Latest news with #Times
India Today
5 hours ago
- Entertainment
- India Today
Gavaskar, Sachin, Dravid or Kohli: Who's India's best? Sherlock Holmes investigates
The sun rose over 221B Baker Street, embracing the morning air with warmth. Inside, the faint aroma of burnt toast and strong coffee battled with the smell of tobacco from Sherlock Holmes' John Watson, bleary-eyed from a late night in a Soho disc, stumbled into the sitting room. He found Sherlock Holmes buried deep in the day's edition of the Times. Design Credit: ITGD Editorial Design advertisement'Morning,' Watson muttered, stretching his torso to shake off the stiffness of a night spent chasing whisky and women. Holmes didn't look up. Watson, curiosity roused, sidled up behind him, peering over his shoulder to catch a glimpse of what held the detective's attention. 'The great Sherlock Holmes,' Watson chuckled, 'reading about the Indian cricket team? Now who would've thought the old chap had a drop of cricket in him?'Holmes set the paper aside and leaned back in his leather lounge chair. Reaching for his violin, he plucked a single, resonant note. It was F-minor, a subtle message.'Come on, mate,' Watson pressed, grinning. You can't duck my questions like a Bumrah bouncer. "What's with the sudden interest in Indian cricket?'advertisementSherlock set the violin beside a polished human skull on the desk. 'Elementary, my dear Watson. I am unravelling the case of the fabulous four.'Watson raised an eyebrow. 'The fab four? What's that, old chap?'Holmes' lips twitched into a smirk. 'The question gripping journalists from Mumbai to Manchester: who is the greatest Indian Test batsman amongst the big four: Gavaskar, Tendulkar, Dravid, or Kohli? I intend to solve this puzzle.' Watson's eyes lit up. 'Who do you reckon it is?'Holmes reached for his pipe. 'It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. You risk twisting facts to suit theories, rather than theories to suit facts. Make a cappuccino, Watson, and we'll examine the evidence.'Watson smiled, heading for the kitchen. 'Tricky business. Fans will cry bias, whatever you conclude.' He paused, scribbling a note for his voice was stern. 'There is no 'truth' in cricket, Watson. Only facts. Those who let emotions cloud judgment are fans. Those who weigh facts dispassionately are pundits. No pundit fears a fan's ire.'advertisementWatson's smile froze. Holmes' icy gaze reminded him: when the detective's mind whirred, best not to a cappuccino beside Holmes, Watson settled for a mystery to rival their greatest cases. SHERLOCK HOLMES INVESTIGATES 'Who do you rank as the best?' Holmes sipped the cappuccino.'Never saw Gavaskar bat. I'm fond of Virat Kohli.''Recency bias,' Holmes smirked. 'A common error of the short-sighted. Look at the data.'Watson chuckled heartily. 'Data is like a bird—it'll sing the tune you fancy''We shall see.' Holmes rose and activated a digital projector. A chart flashed on the sitting room's screen, comparing the fab four's Test batting averages. 'Observe, Watson. Kohli's 46.85 trails Tendulkar's 53.79, Dravid's 52.31, and Gavaskar's 51.12.'Watson's brow creased. "Kohli played the least number of Tests, and was the earliest to retire, despite fitness and modern equipment. He has the lowest average among the fab four.'advertisement'Indeed. Now consider SENA–South Africa, England, New Zealand, and Australia—where pitches favor pace and swing, testing a batsman's mettle.'Another slide appeared, showing SENA averages. Watson frowned. 'Kohli's lowest outside Asia. News to me.''I omitted the West Indies, Watson. In Kohli's era, their Test side was less formidable than in Gavaskar's day.''Hold on. I'm curious about the Caribbean. Let's see those figures.'The projector shifted, revealing Kohli's average in 11 West Indies Tests. Watson's jaw dropped. 