Ok...my first post has to be on cricket...its in my nerves..can't help it :).
I chanced upon this article(http://blogs.cricinfo.com/wicket_to_wicket/archives/2006/04/an_age-old_prej.php#more )by Sambit Bal, who is not my favorite of writers but raises some very good questions in this article. I have grounds to suggest that cricket has been continually, methodically shaped to evolve as a batsman's game, sometimes by putting the premise of generating more interest in spectators, sometimes by glamorizing the style, persona and charm of exotic batting and the list can go on, full of milestones, defining the way cricket is played now.
I still remember when my dad used to play with me and my brother, the soul aim for me used to imitate our Gods (Gavaskar, Richards, Azhar) while batting, bowling didn't inspire or attract me before I started playing at school level.
I believe it was just not me who dreamed to hit a cracking half century more than propelling the body jet to shatter stumps, that's the way every cricket story starts, at least in India.
Well, Neo is American, and recently he saw a cricket match and when I asked him what did you find the most interesting part of the game, he responded expectedly that hitting the ball with a flat, wider than baseball bat amazes him, asking about what he thought about the bowling, he said he didn't understand much, and that's exactly how we want to promote the game to youngsters, sensationalize batting and portray bowling as another part of the game not the equally interesting part of game. I think the cricket wonderland will be more fascinating with more Akhtars, AKrams, Kapil Devs , Holdings, Marshalls, Lillys along with Sachins, Laras, Pontings, Gilchrists , Sehwags.
If it's fun to watch a game where teams pile on runs to achieve a surreal total of 872, it will also be great to watch some games where some monstrous spells sink a whole team within score of 200.
Hail Da Game...
Looking forward to your opinion.

GUNjan