Rivalries light up the sport of tennis like nothing else. Even the most age withered observers face meltdown when talking about or watching the TWO that matter. Unfortunately, in the current state of affairs, a Gasquet - Federer and a Safin - Federer are just matchups and not rivalries. Still, each episode of these affairs, offer the distinct possibility of turning out to be stand alone epics.
Gasquet being drawn to play Federer in the fourth round itself was a double edged sword. On the one hand, a quality battle could appear dull and devoid of drama simply due to a lack of atmosphere, while on the other hand, Gasquet had to fight fewer battles to keep up his appointment for the anointed hour (and Federer too). Thus, when I saw the schedule for the third day, here is what I had to say...
Three days into the Open and I've picked a gripe. Not a brand new one actually. This one has raised quite a few heckles over the years, but this time, it seems completely unnecessary. Hence, the rant.
The US Open has a lot going for it and not much against it. But there is one omnipresent villain who bobs up and down throughout the event every single year and showcases his absolute worst on Super Saturday. Ladies and Gentlemen, without any further ado, I present to you, the incorrigible, Mr.Scheduler.
Thanks to the action packed nature of the day and the hype and significance of the concluding weekend itself, the misfortune of the winner of the second semi-finals often goes unmentioned. Having been at the receiving end of it a few times in my couch career, I nurse the wounds, while waiting for an opportunity to strike back. At the same time, the Eleventh Commandment "Thou shall bow to television ratings" rings loudly in my ears and leaves me reluctantly resigned to fate.
However, this time, three days into it, that is, three days of glorious sunshine and floodlight filled, uninterrupted action packed days into it, Federer is scheduled to play the evening match on day three, while Richard Gasquet is slated to play the second match of day four.
Why oh why?
Why would someone do this to anyone?
Would it be so hard to ensure symmetry between and within the two halves of the draw?
Gasquet versus Federer might be equal on talent, but at this point of time, Gasquet needs all the help he can get just to take a set of the mighty Fed, and one less day off is certainly not that.
Today (Day four), first up, I checked the day's schedule, and Gasquet's name has gone missing. Baffling! Until, I note that sickness has caused Richard to forfeit his match against Donald Young. Lucky Federer!
PS: If someone is out there pondering, let me clarify that there is no point to this post really. Yesterday, it had a point, and a valid one at that, but today, it is all gone. However, with six drafts remaining just that since my last post, I just had to put this out there. Until abuse of blog space entails a jail sentence, I survive...
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
A distinct lack of pace
The Indian squad set to travel to England has been announced. Looking through our pace bowling resources for this tour, I got nostalgic, but not in a good way. I don't have any complaints against our selectors. In fact, I doff my hat to them. They took some tough decisions and chose from what is available. Its just that the end product reminds me of our 1996 tour to the same country.
Javagal Srinath was the leader of our attack back then. Venkatesh Prasad and Paras Mhambrey were the debutants who were supposed to be backed up by 'lively seam bowling' from a certain Sourav Ganguly. Prasad had a brilliant debut tour and went on to have quite a useful career opening the bowling for our team. However, watching both Mhambrey and Ganguly come off those ridiculously long run-ups to deliver what they actually did wasn't a pleasant experience, unless experiencing an electric shock counts as one.
This time, we have R.P.Singh, Ishant Sharma and Ranadeb Bose to backup Zaheer Khan and Sreesanth. I've seen R.P. in action and categorize him with Gambhir - extremely loose. I haven't seen the other two in action. I have nothing against these three. My frustration stems from the fact that instead of setting upon this challenging venture with a potent, proven lineup, we are doing so with a threadbare one, while praying that neither Zak nor Sree get injured. Other than the fact that they are not yet Akram and McGrath, I have no complaints against our top two. They sure can emulate the exploits of Sri and Prasad from 1996. However, instead of the third seamer slot being fought between Munaf Patel and Aashish Nehra, backed up by all-rounder Irfan Pathan, we have R.P., Ishant and Ranadeb. Considering their inexperience, expecting these newcomers to provide adequate backup for Sree and Zak against this mighty English side seems a tad unfair. Good luck to them.
If I make it sound like I am someone who would find ways to be miserable even after India wins a World Cup (cricket, hockey, kabaddi or whatever else), please be assured that that is not the case. Here's proof.
Post England 1996, till the end of the 90s, we had Srinath and Prasad and then, well, me. Ankola, Mhambrey, David Johnson, Dodda Johnson, Abey Kuruvilla - the list is long of those that tried but fell short of international class. Now, we have a whole bunch sitting at the doctor's desk after having demonstrated class at international level. We still fall short of Pakistani or Australian pace bowling standards, but the evolution from having no pace bowlers to having a whole bunch of injured ones, gladdens my Indian heart.
