Are we celebrating the wrong leaders?

 Here are some examples of the action fallacy as defined by "the best leaders are those that generate the most noise, action, sensational activity in the most dramatic circumstances":

1. Claiming that a political leader is effective simply because they frequently make controversial statements or take divisive actions that generate a lot of media attention and public outcry. This confuses sensationalism with actual leadership qualities like sound judgment, vision, and the ability to unite people.
2. Arguing that a CEO is a great leader because they constantly shake up the company with dramatic reorganizations, high-profile firings, and splashy new initiatives. While such actions create a perception of activity, they do not necessarily translate into positive results or effective leadership.
3. Asserting that a military commander is skilled because they favor bold, risky maneuvers that create dramatic battlefield situations, regardless of whether those tactics achieve strategic objectives or result in excessive casualties.
4. Praising an activist as a great leader solely because they organize attention-grabbing protests, civil disobedience, and confrontational tactics, without evaluating whether their methods are ethical, legal, and effective at achieving their stated goals.
5. Judging the leadership of a sports coach primarily by how much they yell, argue with officials, and create emotionally-charged sideline scenes, rather than their ability to develop strategy, motivate players, and produce winning results.

In each case, the action fallacy occurs by equating leadership quality with the generation of noise, drama, and sensationalism, instead of directly assessing the leader's competence, decision-making, integrity, and ability to achieve positive outcomes through their actions.

Adil Hussain

 

No Affirmative Action in University Admissions: US Supreme Court

 From The Economist

Should a fair country allow citizens to be treated differently based on the colour of their skin? Most people would say that it should not. But others insist that it should—if the ends are suitably enlightened.

Not long after America dismantled two centuries of slavery and segregation, it embarked on a project of “affirmative action”: a system of legally sanctioned positive discrimination for African-Americans (later expanded to other “under-represented minorities”) who sought entry to selective universities. At the time the affront to liberal norms of fairness and equality under the law was assuaged by the fact that the beneficiaries of the policy were oppressed not long ago. Yet after half a century, one marked with more racial progress than setbacks, it remained the case that an applicant to America’s top universities with the right skin colour had a much better chance of admission than one with identical credentials but the wrong skin colour. On June 29th the Supreme Court terminated the scheme.

It was right to do so. That is because affirmative action rested on contorted constitutional logic. It was also broadly unpopular outside progressive circles. Worst of all, it only marginally ameliorated America’s yawning racial gaps. Despite the sermonising of its administrators, even with race-based affirmative action the country’s best universities never represented America. The very same universities offer extreme preferences to children of alumni and donors—a shadow, unjustifiable affirmative-action scheme for the white and wealthy hidden behind the prominent one for black and Hispanic applicants (a disproportionate share of whom were wealthy themselves).

The Supreme Court’s ruling will reverberate widely. “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in his majority opinion. This will surely encourage lawsuits to end racial preferences in other areas, such as government contracting. But the immediate impact will be on university admissions.

A touch of class

Something better can come out of the demise of the present regime. Start with the shaky legal justification for race-conscious college admissions. After the civil war, America’s constitution was amended to guarantee all of its citizens due process and equal protection under the law, regardless of their race. Yet for decades, under Jim Crow, many states prevented black people from voting, forbade inter-racial marriage and enforced racial segregation in schools, among other outrages. After the correction of the civil-rights era, America began to try to live up to its constitutional promise. It passed landmark civil-rights legislation that forbade unequal treatment “on the ground of race, colour, or national origin”.

Yet for decades the Supreme Court allowed positive discrimination in universities. How so? The policy was justified, the justices of the day argued, not as reparations for a terrible past, but because the value of diversity was compelling for promoting “cross-racial understanding and the breaking down of racial stereotypes”. It was always odd that affirmative action was explicitly crafted for the benefit of students’ white peers. Nonetheless elite universities leapt on the rationale of diversity, using it to construct racially balanced classes while suggesting that these were the happy result not of quotas, which are banned, but of “race-conscious” holistic admissions schemes that treated people as individuals and not as avatars for their racial group.

