This column was born in March 1992, immediately after the cricket world cup. Its name, ‘Line and Length', was partly a consequence on my callow and impressionable mind of that tournament. Partly, also, it was because I preferred bowling to batting. This was based on the entirely reasonable premise of a 10-year-old that while the batsman could hurt me only by hitting the ball, I could hurt them by hitting them with it.

Everything changes in 22 years as has this column to cater to market needs. However, one thing has remained unchanged. Each article has argued just one point. Now, the time has come for another change. Henceforth, it will consist not of one long argument but two or three short ones. There are three important reasons for this.

First, thanks to the TV, Internet and mobile phone explosions, more readers today are better informed now than they were even until three or four years ago. As a result, they get the point very quickly.

Second, again thanks to these things, their attention span is not what it used to be. Whatever is being argued has to be argued quickly and precisely.

Third, readers don't have the time to go through even 800 words. They prefer short bytes for opinion and bullet points for news.

So I have decided to change the structure of this column. Henceforth, it will comprise three short comments.

So here goes, folks. Genuflecting to the name of this column, let me begin with cricket.

Bon aperitif.

Two balls

In 2002, I had suggested that one way of reviving Test cricket could be to reduce it to four days and limit it to a maximum of 100 overs per day. Like all my other suggestions, it was ignored.

Then in 2009, I suggested that if the batsman could, theoretically at least, change his bat for every ball bowled, why not let the bowler use six different balls per over? In a variation on this theme — and not because of me, I hasten to add — the ICC is now considering allowing two balls, one from each end in the 50-over format. I hope they will be red and white too, so that the current disproportionate bias in favour of batsmen is reduced a little more.

Meanwhile, Sachin Tendulkar wants the 50-over game to be played in two innings of 25 overs each. Will TV buy the idea?

A 50-over game lasts for about eight hours. TV doesn't like such marathons. To maximise revenue, it wants to cater to different audiences and can't lock up so much time on just one game which has very little following outside South Asia.

And, even here, thanks to the BCCI's and the ICC's greed, sustained viewership is falling. So a split 50-over format won't serve TV's purpose because most viewers will come in only for the last 10 overs, never mind the number of innings.

The short point, therefore, is that as long as TV drives revenues, whether old men like it or not, cricket will have to come down to the global time norm for all sports: 90-120 minutes.

Two propositions

The same inevitability is facing the global economy also: A depression where global output not only stops growing, but actually shrinks, is on the cards. The hard truth is that there is too much debt and until it is paid off — by banks and individuals alike — there isn't a hope.

In such situations, people behave even more irrationally. That is why the price of gold came down last week.

Growth in the largest industrial economies has been decelerating for over a year now and is almost zero. Politics has replaced sensible policies. The election cycle is starting. So business confidence in governments and political institutions is also zero.

Our Finance Minister and the RBI Governor are issuing dire warnings about India. That leaves Brazil and China to blow into the sails. I think they will try, but only feebly. They see no reason why they should pay for the mistakes of western governments and banks. Brazil is, in any case, iffy and China, well, China is China. It is run by very stupid people.

So I am willing to take two bets. But I hope I lose both. One, in 2012, global output will be less than it was in 2011 or only infinitesimally higher because of accounting tricks that dress growth up.

Two, the global economy will not recover until at least 2016, if not a bit later.

One final and very worrying point: Since large economies, when they tank together, have never in history come out of the economic doldrums without a war, because wars absorb output by destroying it first, will we see another war before the decade is out?

Look back to 1907-14, and you will get an answer.

Related Topics