India versus NZ. 1994. 2nd ODI. Auckland....
The story is well known for any Indian cricket fan. Sidhu woke up with a neck sprain. Sachin was promoted to the opening spot and scored 82 of 49 deliveries!
Since that day, Sachin has played the role of opening bat through most of his ODI career. Prior to that, he was NOT a sparkling success in the one day arena. Post Auckland, he has been one of its biggest stars. Over the years, due to various reasons, he has dropped back down into the middle order. Sometimes, it has been to accomodate a pinch hitter at the top of the order. Sometimes, to shield him from the new ball and sometimes to keep the scorecard moving in the middle overs. And out there, he has had his successes, though, nothing like the eye catching scores he produces at the top of the order.
I always felt that Sachin's technical correctness does not lend itself suitable to scoring heavy and quick in the middle order. I've never felt that Sachin is the kind to muscle the ball to the boundary. Inspite of his strength, his forte was his ability to hit the balls and time them well. With the ball going soft in the middle overs, and the spinners or the Astles operating them, the ball just woundn't fly without giving it a might thwack. Consequently, he would be seen to be nudging and gliding the ball all over the field. Hard to recollect a quickfire half century from Sachin that changed the balance of the game.
Now, as I kept up on cricinfo and cricbuzz, I couldn't help note that he scored boundaries in FRONT of the wicket soon after he got in, which means firm pushes and hits rather than paddles and flicks. The text commentary from both sides indicated that this was the Sachin that we get to see rarely these days. One who forces the issue rather than the one that gets dictated to by Paul Harris.
Anyway, the scoreboard started racing and then galloping. Read that the Windies were kind enough to drop a couple of dollies. And then noted that the strike through the last over was very well 'managed'. Whichever way it was, I did not get to see it. All I see is a 100 of 76 balls. It must be quite close to his fastest one ever, if not the fastest. And this from the middle over.
Of course, this does not prove much. There are a 101 arguments against this innings being one of his top 10 or even 25. And I agree with most of them. However, 10 years down the line, is any argument going to prevent a smile from appearing when Sachin's fastest hundreds are published and you find a 100 of 76, while batting at No.4. I know I will be grinning!
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Thursday, January 25, 2007
most often genius
I've never found writing a clinical analysis or report on anything or anyone very interesting. Can't say that I haven't attempted one though. However, all such attempts remain half hearted half completed efforts that haven't been given a second glance or attempt. Having watched the Federer - Roddick mismatch, I thought that it is high time I got one going this time. It is 2:15am and I have to get to work tomorrow. But a man needs an outlet for his emotions. Waking up a friend and screaming into the phone would be one option, but that would be such a disgraceful way to thank Fed for what he did today. Instead, writing about it sounds like a justifiable alternative.
I'd like to say that from 4 all in the first set to 1 up in the third set, Federer put on the greatest exhibition of tennis ever seen. I'd also like to state that from 1 up in the third to the end of the match, he played the second greatest tennis exhibition ever seen. I'd like to go with BBC Sport's John Lloyd assertion that this was the greatest performance ever. However, I know that if I read the aforesaid on any report or blog, I would immediately dismiss it as banal. It just wouldn't do justice. So, what I am going to do is try and be as objective as I can. Here goes...
From 4 all in the first set, to 1 up in the third set, Federer played tennis that he has played quite a few times. It is the brand of tennis that he has played previously in his matches with Hewitt, Roddick and Blake. Honestly, I think that I have seen all of this quite a few times over the past couple of years. So, in those terms, what I witnessed today wasn't new, but it was special. Shame on me for not being able to come up with anything other than *special*, but I'm sorry. I really am lost for words here. Anyone reading this, is free to substitute special with brilliant, breathtaking, astonishing etc. Feel free to use all the adjectives that exist, but if you didn't watch it, then you don't know how inadequate those words are.
It must have been heart breaking for Roddick to see his vastly improved game shredded to pieces by the Federer arsenal, but I wish he sees the reality of the situation and accepts that what he had to fight today would have beaten John McEnroe at his peak on a grass court! If Roddick were to concede any future matchups with the Fed, I wouldn't blame him. But kidding aside, Roddick must have realised what a big mistake it was to beat Federer at Kooyong. It just wasn't worth it, was it?
Moving on to Federer's game....not just today's performance, but his game in general. Before I get into that, let me state beforehand that I will be using adjectives in moderation through the rest of the article. Using up all the adjectives I know and then getting some more from dictionary.com wouldn't look out of place here, but I'd rather tone it down here and save them for posts where the words justify the performance. Here, it would just be inadequate.
First, lets take the forehand. First game of the match, Roddick pulled out his favored one-two play. A big serve, followed by a forehand winner. The commentators took note and mentioned that that was the key was Roddick. Same game, Federer returned well and and got Roddick to send across a ball that sat up, but was at the baseline. As is his wont, he danced around it, and sent out an inside out forehand that was so easy on the eye, that a casual viewer could easily mistake it for the easiest shot and angle in the game. It was not. No one else could play a forehand so easily. No one else can find that angle. But Federer does it easily. Just as I was marveling at that, the match moved on, and Federer gave up the early break with 4 straight unforced errors from 30-0 up on his service game. That got me laughing about how wrong I was and how even Federer cannot be that good. Unfortunately for Roddick, Fed heard me laughing.