Contrary to the dissent of the court’s liberal justices, who claim the new ban “will serve only to highlight the court’s own impotence in the face of an America whose cries for equality resound”, Americans were not happy with the old policy. In 2020 even liberal Californians voted down a referendum to reinstate affirmative action, banned in the state since 1996. Polls show that many more Americans oppose taking race into account for admissions than favour it. That is true also of Asian Americans, who typically lean left but bear the heaviest cost of race-based admissions because they are deemed “over-represented” (despite suffering discrimination in their own right).

The court’s decision could be the catalyst for fairer admissions. The extraordinary benefits that Harvard and Yale shower upon the children of alumni and donors make a mockery of meritocracy and those institutions’ self-professed progressivism. Those practices should go.

Universities that wish to do their bit for social justice should stop using race as an (often inaccurate) proxy for disadvantage and start looking at disadvantage itself. Instead of giving a leg-up to members of groups that are on average badly off, they should favour individuals who are actually poor. One randomised controlled trial found that simply offering application-fee waivers to promising students from poor backgrounds dramatically increased the chance of their applying to, and attending, highly selective universities.

There is reason to worry that elite universities will seek stealthy ways to preserve racial preferences. Many are dropping requirements for standardised tests, which would make quiet discrimination against members of unfavoured groups who do well on such tests harder to detect. Some are busily searching for loopholes. In a letter sent to its students and alumni, Harvard, which was party to one of the Supreme Court cases, quoted a portion of the majority opinion that opens the door to considering race if an applicant were to write about it in a submitted essay. “We will certainly comply with the Court’s decision,” its leadership wrote, impishly.

Rather than coaxing a generation of minority students into drafting adversity statements—and continuing to admit the hereditary mediocracy through the backdoor—schools like Harvard would do well to try to craft a fairer system of admissions. These universities should not be proud of the well-monied (albeit multicoloured) monoculture they have inculcated. They should take the opportunity to become the progressive institutions they claim to be. ■

How to overcome your fear of failure

5 Things to do when you have too many ideas and never finish anything

Saeed Ajmal - an inspiration in rehabilitation

An interview with Nagraj Gollapudi in Cricinfo



'Earlier the batsmen were scared to face me. Now there is a contest'

Saeed Ajmal talks about learning offspin afresh, how he plots dismissals with his remodelled action, and how ready he is for a Pakistan recall


"I watch my videos after every match to check if I have bowled any balls that are suspect. Ninety per cent of my deliveries are good"



Can we say in the last one and a half years you have had to learn offspin totally afresh?

I have relearned everything. Even with my body, I have had to start new exercises. Then I followed that up by bowling with a heavy ball. Everyone knows my right wrist is broken [in a bus accident]. The wrist bone protrudes out and my whole arm flexes. To get this under control, because it is already ten degrees, I have learnt to bowl with a heavy ball. To keep the wrist taut, my biomechanist, Dr Paul Hurrion, suggested I bowl with a heavy ball. I worked really hard. I bowled 12,000 deliveries during the rehab before coming back. I am developing those muscles. Initially I didn't have the pace, but thankfully my pace is up to 90kph.

From the time my action was called and till it was cleared, I have bowled at least 100 balls a day. When I had to clear my action I did a lot of bowling in that time. My body weight would fall on one side, my left leg would come up during the delivery stride. To avoid doing that, I strapped weights to my ankles so that the foot doesn't rise and come down flat upon landing.

Have you learnt new things about offspin that you didn't know before?

Definitely. I learnt a lot of things. I learnt that you can bring everything from your fingers if you are willing to work hard. At 38 I have learnt something that I probably never did in my 15 years as a cricketer. I had to become a child - like the first time I went into the academy as a ten-year-old. So I had to look at it like that again over the last year.



