Dil Dhadakne Do - A Review

Such was the success of Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara, that Zoya Akhtar's third directorial venture became one of the most anticipated films of the year. Months of waiting for another great cinema experience that touches upon existential problems of the crème de la crème of Indian society, telling us once again, that having money does not lead to a happy life (a much needed truth in this country), finally came to an end on June 5th. Too bad that it had to end in disappointment.

Dil Dhadakne Do is the story of a highly dysfunctional and obscenely wealthy Punjabi family from Delhi that belongs to an even more dysfunctional, not to mention highly regressive and patriarchal world. That right there could make one wonder whether this premise could even spawn a good Zoya Akhtar film. The answer, to put it concisely, is no.

What made Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara wonderful was its characters that felt like real people, simply because Zoya Akhtar knew these characters and the world they belonged to. On the other hand, Dil Dhadakne Do is a product of stark indifference to the tenet "write what you know," for Akhtar does not know these characters, and her knowledge of their world is superficial at best.

To make up for this, Akhtar has created a world that is part real, part Bollywood fantasy, because of which the characters, as is so typical of Bollywood films, exist in some sort of limbo between the world they're supposedly rooted in, and the light-Bollywood-dramedy realm, which superficially alters their very essence, leading to very inorganic situations and character graphs.

The dialogue, written by Farhan Akhtar, makes matters worse. In a bid to combine his father's brand of dialogue with a more contemporary style of speaking, he gets stuck in the same limbo as Zoya, due to the very same reason - he does not know how these characters are supposed to talk. In fact, it is transparent that the better scenes in the film are the ones that draw from the experiences of the writers, such as the scene where siblings Ayesha (Priyanka Chopra) and Kabir (Ranveer Singh) share a bowl of ice cream.

The film is packed with more characters and threads than Zoya Akhtar can handle, and there is an annoying feeling of characters disappearing for much longer than they should. Worse still, is its slow pace, because of which one often zones out. It also makes the film too long, so that the climax has to be heavily contrived and very rushed.

Shefali Shah, Ranveer Singh, and surprisingly, Priyanka Chopra, have delivered really good performances, which seem even better considering the mediocre dialogue and characterisations. Anushka Sharma also does well in her small role, and her sizzling chemistry with Ranveer Singh is probably the best thing about the film.

Despite all her talent, Zoya Akhtar has definitely bitten off more than she can chew this time around. Just like her brother, she is also a victim of the conditioning that Bollywood 'insiders' undergo, developing certain ideas about the sensibilities of the Hindi film audience, which leads them to juggle two worlds - the one that they inhabit, and the one that exists only in Bollywood films. 

The juggle was not successful this time, and Akhtar dropped the ball. In setting out with a premise that belongs more in a Dibakar Bannerjee film than a Zoya Akhtar one, she ensured that the film would be muddled and confused. Trying to deal with matters like the entrenched patriarchy in Delhi's high society only made it worse, and one the most anticipated films of the year also turned out to be one of the most disappointing.

The Cup Chronicles - Epilogue

India have been knocked out of the 2015 world cup, and that means it's time to wrap up The Cup Chronicles with some last words, which will seek to analyse India's performance in the world cup, including the reasons behind their loss, for even though they played extremely well throughout the tournament, and deserve to have their fans be proud of them, it is important to look at the holes in Indian cricket so that they can be plugged in the future.

India's loss in the semi-final was not to Australia, but to their inner demons. As I said in my last post, India were not playing against this Australian team, but what it represented - an all-powerful enemy that had pummelled them left, right, and centre for the last 15 years, and even before that. India's fear of 'The Mighty Aussies' has surfaced on many occasions in recent years, especially while playing in Australia.

In terms of actual might, Australia had only three players that should've worried India - Steve Smith, Glenn Maxwell, and Mitchell Starc. Even Mitchell Johnson, one of the best fast bowlers in the world, had not managed to get under India's skin in the test series. The Australian batting line-up had actually counted more on cameos of various kinds than consistency throughout the world cup.

It has to be said that Australia were not a team to really fear going into this match, which was proven by how the Indian bowlers came back in the last 15 overs, bringing down the target from a potential 400 to 329, and then again by Shikhar Dhawan, who played fearlessly until the game got to a point where Australia did not know where their first wicket would come from.

But there are moments that turn the course of history, and more often than not, they're not decided by luck. Dhawan's soft dismissal was that moment, for it turned the game on its head. It may have been a rush of blood to the head, or a case of cockiness, but it made Australia sense weakness, and they did what they do best - apply pressure. The rest is history.

Or is it? The man who walked in next had been touted by many as Sachin Tendulkar's replacement in the Indian team. A man who relishes pressure, thrives under lights, is a master of the chase, and has been recognised as one of the modern greats. He is also the man who disappointed his team when it needed him the most. Apart from one century against Pakistan (which was probably his worst hundred), he did not cross the 50 run mark even once in 7 innings.

Yes, I understand that players are allowed to fail sometimes, and I'm hardly part of the frenzied mob that attacks cricketers' houses and burn their effigies. I acknowledge that he is still the best batsman we have today, and I still love to watch him bat. But there are cricketers and there are cricket legends. The latter step up to the mark when they're needed the most. Only Virat Kohli can decide which one he wants to be, for even the gentleman's game is cutthroat, and failure in the sport's biggest tournament is simply not an option for those who want to be in the company of legends.

Moving on to the positives of India's world cup campaign, their brilliant run in the group stage and their victory in the quarter-final can be attributed to their bowling more than anything else. They took 70 wickets in 7 matches, a feat that one would normally not associate with team India, which is known more for its batting prowess.

Experts have just not been able to find a reason for this sudden, apparently miraculous turn of events, as Indian bowlers had been getting pummelled not only on the entire tour of Australia, but generally against all decent teams at home and overseas for the last two years. The reason, as I see it, is not all that miraculous.

The Indian team, on an average, plays 9 tests and 25 ODIs a year. That is 70 days of international cricket. Including T20 cricket, that number goes up to almost 90. That is more cricket than any other international team plays. Moreover, unlike other teams, which generally employ a rotation policy for its players, especially the fast bowlers, only around 12 to 15 players play for India throughout the year in all formats.

Even more revealing are the following numbers. India played 8 days of cricket in the world cup, spread over 38 days. But in the test series against Australia, they played 19 days of cricket within a month. These numbers point to one thing - Indian players are being worked to the bone. They do not get adequate time to rest and recuperate, and are expected to play large, strenuous amounts of cricket throughout the year.

