Why do we do this to ourselves?

Last night, I dozed off on the couch. It was for the second night in a row, and that makes it very unusual. I've been waking preternaturally early all year, which is also highly unusual, and maybe this was a consequence. Weirdest of all is the fact that I was watching cricket while it happened -- both nights I decided to give the rest of the day's play a miss, went upstairs, and slept.

This morning I find that Australia won the game. That I had half-expected. What I was less prepared for was the way in which it happened. Reading how Dravid was given out caught off his pad made me upset, but what really got my goat is the description of Ganguly's dismissal. There is nothing untoward about a fielder claiming a 50-50 catch -- what is bizarre is that the umpire would not check with the other umpires, but instead refers to the fielding captain. Who himself has no way of knowing except that the fielder in question told him it was a fair catch. And that fielder, Michael Clarke, being one who had not exactly covered himself with glory just the previous day. As Peter English puts it in his Cricinfo report: "Why should Clarke be trusted to rule on a potentially match-turning catch when he stayed at the crease on day four after edging a ball to first slip?" But that was exactly what happened, Ponting raised the finger to serve as judge and jury on Ganguly, and due process died a sorry death. (Speaking of which, is there anyone else here who thinks Ponting looks exactly like Bush? Which would make Benson the lame duck Supreme Court, right? How apt.) In his defense, Ponting says he can be taken at his word because he didn't claim a non-catch earlier in the game. Excuse me? What a masterly application of the Trussst in me snake-oil line. By this logic every criminal is innocent of his first crime. Mr. Ponting, your words have even less credibility than your actions.

But that is not the point of my rant. Upset as I am, I am most upset about something that has not yet happened. (And no, it is not that the BCCI will let this go without a whimper -- that is something that one expects anyway.) The fact is that, come next week, there will be another Test against this same Ponting's team, and one more the week after, and then an overdose of the hit and giggles. And while the Australians are an excellent cricket team, the fact is that sport is worth watching only when it is a contest, and a fair one at that. For all their woes, the Indians can indeed put up a good show on occasion, as this Test demonstrated. But if the dice are so loaded, and the opponents so criminally calculating, then there really is no pay-off to watching the game live. If all I'm going to get from it is the beauty of individual strokes and deliveries, be they from Laxman or Tendulkar or Hussey or Lee, then I might as well catch some highlights and save myself the misery.

But I don't. Even though I have found that I can happily survive without the cricket on in the background, as for instance happens when I'm traveling, if I find myself in the vicinity of a computer or a friendly television, I have to have it on. And this is what is frustrating me right now. Next week, when the third Test starts, I know I will be following it live. Our cricketers aren't the best, although they can be very good, and this series has in my eyes degenerated to a farce. So why will I go back to it?

Such a crock of shit.