Javagal Srinath was the leader of our attack back then. Venkatesh Prasad and Paras Mhambrey were the debutants who were supposed to be backed up by 'lively seam bowling' from a certain Sourav Ganguly. Prasad had a brilliant debut tour and went on to have quite a useful career opening the bowling for our team. However, watching both Mhambrey and Ganguly come off those ridiculously long run-ups to deliver what they actually did wasn't a pleasant experience, unless experiencing an electric shock counts as one.
This time, we have R.P.Singh, Ishant Sharma and Ranadeb Bose to backup Zaheer Khan and Sreesanth. I've seen R.P. in action and categorize him with Gambhir - extremely loose. I haven't seen the other two in action. I have nothing against these three. My frustration stems from the fact that instead of setting upon this challenging venture with a potent, proven lineup, we are doing so with a threadbare one, while praying that neither Zak nor Sree get injured. Other than the fact that they are not yet Akram and McGrath, I have no complaints against our top two. They sure can emulate the exploits of Sri and Prasad from 1996. However, instead of the third seamer slot being fought between Munaf Patel and Aashish Nehra, backed up by all-rounder Irfan Pathan, we have R.P., Ishant and Ranadeb. Considering their inexperience, expecting these newcomers to provide adequate backup for Sree and Zak against this mighty English side seems a tad unfair. Good luck to them.
If I make it sound like I am someone who would find ways to be miserable even after India wins a World Cup (cricket, hockey, kabaddi or whatever else), please be assured that that is not the case. Here's proof.
Post England 1996, till the end of the 90s, we had Srinath and Prasad and then, well, me. Ankola, Mhambrey, David Johnson, Dodda Johnson, Abey Kuruvilla - the list is long of those that tried but fell short of international class. Now, we have a whole bunch sitting at the doctor's desk after having demonstrated class at international level. We still fall short of Pakistani or Australian pace bowling standards, but the evolution from having no pace bowlers to having a whole bunch of injured ones, gladdens my Indian heart.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
the buildup
Ever so often, the buildup to a big game often overshadows the game itself. Besides reports in the mainstream media, the blogworld contributes its fair share to the same. This is an essential ingredient and adds a whole lot of excitement to the event. While the game itself might turn out to be a dull one, the stakes are so high that it wouldn't matter one jot to the winner, their fans and the neutrals.
As I write, the Champions League final between AC Milan and Liverpool is less than 24 hours away. Reports of the key battles across the pitch, the mood across the different camps, the unavoidable shadow of the 2005 final between the same teams are being discussed and debated. Soon enough BBC Sport will start its buildup wherein, readers across the world will be updated with information about the fans traveling to Athens, their activities, their whereabouts and their demeanours. Further, readers will send out their own thoughts and comments, some well informed and others outrageously stupid. Some will send out frustrated yelps about co-workers and their better halves, while others will vent out their anger against the bonehead sitting in front of the TV. Humor will be omnipresent. It will be subtle but will linger long in memory.
As for the viewing experience, the unfortunate reality is that, the local time noon kickoff dulls some of the excitement built up. While it does enable me to watch the game through an extended lunch break that extends further if the game goes into extra-time and penalties, sitting in a break room at work, with bright sunshine pouring in just does not cut it. In addition, ever so often, an unfortunate soul would wander in, stare cluelessly at the three or so individuals gaping open mouthed at the screen, and launch a grand inquisition about the tournament, the stature of it and the identity of the teams contesting it. Going home for these games offers a better deal, but it involves a lot of effort and worse, my reputation at work takes a battering, since it does not take too long for my peers to figure out the reason for my prolonged absence from work during a Wednesday afternoon. So, break room it is.
The absence of Manchester United in the final lineup means that I will be devoid of any stomach churning moments during this final. Unfortunately, they lost out to a great Milan performance during the semifinal. On the other side, Liverpool and Chelsea agreed that football wasn't their strength and that they would contest a game of chess to decide the winner. After hours of tedium, a coin toss was used to end the misery. Now, I will be ardently egging on Milan for the simple reason that both Wayne Rooney and I would be throwing up if Liverpool won the trophy.
When it comes to action on the pitch, I intend to have my eye out for Kaka livening up the proceedings while on his invisible pair of roller skates. The man is a marvel. Further, the Gattuso versus Gerrard battle promises much and has added needle to it considering the public slanging that has been going on between the two over the past couple of weeks.
Glory be to Milan!