'Kohli's at the bottom again.' 'I am impressed, Watson,' Sherlock clapped slowly. 'There is one more piece of evidence–their batting in the five years before retirement. Guess what?'Watson sighed. 'Bottom again.' advertisement'Precisely. What does this suggest?' Holmes tapped tobacco into his pipe.'Fading reflexes? Declining motivation, waning drive to succeed?' Watson muttered.'Yes, and a slump. Post-Covid–damn that virus–Kohli faltered, nicked off-stump deliveries, and fell to spinners like Nathan Lyon.''You have a point, Holmes.''The power of facts. Deduction's law,' Holmes smiled. 'Kohli's Test record—low average, lesser longevity, final years' dip—places him fourth. I'd consider Vengsarkar or Sehwag, but let's keep our suspects to four.''So, Kohli isn't the greatest?''Figures don't lie. Eliminate the impossible, and what remains, however improbable, is truth,' Holmes replied, his voice low. 'He is a modern titan, with a hunger for big scores. But not the greatest.''Another cappuccino?' Watson asked, stirring his coffee.'No, a double espresso. This calls for a shot of nostalgia,' Holmes said, lifting his violin. Watson sipped in silence. The chase for truth had begun. The game was afoot. Holmes was playing his favourite game: deduction by data placed Kohli below the triumvirate—the saviour (Gavaskar), the destroyer (Tendulkar), and the protector (Dravid).But Watson wasn't done. 'Holmes, let's test the public. I'll post a poll on my blog about Kohli's legacy, then we'll tackle the other three.'Holmes raised an eyebrow. 'A public vote? Sentiment may cloud judgment, but proceed.'Watson posted at once:In a few hours, India's Test cricket will see a generational all eyes are on the future team, Virat Kohli's retirement has ignited a # would you place Kohli in the list of Gavaskar, Tendulkar, Dravid and himself?Vote here:— India Today Sports (@ITGDsports) June 19, 2025Share your vote! #FabFourDebate and stay tuned for Part 2 of this Sharma, our guest author, likes to write on cricket, cinema, music and politics. He believes they are InMust Watch
Los Angeles Times
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Federal agents denied entry to Dodger Stadium
Department of Homeland Security vehicles with masked agents were stationed Thursday morning outside Dodger Stadium, in another sign of the raids sweeping Southern California. It is unclear what operation the federal agents were carrying out or whether anyone in that area was arrested. Images of the vehicles immediately played out on social media and fueled speculation about their activities. The agents declined to say why they were at the stadium when asked by a Times reporter. The vehicles appeared to be staging near the downtown parking lot entrance to the stadium, which was empty Thursday morning except for a small contingent of local media. According to multiple people with knowledge of the situation who were not authorized to speak publicly, agents were denied entry to the Dodger Stadium grounds when they attempted to enter the parking lots. The parking lot is not owned by the Dodgers, but is considered Dodgers property by the team. It is owned by the team's former owner, billionaire Frank McCourt. The team did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Dodgers have been under pressure since the raids began earlier this month to make a statement in support of immigrants. On Wednesday, the team said it intended to announce plans Thursday to assist the immigrant communities recently impacted in Los Angeles. Singer and social media personality Nezza sang a Spanish version of the national anthem at Dodger Stadium, in an act of protest against the immigration raids, despite being asked by a team employee to sing in English.
