top of page

By:

Waleed Hussain

4 March 2025 at 2:34:30 pm

Opener turned into six -hitting contest

Mumbai: The IPL 2026 opening match between Royal Challengers Bengaluru and Sunrisers Hyderabad at the M. Chinnaswamy Stadium wasn’t a cricket contest. It was a full-scale six-hitting festival, complete with bowlers serving as reluctant ball boys and the leather sphere treating the boundary ropes like an optional suggestion rather than a hard limit. SRH, batting first after being inserted, scraped together 201 for 9 in their full 20 overs. Stand-in skipper Ishan Kishan led the charge with a...

Opener turned into six -hitting contest

Mumbai: The IPL 2026 opening match between Royal Challengers Bengaluru and Sunrisers Hyderabad at the M. Chinnaswamy Stadium wasn’t a cricket contest. It was a full-scale six-hitting festival, complete with bowlers serving as reluctant ball boys and the leather sphere treating the boundary ropes like an optional suggestion rather than a hard limit. SRH, batting first after being inserted, scraped together 201 for 9 in their full 20 overs. Stand-in skipper Ishan Kishan led the charge with a fiery 80 off just 38 balls, peppering the stands with 5 sixes and eight fours. It was the kind of knock that screams “I’m the captain now, watch me launch.” Youngster Aniket Verma (or Ankit, depending on the scorecard scribbles) chipped in with a brisk 43 that included another 4 sixes in a desperate late surge. Heinrich Klaasen added his usual muscle, but the early wobble to 49/3 thanks to Jacob Duffy’s fiery 3/22 in the powerplay kept things from spiraling into total absurdity. SRH’s total sixes: a “modest” 12. How refreshingly conservative. One almost expected them to apologize to the bowlers for not clearing the stadium entirely. Then came RCB’s reply. Chasing 202, the defending champions made it look like a Sunday net session gone gloriously rogue. They polished off the target in a mere 15.4 overs, losing just 4 wickets and winning by 6 wickets with 26 balls to spare. Devdutt Padikkal went ballistic with 61 off 26 balls — a strike rate that would embarrass a missile. He smashed 4 sixes and seven fours, treating SRH spinners like they owed him money. The middle overs turned into a personal highlight reel as he dispatched deliveries into the second and third tiers with contemptuous ease. Elder Statesman Virat Kohli, ever the composed elder statesman at 69 not out off 38, casually added 5 sixes of his own. King Kohli didn’t just bat; he conducted a masterclass in timed aggression, finishing the game with a flourish of boundaries that had the Chinnaswamy crowd in absolute delirium. Rajat Patidar and a quick cameo from Tim David ensured there were no unnecessary heart attacks for the home faithful. RCB’s six tally: a cheeky 13. Combined across both innings? A staggering 25 sixes in one high-octane evening. That’s not T20 cricket anymore. That’s aerial warfare with a red leather projectile. The ball spent more time orbiting the stadium than rolling on the turf. Ground staff probably clocked more kilometers chasing it into the stands than the batsmen ran between wickets. Spectators got an unexpected workout fielding souvenirs, while bowlers stared skyward like astronomers discovering new constellations every over. “Where did that one go?” became the unofficial match commentary.
Collective Hug The bowlers deserve a collective group hug — or perhaps therapy. Jacob Duffy’s impressive debut haul was the lone bright spot for the attack, but even he must have questioned his career choices every time a length ball disappeared into the night. Short balls? Met with the same disdain. Full tosses? Please, they were practically gift-wrapped invitations to the parking lot. Harshal Patel and the SRH death bowlers leaked runs like a sieve in the final stages, watching six after six sail over their heads while fielders sprinted futilely, arms outstretched in vain hope. The spinners fared even worse. One over from a hapless SRH tweaker disappeared for multiple maximums, turning what should have been a containing spell into a public humiliation. Krunal Pandya and Harsh Dubey were taken to the cleaners with such regularity that you half-expected the umpires to intervene on humanitarian grounds. Why bowl when the batsmen treat your best deliveries like practice balls for a batting cage? It’s almost insulting how nonchalantly these sixes were dispatched. No drama, no buildup — just clean, brutal connection followed by polite applause from the crowd and another sprint for the ball boys. Traditionalists mourning the death of “proper” cricket could only clutch their Test whites tighter and mutter about the good old days when a six was an event, not the default setting. At Chinnaswamy, the pitch played like a trampoline on steroids, and the boundaries shrank with every lusty swing. Group Therapy By the 15th over of the chase, the match had lost all pretense of competition. It became a group therapy session in power-hitting, where everyone took turns launching the ball into orbit. The six-count on the giant screen must have broken some internal software trying to keep up. If this is the tone for IPL 2026, buckle up, folks. Expect every subsequent game to threaten world records for most maximums, highest strike rates, and most exhausted retrieval staff. The real MVP? Not Kohli’s classy anchor, not Padikkal’s blitz, not even Duffy’s early breakthroughs. It was the six itself — that glorious, crowd-pleasing projectile that turned a cricket match into prime-time entertainment. Bowlers might as well start their run-ups from the sightscreen next time; at least give the ball a fighting chance. Bravo to both teams for kicking off the season with such unapologetic carnage. You’ve reminded us why we love this format: raw power, minimal fuss, and maximum entertainment. Just don’t be surprised when future matches come with a mandatory “six insurance” clause for nearby residents. The ropes are trembling, the stands are full, and the bowlers are already booking appointments with sports psychologists. Long live the six. May the aerial assault continue unabated.