Bowling with a remodelled action during a match against Kenya in December 2014, a few months after he was banned © AFP


After you were banned, Saqlain Mushtaq was appointed by the PCB to work with you. Do you recollect the first delivery in the nets? Did you have to show Saqlain your action? 

He knew what my action was before. Working along with Saqlain bhai, I changed my action eight times. Initially he would like the action for a while, say for a month, but then he would change it. After ten days he would be impressed with a different action, but then say it is not proving to be effective. He would keep liking it but was not totally convinced. It reached a stage where one day, I just said I would leave it [bowling]. But Saqlain bhai said, "Himmat na haar." [Don't lose hope.] One day it will come.

I kept doing it. Then I started bowling well and gained confidence. I am not saying I have become zabardast [great] once again. But with the matches I am getting to play, the crowds are coming, I am enjoying bowling under pressure, and one day I will be available to play for Pakistan.

How difficult is it to unlearn something you have known all your life?

I was bowling with my earlier action for 22 years. Even now, when I see videos of my old matches, different things come to mind. Batsmen's legs used to shake, every batsman used to think twice before stepping out to hit me, lest the ball bounces or turns. I can't forget those memories. Now when a batsman stares back at me I get angry. I think: till last year he used to cry, but why is he staring back now? To bring that back I have worked hard in the last six months to make my action effective and get back my pace. Now my pace is really good. Also my doosra, even though it is not as big as it used to be, is still there. There is topspin and it moves out a little bit. I am happy that I'm bringing that back.

Do you ever feel in a situation, physically, that your action might go back to the old one? You have played county cricket, bowled long spells. An old action is a habit.

No way. I will leave cricket with this [new] action. If I am not effective, I will step aside and leave. What I have done, I am happy with. I have been bowling about 90% with the new action. The odd ball might have exceeded 20 degrees, but I work hard immediately to rectify that. I watch every video of my matches. Ninety-nine per cent of my deliveries are under control. Since I have not played international cricket I will need to continue to work on how I bowl under pressure. I also need to work on how I bowl when I am relaxed.

I will be back, and that day is not far. I have spent a lot of time outside and it hurts me when Pakistan loses.

What I have learnt is that to learn anything new you have to believe in yourself and believe your Allah. There is nothing in this world that man can't learn. I learnt the doosra by myself. All I did was watch videos of Saqlain Mushtaq and in one month I had learnt it. I wanted to try it out in the next domestic season and I did.

To come back to international cricket, I need new variations, so I should be able to spin from the side, from down here, from the top, so I can deceive the batsman and let him know that I am now here.

Your weapons have changed. Now you don't do big spin, for instance?

In the last six months I have played 100-plus club matches [back in Pakistan] where I was also hit for many sixes. I was starting to understand at what pace the batsman was hitting me. I played club tournaments, local tournaments, a few outside. Slowly my confidence was coming back. In my mind I started thinking, "Now I am delivering my hand in the correct fashion." Earlier I had doubts, it was in my mind that I was chucking. It took me nearly a year after the ban to get rid of the fear and khauf [dread]. Now it is out and if you noticed my bowling in the last domestic T20 tournament in Pakistan and now in this, there is a big difference.

Has there been a difference in your mental approach towards a batsman with the new action?
My ability against the batsman has remained the same. I am mature enough to understand how to play the batsman. I understand where the ball will go if I press this finger and this finger [points to different fingers on his right hand]. I have taken a year just to master these fingers, only to get my confidence back so that one day when I return to the Pakistan team I don't want to feel that I am finished or that I have come on somebody's sifaarish[recommendation]. I don't want to feel like a liability. If I feel I am finished, I will retire.

Are the variations the same as you used to have?

There is a little bit of change. Earlier my deliveries used to have a lot of bounce. Now I have killed the bounce somewhat. Because of the high arm, my hand used to drop, so to stop the wrist from falling, I have now locked that wrist, so the spin is less. Earlier my right wrist used to fall away due to the bone injury. Now I have locked the wrist at the time of delivery. Consequently, the spin and bounce have reduced. But my variations remain the same. I have also learned to deliver with a low bounce against a tall batsman who stands and hits, or moves back to hit. In these matches, you will see a better version slowly.