When a team has this kind of schedule, something rather funny happens. The world cup, which is the biggest tournament in the sport, is actually the least taxing on the players' bodies, because it offers ample breaks in between matches for rest. This helps fast bowlers more than anyone else, and the results are quite clear. The Indian pacers have performed admirably in the world cup because they're getting enough time off the field.

There are those who say that professional sportspersons at the international level needing rest is a bit of an oxymoron, but it is not just a question of physical rest. The primary reason for certain repeated failures of the Indian team in the last few years, especially its fast bowlers, is that they simply do not get the time to address the problems in their game.

While many like to take the bull-headed approach and say that the best way to learn is in a match, this is absolutely ridiculous. In a sport that is so complex and difficult, players need time off to work out the kinks in their game and really play to their potential. This is why almost all other teams in the world have a policy of wrapping their fast bowlers up in cotton wool and taking good care of them.

India is a country of 1.2 billion. For a large part of that population, cricket is a religion. Even the less fanatic have to admit that India is effectively a one sport nation. It is about time that we begin to ask why we are perennial underdogs while playing the team of a nation with a population that is approximately equal to that of our largest city, and in fact, a nation where cricket isn't even the number one sport.

India has enough cricketing talent, but the finishing touches on honing and looking after this talent are missing, because the body that is supposed to do that is too busy filling its already overflowing coffers. There needs to be a change if India wants to take its rightful place as a cricketing superpower.

The Cup Chronicles - The Top Four

We're almost getting to the end of the 2015 world cup, and the best has indeed been saved for the last. It is a rare thing for the top four ranked teams to make it to the semi-finals without any hiccups, which goes to show that when you're playing Down Under, there is no substitute for quality. The eyes of the cricketing world will be on Eden Park and the Sydney Cricket Ground come the 24th and 26th of March, and this is how the semi-finals are shaping up.

New Zealand vs South Africa, Auckland - Superman vs Men In Black:

 vs

One of these two teams will finally end the long wait and make it to a world cup final. The Black Caps have been unbeaten so far, but haven't looked invincible. They managed the narrowest of victories against Australia, and their comprehensive victory against the West Indies highlighted some of the weaknesses in their bowling, but they're playing at home, which is a priceless asset.

The Proteas, the perennial chokers, managed to turn the most evenly matched quarter-final into the most one-sided one with a brilliant bowling performance from Imran Tahir, supported well by J.P Duminy and the fast bowlers. However, the performance of spinners is not something they will be able to count on in the semi-final, as Eden Park's dimensions will make them liable to concede many boundaries.

But, luckily for the Proteas, they have one of the best pace attacks in the world. The swing and ferocity of Dale Steyn and the bounce and pace of Morne Morkel could make life very tough for the Kiwis. The likes of McCullum, Guptill, and Williamson will be tested.

The toss, as it has been throughout this world cup, will be the key. In fact, it would be a very good toss to lose, as batting first in New Zealand has not worked out so well for teams in this tournament. But since this is a big knockout game, I don't think either captain will look to bowl first after winning the toss. The Kiwis especially, will gain confidence from their batting performance against West Indies, and won't hesitate to bat first.

It is here that South Africa's opportunity lies. Their speedsters need to take full advantage of the new ball. AB de Villiers needs to go in with a test match mindset, because not taking wickets early on means carnage in the last 15 overs in this world cup, especially on the small grounds of New Zealand.

New Zealand just need to keep doing what they're doing, as they have a golden opportunity to make it to the final after getting knocked out in the semis on six occasions. They have the upper hand going into this game.

Australia vs India, Sydney - Best vs Best:

 

 vs

This is the big one. The top two ranked teams will fight it out for a spot in the final, where both of them will be overwhelming favourites regardless of who they face. In other words, this is the final before the final.

Expert opinions of this match, as usual, have been extremely myopic. While India's supreme form in the world cup so far is a good thing, it doesn't automatically make this an even contest. Nor does the success Australia have had against India in the last few months make them the favourites.

It must be kept in mind that in the tri-series before the world cup, India's embarrassing losses were to England and not Australia. They gave Australia a tough fight in one of the matches, and the other was washed out, which means that as far as ODI cricket is concerned, Australia did not inflict any major 'mental scars' on India on this tour.

But that does not mean that India do not have an inherent weakness against Australia. The head to head record reads 40-67, and in Australia, it becomes 10-30. More important than any of these numbers is something that cannot be measured, which is the fear of playing Australia in their own backyard.

While the toss will tilt the balance towards the team batting first, technicalities do not matter that much in this match. If India forget the fact that they're playing 'the mighty Aussies,' they are the favourites, because they have looked the strongest in the world cup so far. The likes of Raina, R Sharma, and Dhawan, who are susceptible to pressure, need to just look at it as another match and raise their bats.

This is India's greatest test, possibly even bigger than the 2011 world cup final. If they win, it will be a moment of history, for it could change Indian cricket radically.

Let the battle of the best begin.

The Cup Chronicles - The Knockouts Are Here!

28 days and 42 matches later, eight teams stand tall, some more than others. This is where the ultimate test begins. Who can hold their nerves for hundred overs, in a game with countless variables, that is played in the mind as much as it is on the field? Let's find out.

South Africa vs Sri Lanka, Sydney - A, B, K, S is the new alphabet:

 

 vs

The most evenly matched clash of the quarter-finals. There is very little separating these two teams based on their performance in the tournament, or even their overall head to head record, which is 29-28 in favour of Sri Lanka. Both teams had stuttering starts to their cup campaigns, then looked in supreme form, then suffered a loss each, and finally finished the group stage on a high.

This could very well be a clash of superman AB de Villiers and super centurion Kumara Sangakkara, but as we saw in South Africa's game against Pakistan and Sri Lanka's encounter with hosts Australia, even brilliant performances by these two superstars cannot win games if the rest of the team doesn't perform. 

While Sri Lanka losing to the mighty Aussies was an expected result, South Africa's defeat at the hands of a struggling Pakistan team was a shocker, showing once again, how vulnerable the Proteas are while chasing in big tournaments. The fact that their record in world cup knockout games reads 0/5 since they first played the tournament in 1992 shows that there is a very good reason why the 'chokers' tag has been attached to them for so long.

If I have to pick one of these two teams, I'd say that Sri Lanka have the upper hand, because of their ability to handle pressure in big matches, even while chasing totals (their record in world cup knockout games - 6/9). South Africa, on the other hand, only have a real shot if they bat first and score in excess of 300.

