple trick, once you see it.
— A.R. Moxon (@JuliusGoat) February 17, 2019
I\u2019d like to talk about leadership and governance.
And the compass, the navigation, the travel, and the corrections.
(thread)
There are a lot of people who think "defund the police" is a bad slogan.
But it's a directional intention. A compass statement.
The real effect of calling it a bad slogan, whether or not intentional (but usually intentional), is to reduce a compass statement down to a slogan.
Whenever there is a real problem and a clear solution, there will be people who benefit from the problem and therefore oppose the solution in a variety of ways.
And this is true of any real problem, not just the problem of lawless militarized white supremacist police.
There are people who oppose it directly using a wide variety of tactics, one of which is misconstruing anything—quite literally anything—said by those who propose solutions—any solutions.
They'd appreciate it if you mistake their deliberate misrepresentation for confusion.
The reason they'd appreciate if if you mistake their deliberate misrepresentation for confusion is, it wastes time that could have been spend on the solution trying to persuade them, with different arguments and metaphors or solutions.
Which they intend to misconstrue.
One can make an analysis of how many right wing groups published books before Modi in power and after Modi in power.
Would Akhilesh Mishra, Abhinav Prakash and many others have got a chance to write in an English daily before?
The VC of JNU, IIAS, Nehru center, RRML are all
Right wingers.
This, while some in our own fold were criticizing and backstabbing an excellent book (disagreeable in places) by Harsh Madhusudhan and Rajeev Mantri.
There have been at least 4 lit fests and think tanks developed by right wing in six years. Pondy and +
Mangalore are the prime of them.
There are more media channels and more anchors in neutral channels backing the government then those against in six years.
We have at least three big lawyers: Harish Salve, Mahesh Jethmalani and Mukul Rahotgi fighting cases. We have won
more legal battles than not and are able to get many things done that would look impossible just two years ago.
Yes, textbooks, deregulation, harrasment and cabalism of the left including tech suppression and killing spree of fascistic governments remain and everything is not
a bed of roses. But what was a bed of roses for the opposition is not a bed of roses for them too.
Udhav would have loved to see Republic closed. It hasn't.. Mamata would love to have killed the whose who in BJP - Not possible.. She would not like big wigs of TMC join BJP - Not
Would Akhilesh Mishra, Abhinav Prakash and many others have got a chance to write in an English daily before?
The VC of JNU, IIAS, Nehru center, RRML are all
Every time I read @NAN_DINI_ ji's writings, I'm reminded that while juvenile writers like Twinkle Khanna and Saggy Ghose are published by MSM, talent like this is restricted to personal blogs. Will this ever be remedied? https://t.co/1oAO7I4i6G
— \u0926\u093f\u0935\u094d\u092f\u093e (@divya_16_) December 9, 2020
Right wingers.
This, while some in our own fold were criticizing and backstabbing an excellent book (disagreeable in places) by Harsh Madhusudhan and Rajeev Mantri.
There have been at least 4 lit fests and think tanks developed by right wing in six years. Pondy and +
Mangalore are the prime of them.
There are more media channels and more anchors in neutral channels backing the government then those against in six years.
We have at least three big lawyers: Harish Salve, Mahesh Jethmalani and Mukul Rahotgi fighting cases. We have won
more legal battles than not and are able to get many things done that would look impossible just two years ago.
Yes, textbooks, deregulation, harrasment and cabalism of the left including tech suppression and killing spree of fascistic governments remain and everything is not
a bed of roses. But what was a bed of roses for the opposition is not a bed of roses for them too.
Udhav would have loved to see Republic closed. It hasn't.. Mamata would love to have killed the whose who in BJP - Not possible.. She would not like big wigs of TMC join BJP - Not
You May Also Like
And here they are...
THE WINNERS OF THE 24 HOUR STARTUP CHALLENGE
Remember, this money is just fun. If you launched a product (or even attempted a launch) - you did something worth MUCH more than $1,000.
#24hrstartup
The winners 👇
#10
Lattes For Change - Skip a latte and save a life.
https://t.co/M75RAirZzs
@frantzfries built a platform where you can see how skipping your morning latte could do for the world.
A great product for a great cause.
Congrats Chris on winning $250!
#9
Instaland - Create amazing landing pages for your followers.
https://t.co/5KkveJTAsy
A team project! @bpmct and @BaileyPumfleet built a tool for social media influencers to create simple "swipe up" landing pages for followers.