"Working with Saqlain bhai, I changed my action eight times" © ESPNcricinfo Ltd





Do you still bowl the doosra?

Definitely. I have cleared the doosra during the ICC testing process. Even against Karachi Kings I got Saifullah Bangash with a doosra. I bowled a few to Iftikhar Ahmed. Out of 18 deliveries I bowled six doosras. Once again, with the doosra, there has been no difference in pace. The only difference has been with the spin and bounce when I deliver the doosra and the topspinner. I still rely on the doosra. I know it is a weapon that unnerves a batsman. With time my hand speed will get faster, as it was before. Then the doosra will become more effective.

Of the deliveries that were banned, which is the most difficult to change?

The offspin. My wrist used to drop, and as soon as it used to drop - for the doosra it is fine - for offspin I had to lock the wrist and when I let it go, it did not break. Because the wrist remains locked now. So I found it really difficult to spin the ball. People think it is very easy, but for me it is really hard because my wrist bone is broken. I always need to ensure that the wrist does not fall. Now the ball has started breaking, and as an example I got James Vince lbw [against Karachi] with the offspinner.

Did you ever think about your bowling as much as you have done in the last year?

The biomechanist Paul Hurrion has really helped me. To control the wrist it took a lot of time. I never thought about it. Earlier I would think, "This is Chris Gayle, or Pietersen, no problem." Now I have to think about where to pitch it, how to get the batsman out. Earlier the batsmen would be scared to face me. Now there is a muqabla [contest].

Muscle memory is an important constituent of any learning process. It can't be built in a year. How do you deal with that challenge?

I agree. But muscle memory is built when you start as a youngster. I am a mature spinner. It didn't take me that much time again because I know how to put the ball in. I already had the memory of where to bowl to what batsman and from where to deliver. My focus was just to clear my action. I cleared it very soon. I am very happy that I have developed the memory so quickly. I had almost lost hope. But I have this belief inside. I believe that everything I can put my head to, I can achieve.


You said you put some weights on your ankles. Can you talk about that? And also bowling with a heavy ball?

Saqlain bhai would strap my wrists with 1kg bands on both wrists. He did not want my front arm staying to the side and the bowling wrist high and locked. I also strapped 2.5 kg weights on my [left] leg to make sure it did not go high and the head did not fall down sideways. The head needed to be straight and relaxed. I would then deliver with a heavy ball. It took me three months just to get used to it, to develop muscle.

Do you reckon it is difficult for bowlers to innovate within the numerous stringent restrictions imposed by the ICC, as opposed to batsmen, who have the freedom to keep innovating and improvising?

Perhaps it is easier for the fast bowlers, considering they have two new balls in ODIs. It has become very difficult for spinners. Why did the spinners start chucking, bowling faster? Heavy, broad, big bats, a mishit would go for a six; Powerplays, four fielders outside the circle, five inside in the ODIs. Pitches have changed. What can spinners do in such a setting? Spinners had to learn something new, and so started bowling faster. Earlier if you flighted the ball, you would get respect. Abhi agar hawa mein do toh hawa mein jaata hai. [Now if you toss it up in the air, it disappears into the air.] With the playing conditions changing, spinners started to learn to bowl fast and the chucking issue became prominent.

Fingerspinners can't survive in international cricket, especially in ODIs and T20 cricket. The guy who does not have variety will be hit. You have to have variations, and for that you have to work hard, otherwise you are out.



"I have this belief inside. I believe that everything I can put my head to, I can achieve" © Getty Images





Can you succeed as a spinner without throwing?

I have already given reasons as to why chucking started. There is nothing for the spinners. The ICC should allow spinners some relaxation. I said it to the ICC but it didn't make a difference.