India vs Bangladesh, Melbourne - Tigers vs Cubs:

 

 vs

Indian fans could not have asked for a better opposition in the quarter-finals, for an Asian team that has never played a world cup knockout game, and is still not considered to be at par with the major teams, is the perfect team for India to face in a knockout match.

But remember, remember, when India got dismembered by Bangladesh in the 2007 world cup. Also keep in mind that Zimbabwe made India fight hard for a win in their last group stage game, which just goes to show that in the conditions one finds outside Asia, India cannot afford to take any team lightly. Bangladesh have a good pace attack, and spinners that specialise in stifling batsmen until they make mistakes.

The toss will be very crucial, as India have looked commanding while batting first, and the only two times that Bangladesh gave major teams a tough fight were when they batted first. If however, India bowl first, they need to make sure that they restrict Bangladesh to under 250 runs, for chasing is not easy at the MCG.

India need to play well in this match, but they're still overwhelming favourites to win it.

Australia vs Pakistan, Adelaide - A Starc difference:

 

 vs

This match is being labelled 'the clash of the left arm pacers,' with as many as six of them likely to play. But it will be more a game of the toss, as Pakistan have absolutely no chance of chasing anything over 250 against Australia. While it may be argued that Pakistan could bowl Australia out for a small total like New Zealand did, this is unlikely on a flat Adelaide pitch. It must also be kept in mind that New Zealand won that match by the skin of their teeth.

If Pakistan have any chance in this match, it lies in the best kept secret of this world cup - the weakness in the Australian batting line-up. Australia bat deep, and boast of incredible talents like Warner, Smith, and Clarke, but a team in which Glenn Maxwell is the most consistent performer has something to worry about when they face a good bowling attack.

None of the other Australian batsmen have displayed the kind of consistency that one would expect from a side that is the favourite to win the world cup. The Aussies have counted more on quick-fire cameos, especially at the end of an innings, and they can be in for quite a test when they face the likes of Irfan, Riaz, Sohail Khan, and Afridi.

Having said all this, Australia are the clear favourites to win this match. 

New Zealand vs West Indies, Wellington - A Boult of lightning, a gust of Windies:

 

 vs

This match may very well see the biggest margin of victory among the quarter-finals. Barring the last game against Bangladesh, the Kiwis have demolished the weaker teams while playing at home, while the Windies' so called 'unpredictability' generally means huge wins against weak teams and equally huge losses against strong teams.

Honestly, I don't see any way for the West Indies to win this match. Only a once in a blue moon coming together of good performances with both bat and ball could make them a threat to the Kiwis. Batting first has been risky in New Zealand in the tournament so far, especially against New Zealand. On the other hand, there is no way that West Indies can handle the pressure of chasing a big total in a knockout game. Their only hope is to bowl first and knock New Zealand over for around 150, and then keep their heads.

That is a huge ask, so I say that this will be a fairly easy victory for New Zealand.

The Cup Chronicles - India vs West Indies

 vs

The second week of the world cup saw a 'super weekend', in which several key clashes took place. While UAE's demolition at the hands of team India and the Proteas thrashing the Windies were results that were expected, we also had the clash of the hosts, New Zealand and Australia, which turned out to be one of the greatest world cup matches of all time.

The second super weekend will also see some important matches, including India taking on West Indies at the WACA in Perth. While West Indies do not pose a serious threat to an Indian team that is brimming with confidence, the men in blue cannot afford to take this fixture lightly, as a comprehensive victory will help them keep the momentum, whereas a narrow one would dent their confidence somewhat, and as we all know, India have always been extremely susceptible to the slightest changes in the wind.

Like most games in this world cup so far, this one will depend a lot on the toss. If India bowl first, they're quite likely to win by a big margin, but batting first at the WACA could be tricky against the pace of the West Indian attack. However, India can count on their bowling, which has been excellent in their last two matches. Ashwin and Shami are peaking at the right time, and they have been supported very well by the rest of the attack.

Chris Gayle became the first non-Indian double centurion, and also the first in world cup history in the match against Zimbabwe, but as expected, failed to make an impact against South Africa. While the odds of a Gaylestorm hitting a bowler friendly ground like the WACA, especially when he's likely to be up against against two bowlers (Ashwin and Bhuvneshwar Kumar) who have his number even in batsman friendly conditions of the subcontinent is unlikely, India need to give him his due attention.

The bite of the West Indian batting line up actually comes pretty late, as Darren Sammy and Andre Russell, who bat at 7 and 8 respectively, are probably their most consistent and dangerous batsmen. India need to ensure that they do not leak too many runs to these two, as conceding runs to the lower order has been one of the biggest worries for India in the past. While batting, Kohli and Rahane will be the key men, as they're the most adept at playing fast bowlers in the Indian team.

If India want a comprehensive victory, they need to attack with the ball and look for wickets, as 50 overs can be a long time to survive at the WACA for a team like West Indies. With the bat, India need to be patient against the new ball and capitalise later in the innings. If they bowl first, they should look to restrict West Indies to less than 200, and if they bat first, they should stick with the formula of trying to get a score of around 300.

Second week round-up -

Things are certainly heating up Down Under, as the world cup is getting to the business end. There are three major talking points of the second week. First, the Proteas have seen a glorious revival after their initial stutter against Zimbabwe and a humiliating loss against India. They've scored in excess of 400 in two consecutive matches, once courtesy a blitzkrieg by AB de Villiers, and then a career best knock by Hashim Amla. Their bowlers have been excellent as well. However, there still remains a question mark over their ability to chase.

Second, New Zealand managed to beat co-hosts Australia by the skin of their teeth, despite a breathtaking bowling performance by Mitchell Starc, who looks like he has replaced Johnson as the spearhead of the attack. The Kiwis are now certain to finish at the top of Pool A, which would all but guarantee a spot in the semi-finals. Australia on the other hand, were very unlucky to be deprived of a point when their match against Bangladesh was washed out, highlighting once again, the pig-headedness of the ICC.

Sri Lanka have also seen a revival after their narrow win against Afghanistan, as they beat both Bangladesh and England very comprehensively to emerge as serious contenders in the tournament. With their best players peaking at the right time, they could finish second in Pool A if they beat Australia this Sunday, which would almost ensure a semi-final spot for them. It would put Australia in a spot of bother though, because finishing third in the group would mean that the Aussies would face South Africa in the quarter-finals, and then the Kiwis in New Zealand in the semis should they make it.