USA Today
13 hours ago
- Entertainment
- USA Today
Judge: Justin Baldoni can see texts between Taylor Swift and Blake Lively
Judge: Justin Baldoni can see texts between Taylor Swift and Blake Lively Show Caption Hide Caption Blake Lively's team slams Baldoni's over Taylor Swift subpoena Blake Lively's team has condemned Justin Baldoni's team's decision to subpoena Taylor Swift, calling it a blatant attempt to exploit Lively's friendship for tabloid attention. unbranded - Entertainment Justin Baldoni can obtain private text messages between Blake Lively and Taylor Swift that pertain to the filming of 'It Ends With Us,' a court ruled on Wednesday, June 18. It's the latest development in an ongoing legal feud between co-stars Lively and Baldoni, over what occurred on the set of the film, released in 2024. Baldoni, who also directed the film, first sued Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, and The New York Times in late 2024 after the actress went public with claims that Baldoni sexually harassed her and helped orchestrate a smear campaign against her. The lawsuit was filed in response to Lively's sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit in late 2024, and the Times article about it. Lively previously sought a protective order to prevent sharing the text messages requested by Baldoni's lawyers, arguing that the communications were irrelevant to the case, and could instead be used "to prop up a public relations narrative outside of court." However, Judge Lewis Liman ruled on Wednesday that the information is pertinent because Lively identified Swift as someone who would know about complaints or discussions regarding the working environment on the set of the film. "Given that Lively has represented that Swift had knowledge of complaints or discussions about the working environment on the film, among other issues, the requests for messages with Swift regarding the film and this action are reasonably tailored to discover information that would prove or disprove Lively's harassment and retaliation claims," the judge wrote. Baldoni's legal team will only have access to messages about 'It Ends With Us' and the co-stars ongoing legal battle. USA TODAY has reached out to Baldoni and Lively's representatives for comment on the development. Baldoni's $400M extortion lawsuit against Lively, the Times dismissed Liman previously dismissed Justin Baldoni's $400 million countersuit against Lively, Reynolds and the Times on June 9. However, the judge gave Baldoni's team a second chance to address specific claims by filing a second amended complaint – for breach of implied covenant and tortious interference with contract – by June 23. "As we have said from day one, this '$400 million' lawsuit was a sham, and the Court saw right through it," Lively's lawyers said on June 9 in a statement to USA TODAY. "We look forward to the next round, which is seeking attorneys' fees, treble damages and punitive damages against Baldoni, Sarowitz, Nathan, and the other Wayfarer Parties who perpetrated this abusive litigation." In a statement obtained by USA TODAY on June 10, Baldoni's lawyers slammed the Lively team's "predictable declaration of victory" in the case, suggesting they intend to refile four of their claims, as Liman has recommended. Contributing: Taijuan Moorman and Brendan Morrow
New York Post
17 hours ago
- Politics
- New York Post
NY Times accuses Elon Musk of ‘continuing to lash out' at them over drug use report
The New York Times accused Tesla CEO Elon Musk of 'lashing out' against them on Tuesday. In May, the New York Times published a report citing 'private messages' sent to them and 'interviews with more than a dozen people who have known or worked with him' that alleged Musk's drug use was 'more intense' than publicly known as he campaigned with then-candidate Donald Trump in 2024. Advertisement 'Mr. Musk's drug consumption went well beyond occasional use,' the NYT reported. 'He told people he was taking so much ketamine, a powerful anesthetic, that it was affecting his bladder, a known effect of chronic use. He took Ecstasy and psychedelic mushrooms. And he traveled with a daily medication box that held about 20 pills, including ones with the markings of the stimulant Adderall, according to a photo of the box and people who have seen it.' Musk repeatedly denounced the article and called out the Times by posting the results of a recent drug test on his X account on Tuesday. The paper's communications team responded to the results, saying that Musk was 'continuing to lash out' against them and stood by the story. 'Elon Musk is continuing to lash out because he doesn't like our reporting. Nothing that he's said or presented since our article about his drug use during the presidential campaign was published contradicts what we uncovered. We stand by our journalism,' the NY Times Communications account wrote. Advertisement 3 The New York Times accused Tesla CEO Elon Musk of 'lashing out' against them on Tuesday. AFP via Getty Images 3 In May, the Times published a report citing 'private messages' sent to them and 'interviews with more than a dozen people who have known or worked with him' that alleged Musk's drug use was 'more intense' than publicly known. REUTERS The NYT gave the same response after Musk challenged the New York Times and Wall Street Journal to release the results of their own drug tests. 'Great idea. I hereby challenge the NYT and WSJ to take drug tests and publish the results! They won't, because those hypocrites are guilty as sin,' Musk wrote. Advertisement The back-and-forth between the New York Times and Musk has been ongoing since the article was published on May 30. 3 Musk repeatedly denounced the article and called out the Times by posting the results of a recent drug test on his X account on Tuesday. X/elonmusk One day after the story was published, Musk wrote on X that the NYT was 'lying their a– off' and insisted that he had not taken ketamine in years. The NY Times Communications account pushed back on Musk at the time, similarly accusing Musk of 'lashing out' but with 'no evidence.' Advertisement 'Kirsten Grind and Megan Twohey's thoroughly sourced report provides an important and fair look into Musk's drug use and family conflicts. They interviewed a dozen people who have known or worked with him, and saw private text messages, legal documents and photographic evidence,' the NY Times Communications account wrote. 'Elon Musk is just lashing out because he doesn't like our article. We provided Musk with multiple opportunities to reply or rebut this reporting before publication and he declined, opting instead to try to distract with a social post and no evidence.'