Can you talk about examples where you enjoyed bowling after your action was cleared?

Last county season, I was playing for Worcestershire in a home one-day match against Leicestershire. Former England left-arm spinner Richard Illingworth, who played for Worcestershire, was the umpire. He asked me how I was going to get the batsman out. I told him I would bowl a whole over of offspin. He would push me to the leg side. Next over I would bowl the doosra and he would get caught at slip. So I bowled only offspin in the first over and the batsman played me to short midwicket. Next over, first ball, I bowled the doosra and he played it to the slips. Illingworth was astounded. I told him, this is cricket. I looked at what he was trying to do, and if he wins, it's fine. But what I was doing to him, that is in my control. I was making him play on my terms, not his.

So one thing that has not changed is how you out-think the batsman? 

That cannot change. Against Karachi, bowling to Iftikhar Ahmed, I knew he plays to midwicket. So I was playing with him. First up, I bowled him a doosra. It was a little outside off stump. I know he does not step out, and he was beaten. I bowled him another doosra which pitched on the same spot. He went for a big hit and was beaten. I then bowled offspin from the very same spot. He was beaten again and he stared back at me.

I look for cues in a batsman. Kamran Akmal straightens his left leg to hit over midwicket. Sarfraz [Ahmed], if his shoulders are bending low, he is going to play the sweep. If he is standing normal and straight, he will not sweep. I have to pick this. Kevin Pietersen can hit a six by stepping out or by standing inside the crease. So I know to bowl it wide, so even if he hits, it might go high up in the air. I have learnt all this by playing for long, by playing with the batsman's mind, by learning to watch what the batsman is doing. You need to do your homework. You need to read the pitch, to understand how much bounce there is on the pitch. So you will need to figure out whether to flight it or not and such stuff.

How far away are you from playing international cricket?

I am ready. There is a big difference from the time when I played in the Bangladesh series last year after I was cleared. At that point I had the fear on the inside. Now I have removed that fear by working hard.

Why England's spinners are better

	Swann and Panesar have been more impressive than the Indian spinners, despite theoretically having had to bowl to batsmen more adept at playing spin © Getty Images Enlarge

A look at why Panesar and Swann have outbowled Ojha and Ashwin in India

Aakash Chopra in Cricinfo

December 13, 2012

There were times in India when the sight of a spinner running in to the crease was intimidating for the batsman. The close-in fielders hovered, standing by to take the catches that would inevitably be produced. Back then Indian spinners sent out strong signals - that they were as lethal as the Caribbean quick bowlers, and no second fiddles. Invariably India's spinners were superior to those from other countries, and the land of Bedi, Chandrashekhar and Prasanna kept producing quality spinners, so much so that some of them didn't even play for India - for these three kept going for years. 

Today, though, even on wilting, dusty turners, Indian spinners don't hold the same threat. For the longest time, dishing out a dustbowl guaranteed success, for India's batsmen would score a mountain of runs and the spinners would bowl the opposition out twice, double quick. But since the retirement of Anil Kumble, things have changed.

The signs of the downward spiral have been there for everyone to see. The lowest ebb has been reached in the ongoing series against England - probably the first time in Indian cricket's history that a visiting team from outside the subcontinent has had the services of better spinners, and the decision to dish out a rank turner has been more likely to backfire on India than guarantee success - as happened in Mumbai.

Why is it that Monty Panesar and Graeme Swann are extracting a lot more out of the tracks than their Indian counterparts? (Remember also that they're bowling against a batting line-up that is known for its proficiency against the turning ball.)

Panesar has been the most impressive bowler in the series, operating at a pace ideally suited to the tracks provided thus far. He bowls at least 10kph quicker than is usually recommended for spinners. While that extra pace goes against him on good batting surfaces - because he doesn't keep the ball in the air long enough to create deception - it's working absolutely fine on slow Indian pitches. The extra pace in the air doesn't allow the batsman the luxury of stepping out or of waiting on the back foot. It is this extra pace that made Panesar unplayable at times in Mumbai, because handling a viciously turning ball at high speeds is extremely difficult.