Keep watching the world cup and keep reading The Cup Chronicles!

Bhaskar's Oscars

Oscar fever reaches a frenzy in the early part of the year, with everyone rooting for their favourite films, actors, and directors to win the top prize. The 87th Academy Award nominations invited a lot of a criticism over certain 'snubs' and the lack of diversity in the nominations. 

In fact, this is something to be pleased about, because the political motivations of the Academy, especially in the last few years, threatened the credibility of the Oscars. Moreover, the nominations for the Best Picture category are a vast improvement over the last two years, because four of the eight nominees definitely belong in the category.

In this article I will talk about the nominees for Best Picture, Director, and Writing.

Best Original Screenplay -

Birdman by Alejandro González Iñárritu, Nicolás Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris, Jr. and Armando Bo - One of the best Hollywood films I have seen in a while. Apart from being a captivating and extremely economical screenplay, its brilliance lies in the sheer ambitiousness of the project. The screenplay had to be just perfect, as no scene could be edited out later because of the film being presented as one shot. It has immense thematic importance in today's world, as it is centred around art, cinema, and commercialisation.

Boyhood by Richard Linklater - One of the most unique experiments in the history of cinema, this slice of life film deserves a nomination for its unique, yet realistic characters. However, if you think of it as a film that is shot normally, instead of over 12 years, you can't help but think that it is not as well written as Richard Linklater's Before Sunrise trilogy. 

Foxcatcher by E Max Frye and Dan Futterman - I don't know why this film has been nominated in this category. It is a confused and boring biopic that rides solely on the performances of its three leads. Thematically, it doesn't offer you anything significant or complex.

The Grand Budapest Hotel by Wes Anderson and Hugo Guinness - One look at a single scene in this film is enough to tell you who it's made by, and this is coming from someone who has only seen one other Wes Anderson film. With witty and hilarious dialogue that surrounds an intriguing plot, it is a script so well thought out that despite an extremely unusual style and setting, it gives you an engaging experience of a wonderful microcosm.

Nightcrawler by Dan Gilroy - This intense thriller is definitely one of the biggest snubs in the Best Picture category. A gripping character study of a highly intelligent sociopath, this film is also a fascinating portrayal of the moral degeneration of American society. There are very few character driven thrillers that can engage you as well. Neo-noir is back with a bang.

My pick - Nightcrawler

Favourite to win - Nightcrawler or The Grand Budapest Hotel


Best Adapted Screenplay -

American Sniper by Jason Hall - Jingoistic tripe.

 

The Imitation Game by Graham Moore - This film has invited a lot of criticism due to its simplistic portrayal of Alan Turing, which, according to many, does him great injustice. I couldn't disagree more with this viewpoint. Biopics are incredibly hard to make, and I was extremely pleased to see one which had a clear and focused narrative, instead of being too hung up on historical accuracy. Through a simplistic narrative, this film conveyed the injustices one has to face for not bowing down to the rules of society, even if one is a hero.

 

Inherent Vice by Paul Thomas Anderson - An old school mystery with an intricate plot on the surface, this film may be a little too long and complicated for its own good, as one viewing is not enough to appreciate its plot details and thematic nuances.
 

The Theory of Everything by Anthony McCarten - Yes, there had to have been a film made about Stephen Hawking, but I was not very impressed by this one, because it did not seem to have a lot to offer besides the performances. The film lacks focus and meanders in parts.
 

Whiplash by Damien Chazelle - An age-old story told in a wonderfully refreshing manner without resorting to clichés. Very tight and economical, with only two main characters in the story, this film is a great example of how independent cinema can kick Big Hollywood's ass.

My pick - Whiplash

Favourite to win - Whiplash
 

Best Director -

Wes Anderson, The Grand Budapest Hotel - Anderson's unique visual style, apart from being very pleasing to the eye, also complements the film's setting. The film relies heavily on visual comedy, which works so well because of Anderson's excellent use of space and perfect comic timing.

 

Alejandro González Iñárritu, Birdman - What do I say? A film that is presented as one single shot, immersing the viewer in a world from which there is no escape for the protagonist, and combines surrealism with drama that feels like it's unfolding right before one's eyes. Iñárritu translates his vision into a spectacle like very few can.

Richard Linklater, Boyhood - If we're talking of vision, then this man does not fall too far behind. The ambitiousness of the project demanded that he maintain uniformity in the tone of the entire film. The decision to shoot it over 12 years meant that it was imperative for Linklater to make sure that the world of the film was not affected by the influences that could creep in from the real world, which he did. Extracting wonderfully natural performances from actors is something that even the best of the trade can learn from him.

 

Bennett Miller, Foxcatcher - Again, I do not know why this film is nominated. If its screenplay is confused, then its direction adds to the confusion.

 

Morten Tyldum, The Imitation Game - While I liked the film's screenplay, I do not know if the direction deserves the honour of an Oscar nomination. Tyldum does not do anything out of the ordinary, and the film rides on Cumberbatch's performance and a screenplay designed to evoke emotion.

My pick - Alejandro González Iñárritu, Birdman

Favourite to win - Richard Linklater, Boyhood
 

Best Picture -

American Sniper - This one beats Argo when it comes to jingoism and racism, so will it win? If it does, then this will be the last time that I watch the Oscars. A more apt title for this film would've been American Jihadist - White And Might Make Right.

 

Birdman - If I have not already impressed upon you why this film is brilliant, then here goes - start with an impressive and ambitious vision of an extremely gifted filmmaker, pour an intriguing story into a pot, simmer till it turns into a brilliantly rich screenplay, add a bunch of fantastic actors, stir until they breathe life into their characters, adding innovative filming techniques every few seconds, garnish it with a good score and some humour, and serve hot. This is a dish that comes once in a decade.

 

Boyhood - Richard Linklater has not won an Oscar for his Before Sunrise trilogy, and that is a gross injustice which the Academy might try to make up for, as they did with Tarantino for Django Unchained. Boyhood is a very well written film with excellent performances and great direction, but it is not as good as the Before Sunrise trilogy, nor is it the best film among the nominees this year, and I hope that the Academy has considered that instead of setting out to right past wrongs.

The Grand Budapest Hotel - There is a reason why films made by writer-directors are the most memorable. One can't tell where the writing ends and the direction begins. The same script without Anderson's unique directorial style would hardly work. Anderson has treated a melancholic story as a comedy in a setting that is quite fantastic, and made sure that it is a film that is impossible to not like. How many filmmakers can do that?

