Can’t believe it’s already 10 years since the world was gripped by mortal fear of what now seems like a mythical entity, a beast that never bit – the Y2k Bug. Remember it? It united the world like fears of invasion from the outer space does in sci-fi movies. Governments and private agencies warned ordinary folks to watch out for it; they set up agencies to deal with the problems promised by the change in the digital clocks and computer systems, from the 1990s to 2000s.
Which brings me to a question that has been perplexing me since various media outlets started doing lists of the decade this time around. When does the decade end? “Decade” means 10 years, and while it seems that the decade of the series 2000 should end in 2009 -- like the 1990s must end in 1999, they can’t end in 2000 -- we should remember, there was no year zero in the Anno Domini era. Which is why, the count has to always start from 1. And the first decade of the millennium thus starts from January 1, 2001 and ends on 31 December 2010, like it or not.
Back to 1999 - nothing happened about the Y2k Bug, or practically nothing. Countries that did the least to deal with the bug fared as well as countries that did a lot. The Y2K Bug lost its bite quickly.
Another fearsome beast of the time, the great Australian cricket team, lost its bite too, but not so quickly; it happened only after they’d dominated cricket like no other team before. It’s happened gradually, over the first decade of the new millennium, as irreplaceable performers have fallen by, one by one. Imagine losing players like Michael Slater, Justin Langer, Mark Waugh, Steve Waugh, Ian Healy, Adam Gilchrist, Glenn McGrath, Shane Warne, Damien Martyn, Michael Hayden, Michael Bevan, Jason Gillespie in a few years – it’s debilitating. They’ve lost another outstanding player, Andrew Symonds, too.
Ten years can be a lifetime in top-flight sport for some; for double that time, Sachin Tendulkar has been active in international cricket, it’s true, but in less than 10 years, a player of the quality of Adam Gilchrist has played all his Test cricket, like few others played it before him, and departed.
No wonder even West Indies gave Australia such a fight recently – which in fact isn’t much different from 1999, when Brian Lara almost single-handedly forced a series draw when the Aussies were in the West Indies. They were the foremost teams of the time then, now the West Indies are “rebuilding” (they’ve been doing it through the decade, actually), the Australians are a top team but now have at least three equals.
One of the top teams are the Indians – a eventuality no one would have been able to dream up 10 years ago. Ten years ago India toured Australia and lost the Tests by 285 runs, 180 runs, and an innings and 141 runs. In the triangular One-day series, which added Pakistan to the mix, the humiliation was complete. They won just one match. It was disaster of the worst order. India are now ranked No. 1, though it can be argued it’s a notional status, for to be true No. 1, India must marry longevity with performance. Getting the No. 1 status, though, is an achievement none thought possible when the dispirited team returned from Australia in 2000, and when Sachin Tendulkar gave up captaincy later in the year. Becoming No. 1 and the year there is a bigger achievement than winning the T20 World Cup.
Advertisement
India played just six Tests in 2009. Australia have played 12, Sri Lanka 11, West Indies 12, and England will end up with 14. Indian players, having fulfilled a lifetime’s dream, want more Test matches. Hope their wishes – as practitioners of the sport itself, rather than being fans or observers, they should have a say in what format of the sport they’re asked to play most – are respected in the year 2010.
