UK-Lanka Cricketism: English Mischief Misfires!
-DR. ABDUL RUFF
These days there is a lot of cricketism dramas taking place across the world, as ICC is bent upon making cricketism a grand success even without any credibility but with bogus rankings and inflated records. All cricket nations and teams are engaged in getting the matches fixed by ICC/states themselves or at team levels, but generally by employing mafias for communication. Even Americans have joined the midnight cricket parties and the Obama boys with US made bats have entered the cricket field to play cricketism gimmicks ably aided by its junior strategic terror partner UK with which the USA conducts terror operations in Muslim nations and outside, consuming corpses of Muslims killed by the NATO terrorists.
Cricketers have made cricket a game of pure gimmicks to serve their own promotional interests, supported by the ICC.
England, the masters of cricketism who first initiated rules of cricketism by pampering the batboys, especially select brands by offering them too many runs by rotation, is playing in Sri Lanka against Lankans a series of test cricket, the most bogus format of this entertainment. It is in test that batboys are allowed to make an s many 100 pluses as they desire by applying exchange norms under joint cricket exercises.
England has managed the top slot in Test format according to the notorious ICC ranking and in anticipation of at least a couple of 100 plus/200 plus in return to Eng batboys, the English bowling/fielding boys, after a having been asked to field by SL, offered 180 runs to SL skipper Mehela Jayawardene while kicking all other batboys out of the crease without letting them shine beyond their capacity.
Not even Sankakara, former captain who otherwise “makes” big runs, was found fit to get at least 50 runs.
Since England bowlers are slightly better then SL variety, they could a have restricted the SL to less than 200, but they let them cross 300 because they wanted to show the false power of SL skipper. However, in reply, the poor English boys could not even reach 200 runs and none a got 100 plus. That left the SL to manage 125 surplus runs in the first innings
UK boys were deadly disappointed with the "misbehavior" of SL boys by not reciprocating with 100 plus for at least 2 English boys.
But in the second innings, having been "insulted" by Sl refusing o to offer at least one 100 plus, English bowling-fielding boys became alert and gave 200 plus runs, SL skipper was sent back with a meager 05 runs this time but another P Jayawardene was offered 50 plus runs.
England always favors some batboys form each country team. Does England favors Jayawardenes and why?
Obviously, on the day 4, under s tremendous pressure form English boys, SL bowlers slowed down their attack and offered 100 plus to Trot. SL has thus showed some considerations for England.
That is the essence of cricketism discovered by the British colonial masters for their slave colonies.
English boys can offer 100 plus as advance treat but expects similar gestures with interests. They can pressure any team to underplay for some favors - after all UK is one of the 5 veto rogue states controlling the notorious UNSC.
Once SL competed the offer of 100 plus to Trot did they start playing seriously, plucking wickets one by and won the Test-1.
So, SL won the first teat match by 75 runs.
That amounts to a big slap for the shrewd and highly intelligent English boys. Had they not taken pains to offer 180 runs to SL skipper, most probably the England team would have won.
English boys should now feel relived that they got back 100 plus from SL bowlers.
Thus the great morale of the "test" story is when fielding first bowl and field seriously without offering anybody 100 plus in anticipation of return favors. Already India's only cricketer Sachuin Tendulakar, also considered as a major Hindu god promoted by Indian agencies, mafias and corporate lords and sponsors for years to appoint him as Pharatratna for the pure gimmicks by bowlers and fielders, has been cruelly insulted by cricket world as he was made to toil and suffer a lot standing at the crease as the blowers refused to offer him his "usual" 100 plus for over one full year before eventually the Bangladeshi boys eventually came forward to offer the one last 100 plus to India in the Asia cup possibly in return for some more tractors and old terror goods from India.
Perhaps cricket punished the BD boys for misusing it for economic gains and for pro-India mischief and the Dhaka team lost to Pakistan in the finals.
There is fear striking all batboys today that if they are not allowed to shine at the crease cricketers as well as cricket will lose their "charm" and therefore cricketism norms should be retained intact at all costs with ICC playing the mediator pimps, arranging matches to suit important teams. In the Asia cup India was too keen to get one last 100 plus for its only son Sachuin and it got it at long last, knowing full well that it it insisted on Sachuin 100 it will lose the "cup" and it lost the cup as well as fake glory. India can of course buy "cups" on Mumbai streets but not ICC's recognized "Sachuin-100" when for over a year logically all bowlers refused to budge. .
The SL-Eng test-1 clearly vindicates the position taken by some of us that cricket is played not for the fans and not for sports and not even for mafias, butt for selfish ends; cricketism is all about sharing the 50/100 plus/200plus according to some schema and other things bieng equal, those who require quick runs and wickets urgently for some "important reasons", are given due consideration for special offers. Here in Colombo the English boys were determined only to get a few 100/50 pluses as part of "exchange program" in stead of letting the bowlers and fielders to strike with dedication.
It is astonishing that even with lot of space and gaps provided by the ICC for batboys to drive the balls thrown by useless bowlers and unchecked by hopeless fielders, the batboys require the assistance of bowlers and fellow batboys to shine at the crease at other's cost. It is just like film heroes and other actors who are prepared by the director and his team to produce dialogues and actions as the director wants but the actors take all credit for their heroism.
Cricketism is a major intentional shame!