 

The Imitation Game - As I have indicated before, this film succeeds in doing what it set out to do, which is to impress upon the audience the great injustice that not only Turing, but countless others faced, and continue to face. But as far as awards go, it falls short of the mark, especially considering the films it's up against.

Selma - I understand why this film has been seen as one of the biggest snubs in other categories. If the likes of Foxcatcher can be nominated both for achievement in writing and direction, then Selma definitely cannot be rejected on the grounds of merit. The controversy surrounding the portrayal of Lyndon Johnson could be the reason behind this snub. As I have said many times, a filmmaker's job is to craft a compelling narrative, and for that, they often need artistic license. While Selma is not an incredible film, it is definitely not worse than some of the other films that have received more nominations. 

The Theory of Everything - A film about one of the most brilliant minds in the world, a man who fought all odds in the face of an incurable disease, deserved to be much better than this, for it does not strike a chord, and feels clichéd at times. However, the performances by the actors, Eddie Redmayne in particular, deserve all the accolades that they have received and more.

 

Whiplash - The only independent film to have been nominated for the top prize, this film breaks stereotypes that are often associated with indie films. It is thoroughly engaging despite the fact that, at its core, the story is as old as it gets. It certainly deserves an award for writing, but as far as the Best Picture category goes, I think it'll have to be content with a nomination.

My pick - Birdman

Favourite to win - Birdman or Boyhood

The Cup Chronicles - India vs South Africa

 vs

The first week of the 2015 world cup has seen it all. A hattrick, an 'upset', a seven wicket haul, and the fastest half-century in world cup cricket. All of this just goes to show that no matter how one-sided a world cup may seem before it begins, it is a tournament in which anything can happen, except England doing well.

India's comprehensive victory against arch-rivals Pakistan led to a lot of celebrating and congratulating, which is all good, because getting back to winning ways is something the Indian team sorely needed, and a weakened, almost incompetent Pakistan team was the best opposition they could've asked for in their first game.

India's most important match in this world cup though, takes place on 22nd February, Sunday, at the Melbourne Cricket Ground against the mighty Proteas. This match could very well decide how far India go in the tournament, as the result might determine whether they face Australia in the semi-finals or the final, should they make it that far.

As the new Star Sports advertisement has already told us, India have never beaten South Africa in world cups, but since there have been only three such encounters, one could say that the sampling is rather small. A larger sampling would reveal a head to head of 42-25 in favour of South Africa, which is also the lowest win percentage India has against any opposition. Out of these 25 wins, only 8 have come outside Asia, showing once again, how weak India is against good pace attacks in foreign conditions.

In the build up to the world cup, South Africa looked as good as India looked weak, but the beauty of cricket is that what's in the mind matters as much as what's on the field. India would've gotten a confidence boost after the win against Pakistan, Virat Kohli's return to form, Mohammad Shami's bowling performance, and Dhoni's positive captaincy.

South Africa on the other hand, would be wondering how they lost 4 wickets against Zimbabwe for less than 100 runs, and then let them bat for 48 overs and score 277. The fact that they recently lost an ODI to lowly West Indies after being ahead could be playing on their minds, as could the fact that they lost 4-1 to Australia in the bilateral series a few months ago.

South Africa is a team known for cracking under pressure in big tournaments, whereas India under Dhoni have won three world tournaments, showing their ability to withstand pressure. Dhoni, Kohli, and Raina have handled pressure very well in the past, whereas even the likes of de Villiers and Amla have often succumbed to it.

While all this may become moot if the match is played on a green top, in which case South Africa will be overwhelming favourites to win, the trend of the world cup so far, and indeed ODI cricket in the last few years has been flat pitches on which 300 is a par score. This will be a game where the toss could very well determine the result. If India win it, they have to bat first and get a score in excess of 300. 

The innings will have to be paced very well, as any attempt on the part of the openers to score heavily at the top could lead to a collapse. On the other hand, India cannot afford to go too slowly in the middle overs, because unlike other teams, they cannot seem to score heavily in the last 10 outside the subcontinent, no matter how many wickets they keep in hand.

The Indian bowlers will need to go in with a well thought out plan, and in the case of de Villiers, several well thought out plans. He will be the key wicket, and the Indian bowlers need to do everything in their power to get him out, or at least stifle him. While India's poor death bowling has been the topic of many discussions among experts, I think a bigger problem is their bowling in the first 10 overs. 

The likes of Shami and Yadav concede way too many runs in what should be the quietest period of the game in pacer friendly conditions. If the pacers fail to take wickets, they should at least ensure that they don't give away too many runs, and leave the spinners something to bowl at in the middle overs. Ashwin and Jadeja need to be much better than they were against Pakistan, and not concede more than 90 runs in their 20 overs.

This match will be about pressure, and just like the India-Pakistan match, will go a long way in determining how both of these teams do in the tournament. All eyes to the MCG!

First Week Round-up -

The first week of the world cup has indicated several things, some obvious, the others not so obvious. For one, New Zealand seem to be the team to watch out for after their huge win against Sri Lanka and an annihilation of England. The all important question is being asked now - have they replaced South Africa as second favourites in the tournament? Their excellent all-round performance has shown that they will not be wearing the underdog tag in their match against Australia on the 28th of February in Auckland, which could determine their fate in the tournament.

Secondly, West Indies, Pakistan, and England are in shambles. West Indies have already suffered a loss to Ireland in what is not really being called an upset. Pakistan's abysmal batting display against India and skipper Misbah's post-match interview seem to indicate that the team has reached its lowest point in years, and the captain has had enough of it. Both these teams now seem susceptible to losses against other minnows in their group, and we could have a situation where neither of them makes it past the group stage.

England are proving yet again that they might never get the hang of ODI cricket for more than a season or two, and certainly not in a world cup. Their bowling attack is potent on paper, but has conceded almost 8 runs an over in their two matches so far due to some incredibly stupid tactics. Their batting line-up has extremely capable players like Ian Bell, Joe Root, and Eoin Morgan, but they just cannot seem to get more than one of them to click at the same time.

Lastly, after beating a major team and chasing a 300 plus total for the third time in a world cup (the latter having been done only six times), Ireland are making a point on the world stage. Their comprehensive victory against West Indies, followed by celebrations that did not seem to suggest that the result was anything but expected, sends out a signal to the ICC and the other major teams that they're ready to be more than just an associate member.

