Homepage of rahul balaji

Mumbai, March 21: History, as much as circumstance stands ranged against India on the final day of this third and final Test against England at the Wankhede Stadium. Needing either another 295 runs to win this match or to bat through 90 overs to save it, the hosts closed the day on 18 for the loss of stand-in opener Irfan Pathan’s wicket.

England were earlier bowled out for 191 on Tuesday, setting a most unlikely 313-run victory target for Rahul Dravid’s men, who helped the visitors generously with some awful fielding. As many as half a dozen catches and one stumping were gifted away, the biggest beneficiary being Andrew Flintoff who went on to complete his fourth successive 50 of the series.

Though technically all four outcomes of a cricket match are still feasible — victory, defeat, a draw or even a tie — a glance at the record books indicates how much of a mountain the Indians have to climb.  The highest run-chase in 20 Tests played earlier at the Wankhede here was mounted by South Africa, of 163/6 during the 1999-2000 series.

The statistics, therefore, militate against an Indian win, though what happened in the opening game of this series itself at Nagpur, where Dravid and Wasim Jaffer batted the team into a position of safety before India launched their unlikely victory charge hold out hope for the improbable.

Yuvraj Singh and Mahendra Singh Dhoni were the big villains on the field. The former spilled Flintoff even before the England captain had scored at silly point off Anil Kumble. Harbhajan Singh was the next to suffer when Flintoff gave him the charge and was comprehensively beaten by a beauty.  Dhoni made a mess of the chance, the ball bouncing off his gloves.  Given two such valuable reprieves, Flintoff prospered to the tune of an even 50 runs. It was an unlikely knock from the aggressive Lancastrian, but he knew just how valuable his wicket was, unlike the Indians.

Mumbai, March 21: History, as much as circumstance stands ranged against India on the final day of this third and final Test against England at the Wankhede Stadium. Needing either another 295 runs to win this match or to bat through 90 overs to save it, the hosts closed the day on 18 for the loss of stand-in opener Irfan Pathan’s wicket.

England were earlier bowled out for 191 on Tuesday, setting a most unlikely 313-run victory target for Rahul Dravid’s men, who helped the visitors generously with some awful fielding. As many as half a dozen catches and one stumping were gifted away, the biggest beneficiary being Andrew Flintoff who went on to complete his fourth successive 50 of the series.

Though technically all four outcomes of a cricket match are still feasible — victory, defeat, a draw or even a tie — a glance at the record books indicates how much of a mountain the Indians have to climb.  The highest run-chase in 20 Tests played earlier at the Wankhede here was mounted by South Africa, of 163/6 during the 1999-2000 series.

The statistics, therefore, militate against an Indian win, though what happened in the opening game of this series itself at Nagpur, where Dravid and Wasim Jaffer batted the team into a position of safety before India launched their unlikely victory charge hold out hope for the improbable.

Yuvraj Singh and Mahendra Singh Dhoni were the big villains on the field. The former spilled Flintoff even before the England captain had scored at silly point off Anil Kumble. Harbhajan Singh was the next to suffer when Flintoff gave him the charge and was comprehensively beaten by a beauty.  Dhoni made a mess of the chance, the ball bouncing off his gloves.  Given two such valuable reprieves, Flintoff prospered to the tune of an even 50 runs. It was an unlikely knock from the aggressive Lancastrian, but he knew just how valuable his wicket was, unlike the Indians.

Baghdad, March 21: Twice in the past year, Muhammed Said has survived assassination attempts that left his car riddled with bullets. He works part time as a bodyguard for his father, a Baghdad city councilman, and helps a friend who has contracts with the American military. Both are very dangerous jobs.

So last month, Mr Said, a slim, baby-faced 23-year-old, did what a small but growing number of Iraqis are doing: He walked into the office of the Iraq Insurance Company and bought a terrorism insurance policy. It looked like an ordinary life insurance policy, but with a one-page rider adding coverage for “the following dangers: 1) Explosions caused by weapons of war and car bombs; 2) Assassinations; 3) Terrorist attacks.”

It cost him $90. Mr Said paid more than most people because of his risky occupation. The payout, if he dies, is around $3,500, or about what an Iraqi policeman earns in a year.  That guarantee appears to be the first off-the-shelf terrorism policy in the world, insurance experts say. In most countries, of course, there is no need for it: Death by terrorism is rare enough that it is usually covered by ordinary accident insurance. “Am I worth only five million dinars?” Mr Said asked wearily, after signing his policy. “It is not a solution. But Iraqis can be attacked by anyone, just walking on the street: Americans, insurgents, the Iraqi Army.” The payout is not a lot of money, even by Iraqi standards.