IPL  : INDIAN PREMIER LEAGUE

Why IPL  is so successful ?

The IPL has offered financial security to a wide range of cricketers. It has changed cricket’s commercial scenario so much that it has inspired the mushrooming of leagues across the cricket-playing world.

Since 2008, most of top stars in the cricketing world have been taking a collective break from international and domestic cricket to take part in the Indian Premier League (IPL) that happens mostly in a two-month window between March and May. In short, during this time period the IPL has been the cynosure of the cricketing world’s eyes at large. Looking back, even though it may seem inevitable that viewership in cricket would call for a shorter format, it wasn’t really obvious at the time. In fact, it seems rather incredible today that the BCCI and India were quite indifferent to T20’s charms initially. But what contributes to the enduring appeal of the IPL? What are the various factors that have made the league what it is today — the biggest commercial property outside international cricket (and quite likely to overtake it soon)? The answers lie in two major factors — timing and scheduling.

The first reason for the popularity of the IPL and T20 format, as it has been with many commercial products, has been the factor of timing. Around the turn of the millennium, the last bastion of spectatorship for the first-class game — England — had started witnessing lower turnouts. Especially, the younger generation were preferring to adopt other sports in favour of cricket. The marketing manager of the ECB, Stuart Robertson, suggested looking at a compressed format that was more in tune with current temporal demands. A year later, despite some opposition from the county chairmen, on the back of some last-over slogging, the format found a midwife.

International cricket didn’t take the format seriously — the first T20 international featured mirthful scenes, also featuring a mock red card to Glenn McGrath for impersonating the infamous underarm incident.

For the IPL to have taken off in a country whose cricket board scoffed at the very format of T20 shows that the tale of the tournament’s success is a parable of the powerful combination of serendipity and opportunism.

The IPL is a star populated by a galaxy of stars. But that’s not what made it successful to begin with. | PTI

Since 2008, most of top stars in the cricketing world have been taking a collective break from international and domestic cricket to take part in the Indian Premier League (IPL) that happens mostly in a two-month window between March and May. In short, during this time period the IPL has been the cynosure of the cricketing world’s eyes at large. Looking back, even though it may seem inevitable that viewership in cricket would call for a shorter format, it wasn’t really obvious at the time. In fact, it seems rather incredible today that the BCCI and India were quite indifferent to T20’s charms initially. But what contributes to the enduring appeal of the IPL? What are the various factors that have made the league what it is today — the biggest commercial property outside international cricket (and quite likely to overtake it soon)? The answers lie in two major factors — timing and scheduling.

The first reason for the popularity of the IPL and T20 format, as it has been with many commercial products, has been the factor of timing. Around the turn of the millennium, the last bastion of spectatorship for the first-class game — England — had started witnessing lower turnouts. Especially, the younger generation were preferring to adopt other sports in favour of cricket. The marketing manager of the ECB, Stuart Robertson, suggested looking at a compressed format that was more in tune with current temporal demands. A year later, despite some opposition from the county chairmen, on the back of some last-over slogging, the format found a midwife.

International cricket didn’t take the format seriously — the first T20 international featured mirthful scenes, also featuring a mock red card to Glenn McGrath for impersonating the infamous underarm incident.

In a couple of years, most nations had played their first T20 game, drawing a mix of curiosity and bewilderment from their supporters. India was one of the last “big” nations to play its inaugural T20 game; its domestic version, was a damp squib. “T20? Why not ten-ten or five-five or one-one?” thundered Niranjan Shah in the 2006 International Cricket Council (ICC) board meeting, before boldly proclaiming that India would never play the format. The rival Indian Cricket League, which had gained some momentum, was swiftly put out of business by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI).

At the same time, the ODI format had plateaued. Australia had sleepwalked to their third successive World Cup and was the standout team in a format with few surprises left; the ICC’s various attempts to enliven the game (supersub, superseries, experimenting with field restrictions and so on) had failed to hit the spot. India, quite disastrously, got knocked out in the group stage, making the tournament less palatable to the various stakeholders. The farcical 2007 World Cup final served as a fine example of everything that had gone wrong with the over-milked cash cow that was the ODI format.