The Cup Chronicles - India vs Pakistan

 

        vs










  
The greatest sports rivalry in the world. A Battle Royale, as Star Sports calls it. The last time these two teams met in a world cup, it was the largest television event of the year. Tickets for this encounter in the 2015 world cup were sold out within 12 minutes. India are five for five against Pakistan in world cups, but Pakistan are way ahead in the overall head to head.

All this will ensure that India vs Pakistan at the Adelaide Oval on the 15th of February 2015 will be the most watched and anticipated cricket match of the year, but considering that in the 2013 Champions' Trophy, this fixture, though intended to be a knockout game, turned out to be a dead rubber, will it really be all that important in the larger scheme of things in the world cup?

The answer to that, to put it briefly, is yes. Even though India has been the number one ODI team in the world for the better part of the last four years, and Pakistan has been several spots behind in the ICC rankings, these two teams are more evenly matched for this encounter than they have been in years. This is not because they're equally good, but because they're equally weak.

The Indian team is at a very low point. It has failed to register a single win in its last 10 completed ODIs in the southern hemisphere. It has not won a single match in its entire tour of Australia. Even its performance in the two warm-up matches has been abysmal. 

While getting hammered by Australia was expected, its performance against minnows Afghanistan was extremely poor as well. It managed to pile on 365 runs due to the countless lifelines it was given by poor fielding, but then conceded way too many runs with the new ball against an inexperienced batting line up. What's worse, it ended up conceding over 200 runs and did not even bowl the Afghans out.

India's pace attack is the most incompetent in the world today among the major test playing nations. While Indian experts continue to shower the likes of Mohammad Shami and Umesh Yadav with praise, the fact is that these bowlers are not really fit to play international cricket. India's latest obsession with genuine fast bowlers has resulted in speed becoming the only criterion for selection, regardless of how indisciplined and inaccurate bowlers are.

The Indian batsmen can generally make up for the weaknesses in the bowling when they're playing in the subcontinent, but have failed miserably overseas. Batting collapses are almost second nature to the Indian team while playing away from home, and even the likes of Kohli and Dhoni have been unable to save them for crushing defeats.

But in the sport of cricket, you're only as good, or bad, as the opposition allows you to be, and this time, the Pakistani team is actually a shade weaker than India. Pakistan have had a torrid time in ODIs since the beginning of 2014, having won only 4 matches out of 16 against major teams. They have an inexperienced and extremely erratic batting line-up, and even stalwarts like skipper Misbah and Younis Khan are not the kind of players who can win matches single-handedly for their team.

Pakistan's bowling attack, once feared by the entire world, and often capable of defending totals under 200 with ease, is now thoroughly depleted without stalwarts Saeed Ajmal and Umar Gul. Even Junaid Khan, their most skilled pacer, exited the tournament before it even began due to injury.  Wahab Riaz, their fastest bowler, has major consistency issues, and the 7'1" Mohammad Irfan is no different.

India's strengths, though not many, include a batting line-up that can be very effective on its day, with each batsman capable of being aggressive as well as circumspect. The spinners can be economical, but not enough to make up for the runs that the pacers leak. Pakistan have a decent bowling attack with Irfan's bounce and Riaz's pace likely to trouble the Indian batsmen, especially the likes of Dhawan and Raina.

Pakistan have serious issues chasing totals above 250, while India find it almost impossible to defend anything under 300. This yin-yang equation will ensure that this match will be like India-Pakistan matches of the yore, i.e, Indian batsmen vs Pakistani bowlers. India, however, hold the advantage when it comes to dealing with the pressure of big matches, as captain Dhoni's calming influence has helped all those who have played under him to keep a cool head in high pressure situations.

And then, of course, lies the fact that India have history on their side. It is no fluke that India have never lost to Pakistan in world cups, and have generally won against them in world tournaments. It is because the Indian team constantly faces immense media and public pressure, no matter who it's up against, and as a result, Indian players can withstand the extra pressure they face while playing Pakistan, who often collapse under it, since the only time they have to deal with it is against India.

This match, besides being a match against their arch-rivals, is also the key to India's entire world cup campaign. A win would be a confidence booster, and it would go a long way in ensuring that they finish at least second in their group. On the other hand, an unprecedented loss could shatter their confidence completely, and they might struggle to beat even West Indies and Ireland.

Let the games begin!

On AIB Knockout, Aamir Khan, and the Freedom of Speech

A nagging, overly critical and analytical voice resides in my head. It is the one that makes me go through your favourite films and TV shows with a fine-toothed comb, find every small mistake, and then trash them on this blog. Sometimes, it also speaks about relevant social issues, and right now, that is everything surrounding All India Bakchod's Knockout, the roast of Ranveer Singh and Arjun Kapoor.

After this event was released on YouTube on the 28th of January, it was the talking point on social media. While I was watching it, I thought that it was funny in parts, but repetitive. The overly critical and analytical nagging voice said, dude, it's just riding on the shock value of mainstream Bollywood celebrities swearing their pants off. I can't believe KJo took his mom to this thing.

It came as absolutely no surprise that some group had decided that AIB Knockout was "obscene" and had declared that it would file a complaint against it. But when AIB decided to take the video down, the nagging voice said, why give in? Doesn't that give credence to these "concerns"? Does it not send out a message that fear and intimidation works?

AIB's response to all of this, while very well crafted, failed to really provide a concrete reason for taking the video down, even though it claimed that it was not because of "a phone call at 3 A.M" or "a morcha outside their houses." Hmm. I don't buy it, said the nagging voice. In fact, I'm still left wondering, does that not make these extremist groups smell fear, which is the bedrock of their existence?

The nagging voice's questions made me think about the freedom of speech. You're barking up the wrong tree, bruh, it said. There is no freedom of speech in this country for the likes of AIB. The number of buffoons who have actually been conditioned to believe that "being offended" by someone's words should be a justified cause for legal action is always on the rise. Freedom of speech ends when the Right gets pissed off. 

So, what? They piss us off all the time when they come up with pearls like "girls should be married off at the age of 16 so that they don't get raped." Are you an idiot? That's because they rule this country, mofo. Jeez, there's no need for swearing, man. STFU, it said. Are you trying to censor me? Think about what I said two paragraphs ago. What happens when people give in to extremist demands?