As I write, the Champions League final between AC Milan and Liverpool is less than 24 hours away. Reports of the key battles across the pitch, the mood across the different camps, the unavoidable shadow of the 2005 final between the same teams are being discussed and debated. Soon enough BBC Sport will start its buildup wherein, readers across the world will be updated with information about the fans traveling to Athens, their activities, their whereabouts and their demeanours. Further, readers will send out their own thoughts and comments, some well informed and others outrageously stupid. Some will send out frustrated yelps about co-workers and their better halves, while others will vent out their anger against the bonehead sitting in front of the TV. Humor will be omnipresent. It will be subtle but will linger long in memory.
As for the viewing experience, the unfortunate reality is that, the local time noon kickoff dulls some of the excitement built up. While it does enable me to watch the game through an extended lunch break that extends further if the game goes into extra-time and penalties, sitting in a break room at work, with bright sunshine pouring in just does not cut it. In addition, ever so often, an unfortunate soul would wander in, stare cluelessly at the three or so individuals gaping open mouthed at the screen, and launch a grand inquisition about the tournament, the stature of it and the identity of the teams contesting it. Going home for these games offers a better deal, but it involves a lot of effort and worse, my reputation at work takes a battering, since it does not take too long for my peers to figure out the reason for my prolonged absence from work during a Wednesday afternoon. So, break room it is.
The absence of Manchester United in the final lineup means that I will be devoid of any stomach churning moments during this final. Unfortunately, they lost out to a great Milan performance during the semifinal. On the other side, Liverpool and Chelsea agreed that football wasn't their strength and that they would contest a game of chess to decide the winner. After hours of tedium, a coin toss was used to end the misery. Now, I will be ardently egging on Milan for the simple reason that both Wayne Rooney and I would be throwing up if Liverpool won the trophy.
When it comes to action on the pitch, I intend to have my eye out for Kaka livening up the proceedings while on his invisible pair of roller skates. The man is a marvel. Further, the Gattuso versus Gerrard battle promises much and has added needle to it considering the public slanging that has been going on between the two over the past couple of weeks.
Glory be to Milan!
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Carribean thoughts
By all accounts, cricket did itself no favors during this World Cup. Supposedly, the carnival atmosphere associated with cricket watching in that part of the world was sorely lacking due to a multitude of reasons. Further, the ICC has been criticized for not taking the necessary steps to avoid the issues of World Cup'03 cropping up this time. Indeed, the complaint list of the two editions looks very similar - too many minnows, tournament too long, not too many close matches and of course, an inevitable winner. Strange, since my memory of the 2003 edition comprises of some gut wrenching moments, quite often followed by some serene celebratory ones. Clearly, my disillusionment with WC'07 has a lot to do with India's early exit. Having said that, as a neutral observer who always enjoys a good game of cricket, I have to admit that empty stands for the high profile clashes did make for a depressing viewing experience.
Compiling a comprehensive list of favorite highs and depressing lows does not interest me since I would have to do so based on reading experience rather than a viewing one. However, amidst the action that I caught the stumping of Brian Lara by Sangakkara of the bowling of Vaas stands out. West Indies were chasing Lanka's fighting total. They were two down already with dangerman Gayle gone. Lara was at the crease and had to carry the team if the West Indies wanted to avoid early elimination. Sangakkara was standing up to the stumps to Vaas as he did most often during this World Cup. Vaas bowled a delivery at 78 mph outside the off stump. Lara went for an expansive cover drive and missed. Sangakkara collected it without a hint of difficulty and in one fluid motion removed the bails, finding Lara inches outside his crease. There was fair praise for the dismissal considering that it was key one, however, in my opinion, not anywhere close to the amount it merited. My jaw dropped when I saw it. It remains the best piece of cricketing action that I caught during this World Cup.
I am quite aware of keepers standing up to bowlers of the medium pace category these days. Nevertheless, this was the first time that I noticed someone pull of a stumping. It was a show of skill that would have adorned any World Cup final. On that note, for this trend to become popular and worthwhile for a fielding captain, it requires two to tango. A keeper of supreme reflexes along with a bowler who can pitch it on a dot 60 out of 60 deliveries. Needless to say, India is not going to be seen doing it anytime in the near future.
Having witnessed that, reading about Buchanan's thoughts on developing the synergy between keeper and bowler a la baseball kindled my interest. Given that batsman are often able to pre-determine their strokes and jump out of the crease even to the pace bowlers, improved communication between keeper and bowler can be one way to rein them in. This is still a while away from becoming mainstream, but I think that there is huge potential to research this idea.