Now, lets take the forehand again. This time, the more conventional one. Of course, here, conventional does not take the conventional meaning. Lets get past the wordplay, shall we? On a regular cross court forehand exchange, Roddick can be seen to be powering the ball across flat and deep. However, this high risk game that he is playing didn't seem to have any effect on Roger. Such a powerful forehand is meant to get the opponent scampering, force him into trying to get the ball back in play, or maybe even forcing him into an error. Roger however, was able to take a clean swipe (swipe might not be the right word. It does not convey grace, does it?) of the ball and get Roddick huffing and puffing. Point won.
Then comes the backhand. We are not talking about the backhand topspin here. Brilliant as it is, it was completely upstaged by the backhand flick. Roddick's new mantra has been to come forward to the net. It is easy to spot that he is not a natural there and even easier to notice that the lack of speed on court is always going to be a problem for him while doing so. Anyway, thanks to the bomb that he serves, he did get good a lot of short balls on the court, which he forced deep into Roger's backhand before coming in. For sure, even while doing so, I get the feeling that he is a step short of where he should be at the net, but I am not sure that even if he were able to find that extra step, he could do anything about what gets thrown back at him. While the forehand to forehand battle can be settled with Roger's superior swing speed, this one is different. The powerful approach shot sends Roger running to retrieve the ball. Almost always though, he managed to get his racket to it. Sometimes, he is on top of it, but quite often he has to reach out for it. And it is at those times that he sends out those outrageous flicks. Trying to describe it is hard. If you know your cricket, think of it as a Mark Waugh flick. A stroke so concise, with virtually no follow through that you would be shocked to see it flying to the boundary with such ferocity. So hopefully, you have a mental image of how this tennis equivalent might look. However, while Mark Waugh used the pace of the ball to send it to the boundary, Roger does the opposite by taking the pace off the ball, looping it high and getting it to drop dead just beyond the net. And I almost forgot to mention that the angle he puts on it would make it hard to get it back, even if there were a couple of Roddick's manning the net on the other side. And all this still doesn't make it the most jaw dropping stroke of the night.
It's time to return to the forehand again. Its not my mistake that he has so many different shots on his forehand alone, is it? So, similar to the above scenario, Roddick, gets in a good serve, which Roger, at full stretch, returns almost unfailingly. Sensing that Roger might be out of position (that's theoretical actually, since what follows confirms that Fed was very much in position), Roddick powers it again to one of the corners. If it is to Fed's backhand, and Roddick stays back, then it comes back deep and the baseline rally starts there on equal terms (and turns unequal very soon). If Roddick sends it out to Fed's forehand corner, then, Fed is running to reach it. At his final step, he is still way off. So, he extends his racket out more than usual, thus ruling out his usual topspin forehand. Instead, he sends out a looping topspin that Roddick for a moment might have imagined was going to sit up for him right in the center of the court. Big mistake! It actually loops over the net, has a lot of spin on it, falls deep in the court and oops...almost forgot again, hits the court somewhere close to the sideline and and goes further away. In a blink, Roddick is out of position and Federer has it won. If you are wondering why I went through all this trouble explaining, instead of use the term 'running forehand', let me explain. I saw Sampras hit a running forehand. And that was a tremendous shot (Do you see what has happened here? Federer makes me talk well of Sampras!). However, that one was hit when Sampras could reach the ball in his final stride and complete his stroke. Roger does that easily. This one is where Roger cannot reach it, but instead has to stretch and do something outside his regular stroke. It has to be seen to be disbelieved! Ohhh and btw...he can send it deep as described, or get it to drop dead past the net (obviously somewhere close to the sideline), which shouldn't surprise anyone since any stroke he deploys, he can get it to fall on a dime anywhere on court.
Over and out...
I'd like to say that from 4 all in the first set to 1 up in the third set, Federer put on the greatest exhibition of tennis ever seen. I'd also like to state that from 1 up in the third to the end of the match, he played the second greatest tennis exhibition ever seen. I'd like to go with BBC Sport's John Lloyd assertion that this was the greatest performance ever. However, I know that if I read the aforesaid on any report or blog, I would immediately dismiss it as banal. It just wouldn't do justice. So, what I am going to do is try and be as objective as I can. Here goes...
From 4 all in the first set, to 1 up in the third set, Federer played tennis that he has played quite a few times. It is the brand of tennis that he has played previously in his matches with Hewitt, Roddick and Blake. Honestly, I think that I have seen all of this quite a few times over the past couple of years. So, in those terms, what I witnessed today wasn't new, but it was special. Shame on me for not being able to come up with anything other than *special*, but I'm sorry. I really am lost for words here. Anyone reading this, is free to substitute special with brilliant, breathtaking, astonishing etc. Feel free to use all the adjectives that exist, but if you didn't watch it, then you don't know how inadequate those words are.