Sacred Attire

Updated: Jan 30, 2025

The Siddhivinayak Temple Trust’s recent decision to implement a dress code prohibiting short skirts, torn jeans and other revealing attire is a necessary move to uphold the sanctity of religious spaces. Temples are spiritual spaces where devotees seek solace, offer prayers, and connect with the divine. Temples are not mere tourist attractions but sacred sanctuaries. The least that visitors can do is dress accordingly.


The Jagannath temple in Puri, Odisha, and the Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan have already implemented similar rules, reflecting a growing recognition that religious spaces require a modicum of decorum. In the case of Siddhivinayak, the temple attracts thousands of devotees daily, many of whom have expressed discomfort over attire that they feel clashes with the temple’s spiritual ambience.


Few would question the need for decorum in a courtroom, a government office, or even an upscale restaurant. Yet, when religious institutions enforce dress codes to preserve their sanctity, a chorus of indignation often rises in the name of personal freedom, with such ‘critics’ arguing that such rules reflect moral policing or an imposition of traditionalist values.

But this argument confuses religious sanctity with public space liberalism. No one is being compelled to enter the temple, and those who do should respect the customs that govern it. Even in non-Hindu religious spaces, dress codes are the norm. One does not enter a gurdwara without covering their head, nor a mosque or church dressed in attire deemed unsuitable for prayer. The sanctity of a religious institution should not be sacrificed at the altar of modern whims.


To dismiss this as an encroachment on personal liberties is to misunderstand the nature of such spaces. Religious sites operate under different expectations than public thoroughfares or commercial hubs. They are designed for reflection, devotion, and ritual. While Indian society has rightly evolved towards greater personal freedom in many spheres, faith-based institutions must be allowed to maintain traditions that are integral to their identity. The temple trust has made it clear that its goal is not to impose regressive restrictions but to ensure that all visitors feel comfortable and that the sanctity of the temple is upheld.


Moreover, the argument that religious sites must remain entirely open-ended in their dress codes simply does not hold water. Many of the people who object to these restrictions would scarcely question the need for appropriate attire at a formal event or while meeting a dignitary. The principle is the same -respect for the setting dictates the mode of dress. Those who seek to frame this as a battle between liberalism and conservatism fail to grasp that such measures are about propriety, not repression.


In an era where the lines between cultural expression and decorum are increasingly blurred, it is worth remembering that not every rule is an infringement on liberty. If people can abide by dress codes in secular spaces, they should extend the same courtesy to places of worship.

Comments


bottom of page