Undoubtedly, Woolmer's death cast the biggest shadow over the event. I had dropped my uncle at the LA airport and was buckling up to drive back to San Diego, when my friend, Rasan, called me and broke the news that Woolmer had died. I can't claim to have been heartbroken, because I was not, but the news was quite a shock. I recall continuing to discuss the news with a sad overtone for a while through the drive. Looking back, what stood out from the conversation was the fact that both of us took it for granted that it was a heart attack and nothing else. We tried to figure out exact reasons for the heart attack and wondered where cricket on the subcontinent was heading.
Before the ugly truth of murder was revealed, assuming that Woolmer took Pakistan's defeat to Ireland to heart, one of the locals said, "Even da biggest team can lose to little team, man. It a game, and da ball round". The cause of death has changed. The truth remains the same though.
I must admit that if the quote was "even the biggest team can lose to a little team. It is a game and the ball is round", the meaning would have been the same, but the impact, not so much. The unique use of words and the accent that goes with it adds an unquantifiable allure to this immortal quote. The quote s-p-e-l-l-s out the meaning and significance of a sport to us. Along with it, in one sweeping move it captures the well documented spirit of the volunteers at this World Cup and their refreshing outlook on life. An easily missed positive.
Compiling a comprehensive list of favorite highs and depressing lows does not interest me since I would have to do so based on reading experience rather than a viewing one. However, amidst the action that I caught the stumping of Brian Lara by Sangakkara of the bowling of Vaas stands out. West Indies were chasing Lanka's fighting total. They were two down already with dangerman Gayle gone. Lara was at the crease and had to carry the team if the West Indies wanted to avoid early elimination. Sangakkara was standing up to the stumps to Vaas as he did most often during this World Cup. Vaas bowled a delivery at 78 mph outside the off stump. Lara went for an expansive cover drive and missed. Sangakkara collected it without a hint of difficulty and in one fluid motion removed the bails, finding Lara inches outside his crease. There was fair praise for the dismissal considering that it was key one, however, in my opinion, not anywhere close to the amount it merited. My jaw dropped when I saw it. It remains the best piece of cricketing action that I caught during this World Cup.
I am quite aware of keepers standing up to bowlers of the medium pace category these days. Nevertheless, this was the first time that I noticed someone pull of a stumping. It was a show of skill that would have adorned any World Cup final. On that note, for this trend to become popular and worthwhile for a fielding captain, it requires two to tango. A keeper of supreme reflexes along with a bowler who can pitch it on a dot 60 out of 60 deliveries. Needless to say, India is not going to be seen doing it anytime in the near future.
Having witnessed that, reading about Buchanan's thoughts on developing the synergy between keeper and bowler a la baseball kindled my interest. Given that batsman are often able to pre-determine their strokes and jump out of the crease even to the pace bowlers, improved communication between keeper and bowler can be one way to rein them in. This is still a while away from becoming mainstream, but I think that there is huge potential to research this idea.
Undoubtedly, Woolmer's death cast the biggest shadow over the event. I had dropped my uncle at the LA airport and was buckling up to drive back to San Diego, when my friend, Rasan, called me and broke the news that Woolmer had died. I can't claim to have been heartbroken, because I was not, but the news was quite a shock. I recall continuing to discuss the news with a sad overtone for a while through the drive. Looking back, what stood out from the conversation was the fact that both of us took it for granted that it was a heart attack and nothing else. We tried to figure out exact reasons for the heart attack and wondered where cricket on the subcontinent was heading.
Before the ugly truth of murder was revealed, assuming that Woolmer took Pakistan's defeat to Ireland to heart, one of the locals said, "Even da biggest team can lose to little team, man. It a game, and da ball round". The cause of death has changed. The truth remains the same though.
I must admit that if the quote was "even the biggest team can lose to a little team. It is a game and the ball is round", the meaning would have been the same, but the impact, not so much. The unique use of words and the accent that goes with it adds an unquantifiable allure to this immortal quote. The quote s-p-e-l-l-s out the meaning and significance of a sport to us. Along with it, in one sweeping move it captures the well documented spirit of the volunteers at this World Cup and their refreshing outlook on life. An easily missed positive.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
What awaits Mahela?
Even prior to the World Cup, Sri Lanka had been making quiet progress since that 6-1 thrashing that India handed out to them. Followers of Lankan cricket were quite happy to credit the transformation to Mahela Jayawardene. While his batting form was cause for concern coming in to the World Cup, he has redeemed his reputation with a couple of good knocks and one, by all accounts, all-time great knock in the semi-final. So, at this point of time (prior to the WC finals) he does have a whole lot going for him.