It was in this setting that the T20 format captured the public imagination. Why, it seems really hard to believe that India were not too keen on fielding a team for the inaugural World T20 and had to be subtly arm-twisted into doing so by former ICC president Ehsan Mani. India grudgingly sent a squad which reeked of the distaste that BCCI had for the new-fangled format — the team, captained by a greenhorn MS Dhoni, did not feature the batting superstars. More importantly, the short, crisp tournament was everything the ODI World Cup wasn’t — Australia were beatable (even by Zimbabwe), many matches were close, and an Indian victory ensured eyeballs and some instant love. By the time India had won the tense, cagey final, to paraphrase and misquote Victor Hugo, no BCCI could stop the idea of T20 whose time had come. The IPL had been launched in a low-key fashion a few days before the victory, and the BCCI now had the opportunity of being at the right place at the right time.

Eleven years after the first edition, it is safe to say that cricket hasn’t been the same ever since. The other factor which has undoubtedly worked for the IPL is scheduling. One look at the future tours program shows that there is a pattern to international (and domestic) cricket. Essentially, cricket takes place during a six-month window in various nations across the world. Cricket in England is a summer-time sport with the highlight of the cricket season headlined around the peak of summer; it is also the case in the other countries in the temperate zones which are not affected by a torrential rainy season (April-September in England and October-March in Australia, South Africa and New Zealand). On the other hand, even though the Asian countries are situated in the Northern hemisphere, playing cricket is not possible during the traditional English summer season due to the monsoon. Hence, in the subcontinent, cricket is a winter-time sport (October-March), which runs in tandem along with the cricketing schedules of the Southern-hemisphere cricketing nations. The tropical West Indies grapple with a different problem despite having great sunshine through the year and no monsoon — the hurricane season during the second half of the calendar year. This international cricket schedule percolates down to the domestic seasons as well. Looking at the pre-existing pattern, the scheduling window for the now-defunct Champions League T20 seems obvious.

RAM JANMABHOOMI : The History of Ayodhya

Ayodhya, also called Oudh or Awadh, town, south-central Uttar Pradesh state, northern India. It lies on the Ghaghara River just east of Faizabad.

An ancient town, Ayodhya is regarded as one of the seven sacred cities of the Hindus, revered because of its association in the great Indian epic poem Ramayana with the birth of Rama and with the rule of his father, Dasharatha. According to this source, the town was prosperous and well fortified and had a large population.

In traditional history, Ayodhya was the early capital of the kingdom of Kosala, though in Buddhist times (6th–5th century BCE) Shravasti became the kingdom’s chief city. Scholars generally agree that Ayodhya is identical with the town of Saketa, where the Buddha is said to have resided for a time. Its later importance as a Buddhist centre can be gauged from the statement of the Chinese Buddhist monk Faxian in the 5th century CE that there were 100 monasteries there (although he cited 100, Faxian probably did not mean that exact number, just that there were many monasteries). There were also a number of other monuments, including a stupa (shrine) reputed to have been founded by the Mauryan emperor Ashoka (3rd century BCE).

The Kanauj kingdom arose in Ayodhya, then called Oudh, during the 11th and 12th centuries CE. The region was later included in the Delhi sultanate, the Jaunpur kingdom, and, in the 16th century, the Mughal Empire. Oudh gained a measure of independence early in the 18th century but became subordinate to the British East India Company in 1764. In 1856 it was annexed by the British; the annexation and subsequent loss of rights by the hereditary land revenue receivers provided one of the causes of the Indian Mutiny in 1857. Oudh was joined with the Agra Presidency in 1877 to form the North-Western Provinces and later the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, now Uttar Pradesh state.

Despite the town’s great age, there are few surviving monuments of any antiquity. The Babri Masjid (“Mosque of Bābur”) was built in the early 16th century by the Mughal emperor Bābur on a site traditionally identified as Rama’s birthplace and as the location of an ancient Hindu temple, the Ram Janmabhoomi. Because of its significance to both Hindus and Muslims, the site was often a matter of contention. In 1990, riots in northern India followed the storming of the mosque by Hindu nationalists intent on erecting a temple on the site; the ensuing crisis brought down the Indian government. Two years later, on December 6, 1992, the three-story mosque was demolished in a few hours by a crowd of Hindu nationalists. It was estimated that more than 2,000 people died in the rioting that swept through India following the mosque’s destruction. An investigative commission led by Manmohan Singh Liberhan, a retired judge, was formed in 1992 but did not issue a report until 2009. The report, when it finally appeared, caused an uproar because it blamed several leading figures from the pro-Hindu Bharatiya Janata Party for the mosque’s destruction. A court ruling in 2010 divided the land between Hindus and Muslims, but that decision was overturned in 2019 by the Supreme Court, which entrusted the property exclusively to Hindus.