The answer came the next day. FIRs were filed. Not only against AIB, Ranveer Singh, Arjun Kapoor, and Karan Johar (those who were on stage), but against audience members Deepika Padukone and Sonakshi Sinha. The nagging voice's concerns turned to outrage. Are you f@*king kidding me? This, is what happens in a "free" country? Apparently, it does. But what about the 4000 other people who attended the event, just like Deepika and Sonakshi? They're not famous, so they don't matter.

So, this is all a publicity thing? Nothing is really going to happen to these guys, right? Is that the point? They got what they wanted, didn't they? The video was taken down. Oldest trick in the book - threaten something so bad that you get what you want. But why waste time on something like this? Aren't there more important issues to deal with? What about the Rohtak rape case? That's old news, dude. We've been over that with the 16th December case. Mainstream media has moved on. An issue is only important if it's trending. Don't ask stupid questions. Get with it, bruv. 

Then came a response to AIB's roast by none other than Aamir Khan, probably the smartest and most articulate superstar in the industry. Which honestly isn't saying much, considering the competition. He said, "creative persons have a responsibility," and he spoke quite responsibly, making it crystal clear that he was expressing his personal opinion, and that he believed that creative responsibility and freedom of speech are two very different issues. Well done. I was quite impressed.

But then the voice started on me again. Wait a second. Who is Aamir Khan? Whatever do you mean, nagging voice? Doesn't he, more than anyone else, represent that very Bollywood, (the one that takes itself too seriously) that AIB spoke about? Well, that's true, but he did not really lash out at anyone, and was quite articulate.

No, dude, think about who he really is. Okay, enlighten me. Is he a "true artist"? Well, not really. Only when you compare him to his competition. You mean the guy who cannot finish a sentence and has to resort to crude hand gestures to communicate, and the guy who contradicts himself virtually every two minutes. Right. But let's give him some credit. 

Okay, but consider this. For all his posturing about trying to improve standards of mainstream cinema, did he not make Dhoom 3, which apart from being insufferable, was also a ripoff? You're forgetting Ghajini. Exactly. A film that glorified violence against violence, and was also a blatant ripoff. But come now, ripoffs are hardly news in Bollywood.

Yeah, but this isn't Sajid Khan doing it. If someone who claims to have moral integrity, and thinks of himself as a responsible artist, makes atrocious ripoffs of Hollywood films, and then uses the faith that the public has in his word to sell it those films as good, is that person really all that responsible, and does he have a lot of moral integrity?

Interesting point, nagging voice. Now that I think about it, while it is true that he is a better actor than his two rivals, the fact remains that he is in the industry only because of who he's related to. Yes, he may have re-branded himself in the new millennium and backed some wonderful films, but he is not all good. Exactly. He is someone who takes himself too seriously, which is not as harmless as it sounds.

Ahan. Explain. Well, it is no secret that the Bombay film fraternity is a close-knit group that rules with an iron fist, deriding anyone who criticises it, labelling them as jealous. There is an unspoken understanding of mutual back slapping, and hardly any serious internal criticism is heard. If things like AIB's roast were to become commonplace, that world would come crashing down around those who depend on it for survival.

You're right, nagging voice. But what about freedom of speech? What about it? What do you think it should look like? You remember when that whole thing with TOI and Deepika happened? Yeah. So, imagine, instead of saying that TOI should retract what it said, how about people just use the same freedom of speech that it used, and make as much fun of that horrendous publication (I couldn't bring myself to call it a newspaper) as they want. 

Also, if anyone wants to point out that it's hilarious that Deepika, a non-actress who has gained stardom using the old Bollywood formula of becoming the object of male desire in her many item songs, suddenly has a problem with being objectified, they should be able to do so. If Deepika wants to respond to this viewpoint, she should also be allowed to say whatever she wants. That, my friend, is freedom of speech.

Thanks, nagging voice. You are very articulate, and I think I would be lost without you. I wish everyone had a voice like you in their heads. 

No, bro, if I were in someone else's head, they wouldn't be so open-minded and would probably have shut me out a long time ago. So, really, I wouldn't even exist without you. 

That's true. We're a great team. Like Raja and Rancho.

Word.

The Cup Chronicles - Players to Watch In The 2015 World Cup

Perhaps no other team sport depends as much on individual performances as cricket does. From Sachin Tendulkar's Desert Storm innings, to Wasim Akram's hattricks, individual performances have often turned cricket matches, especially ODIs, on their heads. 

The world cup brings together cricketing stars from all over the world who up their game in a bid to win the sport's most coveted prize. Listed below are 25 players who I think will be the ones to watch out for in the 2015 world cup. I am dividing them into four categories - Game Changers, Stalwarts, X Factors, and Wild Cards.

AB de Villiers - The best batsman and the most valuable player on the planet right now. He is the key to removing the 'chokers' tag that has haunted the Proteas for so long. However, he is often burdened with the dual responsibility of batting through to the end as well as scoring quick runs, which might prove to be his undoing. He is also arguably the best athlete the game has ever seen, and that's keeping Jonty Rhodes in mind. Sanjay Manjrekar rightly said that there should be a test to determine whether AB de Villiers is human or not. Game Changer.

Virat Kohli - The only batsman who can match de Villiers in limited overs cricket. While de Villiers is the master of improvisation and unorthodoxy, Kohli can often be equally lethal without playing a single unorthodox stroke. If he continues to bat at number 4, he would finish more innings, and his ability to snowball into an avalanche towards the end of an innings will come into play. He is the linchpin of India's batting order and will determine India's fate in the world cup one way or another. Game Changer.

Steve Smith - He has seen a meteoric rise in world cricket after hitting the purplest of patches in the last 18 months. Almost de Villier-esque in improvisation, he is extremely difficult to dismiss once he's set, and can score at will. He is an excellent fielder as was seen by the world in the IPL. His success will almost certainly ensure wins for Australia. Game Changer.

Mitchell Johnson - The fastest and most lethal bowler in the world. He has ensured with his performance in the last Ashes series that English batsmen will be terrified of him for as long as he plays. Constantly bowling into the ribcage of batsmen at over 145 kmph, his three over spells will be turning points in each of Australia's matches. Game Changer.

M S Dhoni - While he is never out of form in one-day cricket, he has not had the same impact on matches overseas as he used to. But as he's proven many a time, he always comes to play in the big matches. It is imperative that he promotes himself to number 5 so that he isn't always left trying to come back from behind after a batting collapse. This will also enable him to bat along with Kohli for long periods, ensuring that India's two best batsmen can feed off of each other. Stalwart.

