What if we lose this match?

WOW!!!! I don’t know if there’s a strong undertone of sarcasm, but this one really gets you going. Absolutely Brilliant!Recommend

Wow! This is what I call a cricket op-ed.Recommend

I just want this game over with. Too much ridiculous hype and extravaganza in media and in public. Makes me want to hate cricket even more. No wonder I prefer watching football!Recommend

Oh my…
Finest expressions…Recommend

brilliant!!!!!!!!!!Recommend

Writer promoting theory of evolution using cricket as an excuse explains the sarcastic undertones of this article.Recommend

@M Ali Khan: Totally agree with you! I don’t even feel like watching the match tomorrow!!Recommend

@M Ali Khan:
you don’t care but you bother to read through this and reply twice??? Go take out your unvented frustrations on a football

@Khuram; You said it :)Recommend

Undoubted this is nostradamus’s prediction of a nuclear war, but so much pressure on the team shouldnt be imposed, but more importantly you should not demoralize your readers about the future, so what if we loose, we still have a better looking team, which doesnt smell, doesnt dye their hair blonde.. well some do but our captains cooler then theirs. and as a nation were cleaner greener and smarter. so pray our team does well tomorrow, yes, scream as loud as u can till the last ball, yes. but in case our boys in green for some reason, any reason, cant make it, dont make them have to take the back exit at the airport, let them still keep their heads high in front of the enemies team.Recommend

Author has brought out the irony in the situation. Pakistanis have invested so much (almost all their energies) in this match that it looks & feel downright silly. “What if they loose is a very valid” question. Such kind of people are prone to swing from one mood to another. May be this behavior is symptomatic of the larger problem at hand- one of utter despair about everything inside Pakistan and total lack of cpapcity to do anything about it that people are left with the only escapism- cricket match with India, here. as the author says may be they need to start from scratch (with a single cell or with a tail or with 4 legs) so that people of Pakistan will have more issues to have an intense debate since issues of national importance like economy and development does not resonate with their spirits. Wars and dramatic events captivate their attention like nothing else.

Why such enthusiasm does not show up a)in donating for flood victims b)in protecting their people’s future, etc. etc boggles the mind. What is so important about a cricket match?- if not hatred of India and the need to show it down….that is why the insistence on Pakistani side to continue to a stomping of feet by soldiers on either side and agressive thumb and finger pointing….that is why I have always believed that issue or no issue, Pakistan will use nukes against India one day, in the name of religion, in the erroneous belief that non-believers should not exist even if the non-believers are better than them in every way!! all this talk of nukes serving as a deterrant is hog wash. Religion the main issue. Thanfully for all Indians including Indian Muslims, religion is secondary to India and the humanity of the people.

If we Indian loose, our psyche will not be damaged because we have other ‘wins’ under our belt. In Pakistan’s case because of 2 reasons a)there are no other ‘wins’ & b)dislike of India, winning this match is crucial.Recommend

@ M Ali …Mr…why are you reading this article if you dont give a “darn” about cricket go back to books….or anything else like..”fa-rt ball”

Excellent article!! Something we as fans should realize that in the end…its just a “game” …though important because its a semi-final and our gateway to bringing the cup home after almost 20 years!

Go Afridi..Make us proud

PS- Win or Lose We will still love you but dont expect a warm welcome at the airport. (you know how sentimental we are when it comes to cricket rivalry against india)Recommend

@pl/sql:
Read the whole post you bugger, he is not talking about any religion. Don’t be in a hurry to bring in your Sanatan Dharm bullcrap every time….. The history he is talking was of evolution of single cell organism to humans. If you could not make that out then you should remain stuck with your primitive santan dharm. And by the way, I am an Indian born in the so called Sanatan Dharm…. now take that.Recommend

Sentiments are high on both side, higher still are the stakes. Neither can afford to lose. It is a high-voltage clash.Recommend

@amlendu:
you moron, d’u mean to say that it took ONLY 5000 years for humans to evolve from single celled organisms? Is your understanding of science so poor or are you trying to lie your way out of this? The author was clearing talking about 2 sides India and Pakistan (Predominantly Hindu vs Predominantly Muslim) countries.So you can take your political correctness and keep it thereRecommend

all thanks to the media this is no longer just a match… it feels like a war…
we forgot about spot fixing, we’ll forget about this if we loose.. we as a nation move on rather quickly now dont we….Recommend

it’s just a game. sheesh.Recommend

@pl/sql:
And who told you I was being politically correct. I hate people like you who can not have a logical discourse without mentioning religion, whichever religion it may be. And you are beyond reason.Recommend

@Khurram husain…guys like you create media hypes….Now that Pakistan has lost the match, you should kill yourself!

Put your money where your mouth is…..Recommend

@pl/sql:
You know in history there is something called archeology, it is study of artifacts from past. If you go through the ancient history of India you will find that the archeological study of objects found throughout the subcontinent clearly show that 5000 years ago the people here used only stone artifacts and this was the time which is termed as megalithic and Mesolithic ages in Indian history and when most of the activity was centered in South India (Megalithic) and Eastern India (Mesolithic). Then came Chalcolithic age, which developed in to Bronze Age in Indus and Ghaghghar (Sarswati) valley. Then came the Iron Age which was the marker of your Sanatan Dharm. Rigved (And if you don’t know what it is then find a copy and read it) is replete with mention of Iron. But not single artifact of this metal is found in the subcontinent which dates back more than 4000 years old. It also mentioned horses a lot of times but there are no archeological remains to prove that there were horses in the subcontinent before 2000BC. Rigved is based on rural and nomadic societies but the archeological remains of 200BC show a completely urban society. Then again if you go by another methodology of historical research, namely study of linguistic development, you will find that the Sanskrit language on which your Santan Dharm is based is a synthetic language and does not emerge from other primitive languages and that is why it is so systematic and complete. But the same fact makes it clear that this is not an organically evolved language. This means that this language would not be much older than the first text created using it. Go and study history in a proper way if you want to debate history. Or remain stuck with your stupid Purans and other mythological literature. You are such fool that you would take mythical literature like Mahabharta, Ramayana or any of Purans as historical texts. And for your information Mahabharta was not written by a single person either. It is actually a compilation of works created by different people over a few hundred of years. If you try to juxtapose it to other historical sources, you’ll be able to reason it out. But I know that you are a sanghi (RSS/Khaki chaddi wala) and you have shut all your reasoning abilities. So good luck with you one-dimensional and blinkered tunnel vision of history.

I made one mistake though. I wanted to say 2000BC when I said 200 years old. So it makes your Sanatan Dharm 400 years old but still short by 100 years.

And finally the point is not how old this Sanatan Dharm is, but why can’t you debate a point which has nothing to with religion apparently without dragging religion into it. Religion by nature being based on faith is illogical. You can’t use it to settle a logical debate.Recommend