The numerous Vaishnava shrines and bathing ghats are of no great age. Close to the modern town are several mounds marking the site of ancient Ayodhya that have not yet been adequately explored by archaeologists. Pop. (2001) 49,417; (2011) 55,890.

Best Smart Speakers (2020) : Virtual Assistant:

Chatty speakers from Google, Amazon, and other are popular. But which one is right for you?

There are many smart speakers out there, but choosing the best one keeps getting durable. First thing you have to do is decide which voice assistant do you wanna prefer. There are top three voice assistant's worth using - Alexa, Google Assistant, and Siri - each has it's own features. Right now we prefer some named, well known voice speakers Amazon and Google Assistant. 

Second, you need to decide which speaker has the best features that you need or are best suited for your needs. Is music quality your biggest need ?  

What Can Smart Speakers Do?

Speakers that talk to us have been around for decades. Speakers that we can talk to, on the other hand, are still pretty new. Thanks to voice assistants, you can get a smart speaker that won't just play music, but will do whatever you tell it to. Smart speakers aren't amazing conversationalists, but they can tell you the weather, remind you of appointments, control your 

Now that we know what a smart speaker can do, now we are gonna talk about some best Alexa speakers below;

The best Alexa speakers you can buy today

1. Amazon Echo (3nd Gen)

Best Alexa speaker overall

Size: 5.9 x 3.5 x 3.5 inches | Weight: 29 ounces | Speakers: 3-inch Woofer, 0.8-inch tweeter | Battery Life: n/a | Audio Out: 3.5mm, Bluetooth

The third generation Amazon Echo is our overall top pick among the best Alexa speakers. It's a giant leap from the original both in terms of design and performance. It comes in an attractive fabric-swathed finish and packs improved audio hardware from the second-generation Echo. Like the Echo Plus, the Echo packs a 3-inch woofer, 0.8-inch tweeter and Dolby Audio.

2. Amazon Echo Dot

Best Alexa speaker.

Size: 3.9 x 3.9 x 1.7 | Weight: 10.6 ounces | Speakers: Single built-in speaker | Battery Life: n/a | Audio Out: Bluetooth, 3.5mm

Echo Dot is the best Alexa speaker for those on a budget. But it's also good for those who are looking for whole-house Alexa coverage, as you can easily pick up multiple Echo Dots and link them together to create a connected intercom system. Although you might not want Alexa in every room, the Echo Dot certainly makes it possible. 

Despite its small size, the Echo Dot has other features that make it well-suited for more than just the cost-conscious. It delivers solid audio in its tiny body, which is covered by a friendly mesh fabric design that's perfect for a living area or bedroom. For those of you who just purchased one, here's

3. Sonos One

The best-sounding Alexa speaker

Size: 4.8 x 6.4 inches | Speakers: Dual amplifiers, 1 tweeter, 1 mid-woofer | Ports: None | Wireless: 2.4/5 GHz | Smart assistants: Alexa, Google Assistant

That's right. The best Alexa speaker when it comes to audio isn't made by Amazon. The Sonos One delivers exceptional sound in a compact, yet powerful package. What's more, you can pair two Sonos Ones for true stereo sound, and group multiple devices together for whole-home audio.

But what also makes the Sonos One great is its ability to stream audio from hundreds of sources across the company's library: Not just Spotify and TuneIn, but SiriusXM, MLB, and much, much more. And, you can control it all using Alexa. Should you tire of Amazon, you can also switch the Sonos One to use Google Assistant, which makes this speaker even more versatile. The one caveat is that the Sonos One lacks two of Alexa's features: The ability to use Drop-In and make phone calls. 