Dale Steyn - The Steyn remover is not as deadly in colour as he is in the whites, but he is probably the greatest fast bowler that has ever lived. On the surface, it seems like he does not have too big an impact on a one-day game, but closer analysis reveals that a lot of wickets taken by fellow pacers Morne Morkel and Vernon Philander in this format are actually a direct result of the pressure applied by Steyn at the other end. Equally good with the new ball and at the death, he can be the perfect blend of a wicket taking and economical bowler. Stalwart.

Hashim Amla - I honestly don't know what to say about this man. On one hand, he has almost always played in very friendly conditions and easy match situations, and on the other, I'd be crazy to say that a player with his record is not an extremely gifted player. He recently became the fastest to 5000 ODI runs, beating the great Sir Viv Richards to the mark by 13 innings. It is important that he gives South Africa good starts for de Villiers to capitalise on. Stalwart.

Kumara Sangakkara - Few batsmen have hit a patch so purple this late in their careers. He is the best batsman Sri Lanka have ever produced, and is only 15 runs short of overtaking Ricky Ponting as the second highest ODI run getter of all time. This is his last world cup, and after having lost two world cup finals in a row, he will do all he can to ensure that there isn't a hattrick. He will consistently score runs, but his team needs to make sure that he is not forced to play the role of both linchpin and finisher. Stalwart.

Mahela Jayawardene - It is almost a given that Jayawardene would follow Sangakkara in any discussion of cricket, as they have been the twin pillars of Sri Lankan cricket for the last decade. Unlike Sangakkara, he has almost faded away in the twilight of his career, but he can still pack a helluva punch. He is much more adept at dealing with pressure in the big games than Sangakkara, and he proved that with his stunning hundred in the 2011 world cup final. Stalwart.

James Anderson - Even though I do not see England going very far in the world cup, they can do reasonably well in the group stage, and a lot of it is courtesy Anderson, one of the most skilled bowlers in world cricket. He's got the cricket ball on a leash, extracting swing, both conventional and reverse, where everyone else fails to. He will be a handful on the lively pitches of New Zealand, and even Australia. Stalwart.

Tilakaratne Dilshan - Also in the twilight of his career, he has been in good limited overs form in the last year. His performance at the top of the order is important for Sri Lanka's success, as he is one player who can take the game away from the opposition with his aggressive batting. Stalwart.

Ross Taylor - He has been in excellent form in the last two years in all formats of the game. His record at home is very impressive, and he can be circumspect as well as explosive, making him the nerve centre of New Zealand's batting line-up. If he does well, maybe the Kiwis can finally make it to a world cup final. Stalwart.

Glenn Maxwell - His performance in the 2014 IPL showed the world that he is one of the most explosive batsman in limited overs cricket today. He strikes at 120 in one-day cricket. If he gets going in the last ten overs, he can single-handedly win games for Australia. He has also shown that he can bat patiently in the middle overs. Also an excellent fielder and decent part-time off spinner. X Factor.

Angelo Mathews - The Sri Lankan captain has had a great year to emerge as one of the best allrounders in the world, and it's mainly because he has become a terrific finishing batsman. While contributions from the three stalwarts will be important, he can be the one who makes the difference with his ability to finish an innings with the bat, and to be miserly with the ball. X Factor.

Ajinkya Rahane - He has emerged as India's most consistent and reliable test batsman, and we know from the IPL that he can also do well in the shortest format of the game. Indian fans will hope that he can carry his form into the world cup so that he can improve on an unimpressive ODI record. As a classical opener, he will see off the new ball but still score quickly, as he has a wide range of orthodox shots at his disposal. X Factor.

David Miller - Killer Miller, as he was known in the IPL after a 37 ball century, will be the man South Africa will rely on to finish off innings. He must perform, as South Africa's biggest problem in world cups has been batting collapses due to the lack of solid finishers. X Factor.

James Faulkner - An allrounder who averages 48 with the bat with a strike rate of 110 is definitely someone to watch out for. He has emerged as an excellent finisher for Australia. There are doubts whether his injury would allow him to bowl in the world cup, but if he recovers, he will be a vital cog in the Australian machine with his ability to bowl in the middle overs and at the death. X Factor.

Steve Finn - Anderson and Broad are a good bowling pair. Add the 6'6" Steve Finn, and England have a potent pace attack. Finn has been England's trump card whenever he has played in his injury plagued career. He showed good form in the recently concluded tri-series, and he could give the English batsman a chance to win games if he continues this way. X Factor.

Lasith Malinga - He used to be the best limited overs pacer until a few years ago, but the sheen has worn off, and a lot of batsmen, especially the Indian ones, have his number now. He still takes wickets at the death, but he can be scored off, which blunts the edge he had in the last world cup. However, conditions Down Under are suitable to fast bowling, and he could take advantage of that to ensure that Sri Lanka are a side to be feared. X Factor.

Eoin Morgan - England has looked a completely different ODI team since he took over as captain. England's best limited overs batsman, his ability to finish innings well will ensure that they're taken seriously by other teams. X Factor.

Kane Williamson - One of the best young batsmen in the world, he has been recently been named Mr. Consistent. He will be New Zealand's second go-to man with the bat. X Factor.

Rohit Sharma - For over seven years, he has frustrated fans and critics alike with bursts of brilliance and countless unnecessary implosions. He has generally been patchy overseas, but a hundred against Australia in the recently concluded tri-series will give him and Indian fans some confidence. He is generally a ticking time bomb when he comes out to bat, as everyone knows that the inexplicable, awful shot that will send him packing is right around the corner. But if he does get in, he is literally unstoppable, as he proved with his two ODI double hundreds. Wild Card.

Brendon McCullum - He can play the most unbelievable innings in all formats of the game, but the flipside is that he's extremely inconsistent, because of which he averages only 30 in ODIs. If he can keep a cool head, New Zealand will have a powerful batting trifecta that will ensure substantial success in the tournament. Wild Card.

Mohammad Irfan and Wahab Riaz - They form the core of Pakistan's bowling attack, but haven't had the best time in the last year. Both have issues with consistency, but they have to step up, since Pakistan's bowling attack is heavily depleted without Saeed Ajmal and Junaid Khan. If they can take advantage of the friendly conditions that Australia and New Zealand provide for pacers, Pakistan will be a team to watch out for. Wild Cards.

Keep reading The Cup Chronicles for both insights into the 2015 cricket world cup!