Wales Online
21 hours ago
- Sport
- Wales Online
Andy Murray's six-word Novak Djokovic admission explains tennis legends' split
Andy Murray's six-word Novak Djokovic admission explains tennis legends' split Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic stunned the tennis world when they announced they would be teaming up to form a player-coach partnership but parted ways after just six months in May Andy Murray has spoken about why he stopped being Novak Djokovic's coach (Image: WILLIAM WEST/AFP ) Andy Murray admits he's unsure whether he enjoyed his coaching stint with Novak Djokovic after the two tennis legends split last month. Having only retired from the sport last summer, Murray stunned the tennis world in November by announcing he had taken on the role of coaching his long-time former rival, Djokovic. The pair, who boast three and 24 Grand Slam titles respectively, teamed up ahead of the Australian Open. Djokovic reached the semi-finals but was forced to pull out of the tournament injured after losing the first set. The season went on to become even more of a challenge for the Serbian despite Murray's technical and tactical advice. Djokovic suffered first-round defeats in four out of five tournaments before the pair mutually agreed to end their partnership in May - six months after coming together and just six weeks before Wimbledon. Now, Murray has shared his thoughts on the unique experience during an interview at SEC Armadillo, Glasgow in front of his Scottish fans. When probed by broadcaster Andrew Cotter about the split, Murray revealed they decided to part ways because he wasn't particularly enjoying his role. Via the Times, Murray said: 'We had a chat on the phone and he asked me if I would consider coaching him, which I wasn't expecting. "I think it was a pretty unique opportunity. I was really enjoying being at home but I thought I should give it a go and see whether I enjoyed it.' Article continues below Murray paused before giving a telling six-word admission: 'I'm not sure if I did.' It drew laughter from the crowd but wasn't followed up on by Cotter. Djokovic previously stated that they "couldn't get more out of the partnership on court" and explained their decision to part ways before the French Open last month, saying: "It was mutual, We both wanted to have a call and to speak, so we - actually, we both were on the same page. Murray didn't necessarily enjoy coaching the Serb (Image: Getty ) "So it was not, you know, his initiative or my initiative. It was both of us coming together and just saying, you know, I think we should stop here. That's what it was." Djokovic and Murray might have had an awkward reunion at Roland Garros as they came face-to-face during Rafael Nadal's farewell ceremony. However, the Serb explained that their friendship has not been affected by their unsuccessful player-coach dynamic. "He did congratulate me [on Geneva], and he said, 'Now that you have a proper coach, you're winning tournaments,'" the Serbian recalled. "I don't know, I didn't take that as a joke! I mean, of course he was joking, but, you know... I think I have said enough, but I will say it again: Andy is just an amazing person. 'For him to join my team and for us to give a shot to this player-coach relationship was really an incredible thing for tennis and for both of us. I was very privileged and honoured. I was enjoying myself very much regardless of the fact that we haven't had maybe the success we both wanted or people expected us to have. "But I still think that, you know, I have learned things on the court with him, I have enjoyed my conversations with him about tennis, because I still think that he's one of the most brilliant tennis IQ guys out there. "Whoever he decides to work with next, if and when, you know, that player is going to be lucky because he has definitely a lot to share, a lot of great insights. It just didn't work out between us in terms of results, in terms of what we were hoping for, and that's all there is to it. Article continues below "Personally, I actually enjoyed my time very much with him, and I feel like we have a closer relationship because of our working relationship in the last four, five months."