4. Amazon Echo Dot With Clock

An Echo Dot—with a clock

Size: 3.9 x 3.9 x 1.7 inches | Weight: 10.6 ounces | Speakers: Single built-in speaker | Battery Life: n/a | Audio Out: Bluetooth, 3.5mm

The name says it all: This is an Echo Dot with a clever LED clock built in its face. However, this seemingly simple addition adds a ton of functionality to the Echo Dot, making an even better bedside companion. More than just the time, though, the Echo Dot with Clock's display can also show you the current temperature, and also functions as a timer. It also has an ambient sensor that automatically adjusts the brightness of the display based on the lightning of its surrounding environment. 

5. Amazon Echo Show 8

This smart display proves size isn't everything

Size: 7.9 x 5.4 x 3.9 inches | Weight: 36.6 oz | Speakers: Dual 2-inch neodymium drivers | Display: 8-inch 1280 x 800 | Camera: 1MP | Battery Life: n/a | Audio Out: Bluetooth, 3.5mm audio

We're as surprised as you, but we think the Amazon Echo Show 8 is by far the best Alexa speaker with a display. That's right: We like it better than its larger sibling, the 10-inch Amazon Echo Show, and miles more than the adorably compact Echo Show 5.

The Best Google Assistant Speakers for Your Home

From smart displays to portable boomboxes, Google's voice assistant comes in all shapes and sizes. Here are our favorites.

Ok Google!

The best Google Home speakers can cater to your specific needs. Google and other smart home manufacturers offer a large selection of audio devices for all sorts of different scenarios, but it doesn’t mean every one is worth buying. 

Each is powered by Google Assistant, a virtual butler that comes pre-installed in the Google Home, Nest Mini or Google Nest Hub Max speaker. With one of these Google-brand devices, you can take advantage of the 

What are the best Google Home speakers?

1. Google Nest Mini

The best Google Home speaker overall

Size: 3.7 x 1.7 inches | Speakers: 40-millimeter driver | Ports: None | Wireless: 2.4/6 GHz, Bluetooth

The Google Nest Mini is one of the best Google Home speakers you can get, even though it costs less than $50. Without raising the price or altering the homey, fabric-swathed appearance of the original 

Invisible touch controls on the top of the Mini lets you change volume, while a physical switch can be used to deactivate its microphone for those times you don't want Google listening in. Plus, the hook on the back lets you hang it on the wall if you need to save some counter space. The Nest Mini also comes in a variety of colors: a modern-looking light-grey, Chalk, Charcoal gray, Coral orange and Sky blue.

2. Sonos One

The ultimate Google Home speaker for audiophiles

Size: 4.8 x 6.4 inches | Speakers: Dual amplifiers, 1 tweeter, 1 mid-woofer | Ports: None | Wireless: 2.4/5 GHz

Not only does the Sonos One rank among the best Google Home speakers, it’s also one of the best smart speakers overall. We’ve yet to review a better-sounding speaker of its size, although you would swear its tunes come from a much larger device. Using Sonos’s stereo sound feature, you can pair two of the Ones together or link them with other Sonos speakers for whole-home audio.

Aside from killer quality, another advantage of the Sonos One is that you can stream from hundreds of audio streaming services, from well-known apps like Spotify to more obscure channels and radio stations from all around the globe. While you don't get all of the abilities of Google Assistant. there's enough there for most. Yes, you'll pay more than you would for a Google-made speaker, but this is the one to get for audiophiles.

3. Google Home

The flagship Google Home speaker is still a quality choice

Size: 5.6 x 3.8 inches | Speakers: 2-inch driver, dual 2-inch passive radiators | Ports: None | Wireless: 2.4/5 GHz

Google's first smart speaker, the Google Home, has a friendly, vase-shaped design with a bottom cover that can be swapped out. While Amazon has made several different versions of its Echo smart speaker, Google has stuck with its original Google Home over the years. As one of the best Google Home speakers, it delivers good sound — and booming bass — for the price.

Plus, you can use Google Home to control Chromecast-enabled devices, such as TVs. And its initial release several years ago, the Google Home has dropped in price; at the moment, it's just $49, half off its regular price of $99. However, Google no longer offers the Home in multiple colors. Now, you can only get it in white with a charcoal gray base. And it’s likely the last Google-made speaker without ‘Nest’ branding.

That's the ending! Share your experience in the comment section below :-!