If it was only about the pace, then why didn't India's spinners crack the code and bowl quicker too? After all, how difficult could it be to increase your pace as a spinner?

That's where the basics are important, for speed can work in your favour only if the ball comes out of the hand properly, with enough revolutions on it. That's precisely where Panesar has scored over Pragyan Ojha.

Panesar's action is that of a classical left-arm spinner, with the bowling arm very close to the ear, which enables him to not only get the wrist position slightly tilted (about 45 degrees) at the point of release but also to extract more bounce off the surface with the higher point of release.

He delivers from the middle of the box, which allows him to bowl a lot straighter. Bowling closer to the stumps makes his arm ball a lot more effective, for it is always pitching and finishing in line with the stumps. Also, his follow-through takes him towards the batsman, which means the body momentum is heading in the direction of the ball; that translates into him getting a fair bit of zip off the surface.

In contrast, Ojha releases the ball from the corner of the box, and his bowling arm is further away from the ear than in Panesar's case. Ojha's position on the crease creates an acute angle, which might give a false impression of the ball drifting in. It also means he needs a lot of assistance from the pitch to generate spin off the surface to compensate for that angle. His wrist position is slightly more tilted than Panesar's at the point of release, which negatively affects not just bounce off the surface but also his chances of turning the ball. Finally, there's no follow-through whatsoever: Ojha stops as soon as he delivers the ball, which indicates that his bowling is a lot about wrist and shoulder instead of being about hips and torso as well.

Swann is technically superior to R Ashwin too. His bowling is all about using every limb to impart more revolutions on the ball. Since he plays most of his cricket on unresponsive English pitches, he has learnt the importance of putting revs on the ball every single time, which creates deception in the air by making the ball dip on the batsman, and also produces bite off the surface.

	In Test cricket there needs to be a stock ball that one should bowl, ball after ball. You need to create deception in the air by varying the lines and speeds ever so slightly

Swann doesn't have too many variations; in fact he has got only two deliveries - the one that spins in to the right-hander and the arm ball that goes straight on. Having fewer variations has led him to become more patient, and made him rely on changing the point of release, speed and flight without compromising on length. He has struck a fine balance between being aggressive and being patient.

His lines of operation to right-handed batsmen are slightly outside off, challenging the batsman to play against the spin. Against the left-handers, he bowls a lot closer, cramping them for room. Like with Panesar, Swann's body momentum too takes him towards the batsman.

Ashwin, on the other hand, has a lot of tricks in his bag. He can bowl the traditional offspinner, a doosra and a carrom ball at will, and with a reasonable amount of control. His high-arm action gets him bounce off the surface too. But while having so many options works wonders in the shorter formats, where the batsmen can't line him up, it works against him in Test cricket.

Wickets in Test matches are a result of setting up a dismissal, and for that you need to be patient, almost bordering on being boring and predictable. There needs to be a stock ball that one should bowl, ball after ball. You need to create deception in the air by varying the lines and speeds ever so slightly. The longer you keep the batsman occupied with one kind of delivery, the better your chances of the variation catching him off guard. Ashwin, with all the weapons in his armoury, feels obliged to bring them out at regular intervals. This hampers his consistency with line and length, and results in him offering up boundary balls often.

Technically, while his wrist and arm position are good, like Ojha he too doesn't put his body behind the ball as much as he should; he falls towards the left after delivering the ball, instead of taking the momentum towards the batsman.

The quality of India's spinners was one of the reasons the team became a force to reckon with in Test cricket. The remarkable records at home were all courtesy spin. India may have had a pantheon of quality spinners but the current crop does not seem to have been able to master the craft. There are plenty of former players around who were masters of the skill. Time India got these veterans to guide the youngsters on how to spin a web around teams again.