Really impressive for 24 hours. Congrats!
#8
SayHenlo - Chat without distractions
https://t.co/og0B7gmkW6
Built by @DaltonEdwards, it's a platform for combatting conversation overload. This product was also coded exclusively from an iPad 😲
Dalton is a beast. I'm so excited he placed in the top 10.
#7
CoderStory - Learn to code from developers across the globe!
https://t.co/86Ay6nF4AY
Built by @jesswallaceuk, the project is focused on highlighting the experience of developers and people learning to code.
I wish this existed when I learned to code! Congrats on $250!!
THE WINNERS OF THE 24 HOUR STARTUP CHALLENGE
Remember, this money is just fun. If you launched a product (or even attempted a launch) - you did something worth MUCH more than $1,000.
#24hrstartup
The winners 👇
#10
Lattes For Change - Skip a latte and save a life.
https://t.co/M75RAirZzs
@frantzfries built a platform where you can see how skipping your morning latte could do for the world.
A great product for a great cause.
Congrats Chris on winning $250!
#9
Instaland - Create amazing landing pages for your followers.
https://t.co/5KkveJTAsy
A team project! @bpmct and @BaileyPumfleet built a tool for social media influencers to create simple "swipe up" landing pages for followers.
Really impressive for 24 hours. Congrats!
#8
SayHenlo - Chat without distractions
https://t.co/og0B7gmkW6
Built by @DaltonEdwards, it's a platform for combatting conversation overload. This product was also coded exclusively from an iPad 😲
Dalton is a beast. I'm so excited he placed in the top 10.
#7
CoderStory - Learn to code from developers across the globe!
https://t.co/86Ay6nF4AY
Built by @jesswallaceuk, the project is focused on highlighting the experience of developers and people learning to code.
I wish this existed when I learned to code! Congrats on $250!!
1/ Some initial thoughts on personal moats:
Like company moats, your personal moat should be a competitive advantage that is not only durable—it should also compound over time.
Characteristics of a personal moat below:
2/ Like a company moat, you want to build career capital while you sleep.
As Andrew Chen noted:
3/ You don’t want to build a competitive advantage that is fleeting or that will get commoditized
Things that might get commoditized over time (some longer than
4/ Before the arrival of recorded music, what used to be scarce was the actual music itself — required an in-person artist.
After recorded music, the music itself became abundant and what became scarce was curation, distribution, and self space.
5/ Similarly, in careers, what used to be (more) scarce were things like ideas, money, and exclusive relationships.
In the internet economy, what has become scarce are things like specific knowledge, rare & valuable skills, and great reputations.
Like company moats, your personal moat should be a competitive advantage that is not only durable—it should also compound over time.
Characteristics of a personal moat below:
I'm increasingly interested in the idea of "personal moats" in the context of careers.
— Erik Torenberg (@eriktorenberg) November 22, 2018
Moats should be:
- Hard to learn and hard to do (but perhaps easier for you)
- Skills that are rare and valuable
- Legible
- Compounding over time
- Unique to your own talents & interests https://t.co/bB3k1YcH5b
2/ Like a company moat, you want to build career capital while you sleep.
As Andrew Chen noted:
People talk about \u201cpassive income\u201d a lot but not about \u201cpassive social capital\u201d or \u201cpassive networking\u201d or \u201cpassive knowledge gaining\u201d but that\u2019s what you can architect if you have a thing and it grows over time without intensive constant effort to sustain it
— Andrew Chen (@andrewchen) November 22, 2018
3/ You don’t want to build a competitive advantage that is fleeting or that will get commoditized
Things that might get commoditized over time (some longer than
Things that look like moats but likely aren\u2019t or may fade:
— Erik Torenberg (@eriktorenberg) November 22, 2018
- Proprietary networks
- Being something other than one of the best at any tournament style-game
- Many "awards"
- Twitter followers or general reach without "respect"
- Anything that depends on information asymmetry https://t.co/abjxesVIh9
4/ Before the arrival of recorded music, what used to be scarce was the actual music itself — required an in-person artist.
After recorded music, the music itself became abundant and what became scarce was curation, distribution, and self space.
5/ Similarly, in careers, what used to be (more) scarce were things like ideas, money, and exclusive relationships.
In the internet economy, what has become scarce are things like specific knowledge, rare & valuable skills, and great reputations.
