Hayden’s “third world” comment

I read with equal parts of amusement, amazement and anger the recent reports in the media that Matthew Hayden has attributed Australia’s recent series loss to India to “third world” conditions that resulted in frequent movements to the sight screens that in turn, delayed Indian batsmen facing up and hence causing a slow over rate.

I agree that delays in the batsmen getting ready to face the bowler do slow down the bowling rate. However, the manner in which India beat Australia in both games does not, to my mind, suggest that the games were close, or that, given a few more overs, a different result would have been likely. Jason K’s commendable debut notwithstanding, Australia did not have an effective slow ball attack and Ponting had little option but to use his faster bowlers to try and get wickets.

On a separate note, I am surprised Mr. Hayden did not seem to mind pretty much the same “third world conditions” when he turned out for the IPL last season. Perhaps he has been so affected by these “third world conditions” that he will not come back for a second IPL season. And he may want to exchange notes with team-mates like Michael Hussey, to find out why he seems to prefer playing in these “third world conditions” to playing in Australia (e.g. in the T20 Champions Trophy).

Is a new world financial order possible?

The G20- comprising a mix of developed countries and emerging nations that between them, account for well over 80% of the world’s economy- are making the right noises about global financial system reform (such as transparency/disclosure, governance of financial institutions that tend to take excessive risk, regulation to better prevent market manipulation etc.) and facilitate smoother and freer global trade.

I have no quarrel with these noble objectives. But cynic that I have become over the past decade or so, I immediately question the existence of the enormous commitment and collaboration that this task will require. At this time, when the entire global economy is hurting badly, everyone is singing from the same page of the same hymn-book, to be sure. But once national and regional level imperatives (perhaps “vested interests” is a better descriptor- e.g. raising taxes, reducing interest rates, capping executive pay etc.), and elections have to be won, I just wonder how committed to this globally critical cause various nations will remain. I mean, look at how difficult a journey it has been to reach a global trade accord even after decades of attempts.

And if a new global body is required to replace the IMF, the EBRD and so on, it will mean that the developed nations will have to allow emerging nations to have a bigger say in structuring the organizations, setting their agenda and governance. At least, the emerging nations will expect that. But will it happen? I don’t know.

I hope and pray, for the sake of our world as we know it, that individual nations can set aside their differences and reach agreement.