However, it is by resting Vaas, Malinga and Murali in the league game against the Aussies, that Mahela might well have played his biggest reputation enhancer card. It definitely depends on how the final pans out, but, if all goes well, it could be the difference between Mahela the legendary World Cup winning captain and Mahela the World Cup winning captain. What is the difference?
History indicates that as time passes, players / leaders / performances need readily presentable anecdotes for their reputations to become a part of legend. Steve Waugh's "We need to win the next 8 games to lift the Cup" and "You just dropped the World Cup" are two of those that readily come to mind. Mahela's reputation maker could be the resting of his bowling trio, particularly if Malinga could play a key part in the triumph. In the years to come, he could be the captain that played rope-a-dope with the unbeatable Aussies and came out on top. And we all know the reputation of the man that invented that tactic, don't we? Now, all he needs to do is to defeat an Australian team that is undefeated in 22 matches in the World Cup.
However, it is by resting Vaas, Malinga and Murali in the league game against the Aussies, that Mahela might well have played his biggest reputation enhancer card. It definitely depends on how the final pans out, but, if all goes well, it could be the difference between Mahela the legendary World Cup winning captain and Mahela the World Cup winning captain. What is the difference?
History indicates that as time passes, players / leaders / performances need readily presentable anecdotes for their reputations to become a part of legend. Steve Waugh's "We need to win the next 8 games to lift the Cup" and "You just dropped the World Cup" are two of those that readily come to mind. Mahela's reputation maker could be the resting of his bowling trio, particularly if Malinga could play a key part in the triumph. In the years to come, he could be the captain that played rope-a-dope with the unbeatable Aussies and came out on top. And we all know the reputation of the man that invented that tactic, don't we? Now, all he needs to do is to defeat an Australian team that is undefeated in 22 matches in the World Cup.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
a good middle order innings
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!
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!
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...
Friday, December 22, 2006
'IF' needs change
'IF you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same'
-IF by Rudyard Kipling
Dravid and Chappell have been at the helm of Indian cricket for a while now. During this period, as is typical for any prolonged period of Indian cricket, the team has been through it all. Needless to mention, depending on the latest result, the team has been showered with garlands or brickbats. Being at the center of this soap opera that Indian cricket is made out to be, must be overwhelming. However, D & C have shown composure and a level of sanity that couldn't have been easy to maintain. Sure, some middle fingers have been raised, but when a bunch of *fans* hurl personal abuse in your direction for a cricketing decision, I would readily condone most reactions short of a gun shot!
Chappell's post-Wanderers' interview and Dravid's pre-Wanderers' quotes had a degree of sameness to them. Not necessarily in content, but in tone and vision. Chappell talks in detail about events behind closed doors. Events that shape and show the resilience in this group. Dravid talks about recent tours where we have stood up to be counted after being knocked to the canvas. Both indicate awareness about the clamor around them, and while accommodating that, convey that their voice of reason is something that the rest of the team hears in equal measure. If D or C feel that an additional voice would help the casue, they should consider doing a Mike Newell by putting up a copy of "IF" in the dressing room. And should they decide to do so, they would be well advised to take up Bhogle's suggestion and revise the all important lines to...
'IF you can meet with the reactions to Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same'
And treat those two impostors just the same'
-IF by Rudyard Kipling
Dravid and Chappell have been at the helm of Indian cricket for a while now. During this period, as is typical for any prolonged period of Indian cricket, the team has been through it all. Needless to mention, depending on the latest result, the team has been showered with garlands or brickbats. Being at the center of this soap opera that Indian cricket is made out to be, must be overwhelming. However, D & C have shown composure and a level of sanity that couldn't have been easy to maintain. Sure, some middle fingers have been raised, but when a bunch of *fans* hurl personal abuse in your direction for a cricketing decision, I would readily condone most reactions short of a gun shot!
Chappell's post-Wanderers' interview and Dravid's pre-Wanderers' quotes had a degree of sameness to them. Not necessarily in content, but in tone and vision. Chappell talks in detail about events behind closed doors. Events that shape and show the resilience in this group. Dravid talks about recent tours where we have stood up to be counted after being knocked to the canvas. Both indicate awareness about the clamor around them, and while accommodating that, convey that their voice of reason is something that the rest of the team hears in equal measure. If D or C feel that an additional voice would help the casue, they should consider doing a Mike Newell by putting up a copy of "IF" in the dressing room. And should they decide to do so, they would be well advised to take up Bhogle's suggestion and revise the all important lines to...
'IF you can meet with the reactions to Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)