It must have been heart breaking for Roddick to see his vastly improved game shredded to pieces by the Federer arsenal, but I wish he sees the reality of the situation and accepts that what he had to fight today would have beaten John McEnroe at his peak on a grass court! If Roddick were to concede any future matchups with the Fed, I wouldn't blame him. But kidding aside, Roddick must have realised what a big mistake it was to beat Federer at Kooyong. It just wasn't worth it, was it?
Moving on to Federer's game....not just today's performance, but his game in general. Before I get into that, let me state beforehand that I will be using adjectives in moderation through the rest of the article. Using up all the adjectives I know and then getting some more from dictionary.com wouldn't look out of place here, but I'd rather tone it down here and save them for posts where the words justify the performance. Here, it would just be inadequate.
First, lets take the forehand. First game of the match, Roddick pulled out his favored one-two play. A big serve, followed by a forehand winner. The commentators took note and mentioned that that was the key was Roddick. Same game, Federer returned well and and got Roddick to send across a ball that sat up, but was at the baseline. As is his wont, he danced around it, and sent out an inside out forehand that was so easy on the eye, that a casual viewer could easily mistake it for the easiest shot and angle in the game. It was not. No one else could play a forehand so easily. No one else can find that angle. But Federer does it easily. Just as I was marveling at that, the match moved on, and Federer gave up the early break with 4 straight unforced errors from 30-0 up on his service game. That got me laughing about how wrong I was and how even Federer cannot be that good. Unfortunately for Roddick, Fed heard me laughing.
Now, lets take the forehand again. This time, the more conventional one. Of course, here, conventional does not take the conventional meaning. Lets get past the wordplay, shall we? On a regular cross court forehand exchange, Roddick can be seen to be powering the ball across flat and deep. However, this high risk game that he is playing didn't seem to have any effect on Roger. Such a powerful forehand is meant to get the opponent scampering, force him into trying to get the ball back in play, or maybe even forcing him into an error. Roger however, was able to take a clean swipe (swipe might not be the right word. It does not convey grace, does it?) of the ball and get Roddick huffing and puffing. Point won.
Then comes the backhand. We are not talking about the backhand topspin here. Brilliant as it is, it was completely upstaged by the backhand flick. Roddick's new mantra has been to come forward to the net. It is easy to spot that he is not a natural there and even easier to notice that the lack of speed on court is always going to be a problem for him while doing so. Anyway, thanks to the bomb that he serves, he did get good a lot of short balls on the court, which he forced deep into Roger's backhand before coming in. For sure, even while doing so, I get the feeling that he is a step short of where he should be at the net, but I am not sure that even if he were able to find that extra step, he could do anything about what gets thrown back at him. While the forehand to forehand battle can be settled with Roger's superior swing speed, this one is different. The powerful approach shot sends Roger running to retrieve the ball. Almost always though, he managed to get his racket to it. Sometimes, he is on top of it, but quite often he has to reach out for it. And it is at those times that he sends out those outrageous flicks. Trying to describe it is hard. If you know your cricket, think of it as a Mark Waugh flick. A stroke so concise, with virtually no follow through that you would be shocked to see it flying to the boundary with such ferocity. So hopefully, you have a mental image of how this tennis equivalent might look. However, while Mark Waugh used the pace of the ball to send it to the boundary, Roger does the opposite by taking the pace off the ball, looping it high and getting it to drop dead just beyond the net. And I almost forgot to mention that the angle he puts on it would make it hard to get it back, even if there were a couple of Roddick's manning the net on the other side. And all this still doesn't make it the most jaw dropping stroke of the night.
It's time to return to the forehand again. Its not my mistake that he has so many different shots on his forehand alone, is it? So, similar to the above scenario, Roddick, gets in a good serve, which Roger, at full stretch, returns almost unfailingly. Sensing that Roger might be out of position (that's theoretical actually, since what follows confirms that Fed was very much in position), Roddick powers it again to one of the corners. If it is to Fed's backhand, and Roddick stays back, then it comes back deep and the baseline rally starts there on equal terms (and turns unequal very soon). If Roddick sends it out to Fed's forehand corner, then, Fed is running to reach it. At his final step, he is still way off. So, he extends his racket out more than usual, thus ruling out his usual topspin forehand. Instead, he sends out a looping topspin that Roddick for a moment might have imagined was going to sit up for him right in the center of the court. Big mistake! It actually loops over the net, has a lot of spin on it, falls deep in the court and oops...almost forgot again, hits the court somewhere close to the sideline and and goes further away. In a blink, Roddick is out of position and Federer has it won. If you are wondering why I went through all this trouble explaining, instead of use the term 'running forehand', let me explain. I saw Sampras hit a running forehand. And that was a tremendous shot (Do you see what has happened here? Federer makes me talk well of Sampras!). However, that one was hit when Sampras could reach the ball in his final stride and complete his stroke. Roger does that easily. This one is where Roger cannot reach it, but instead has to stretch and do something outside his regular stroke. It has to be seen to be disbelieved! Ohhh and btw...he can send it deep as described, or get it to drop dead past the net (obviously somewhere close to the sideline), which shouldn't surprise anyone since any stroke he deploys, he can get it to fall on a dime anywhere on court.
Over and out...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)