Indian cricket has been blessed with Princes and Maharajahs ever since its inception. We have had Royals like Ranjitsinghji, the Maharajah of Vijinagram , Duleepsinghji don the sport and make it richer. But indisputably Indian cricket's Greatest Maharajah has been the man who is so aptly nicknamed" Maharaj"- Sourav Chandidas Ganguly. He started like a prince, ruled like a king and left the game like an emperor. The story of cricketers from Bengal being given a rude awakening by the controllers of cricket in the country has been a historically continual process. It started with Shute Banerjee and Putu Chowdhury and has continued till Sourav Ganguly. But defying all odds, the Tiger of Behala has stood like a Prince among the ruins of his predecessors to become arguably his country's finest captain.
If we travel down memory lane to Sourav's international career, it presents an interesting case study. His first international tour consisted of just a single One dayer against the West Indies and was highlighted by his "Maharaj" like act of not carrying out the duties properly as a twelfth man. He was deemed an egoistic cricketer and was left to rot in the wilderness for more than 4 years. It was on the England tour of 96 that this talented southpaw got his chance to present himself on the International scene. Destiny had to play an important role as The Shakespeare of Patiala, Navjot Singh Sidhu left the tour in between and Sanjay Manjrekar suffered an injury. As a result Sourav got his much awaited entry at Lords. The rest as they say is history.
Very few sportsmen have had to fight against the odds so frequently as has Sourav done throughout his career. It is unfortunate that India does not know how to honour its sporting heroes. If I were to write on this aspect, a whole book would even prove to be less. Once Sourav launched himself with that twin centuries on that England Tour, he has never looked back. He developed his one day game to such a level that he even outshone Sachin Tendulkar for a prolonged period of time. For a man whom challenges provide the biggest motivation in life, he took up captaincy at a time when Indian cricket was in complete turmoil- passing through its darkest phase. The match fixing controversy had rocked the nation and Sachin Tendulkar had stepped down from his position. At a time when the country needed a brave heart and a strong mind to pull itself from the deep cesspit that it had dragged itself in, Sourav became the team's messiah. A team which had hardly won away started winning regularly - both home and away. India became TEAM INDIA. A team spirit that was hardly ever seen in the Indian team became the mantra of its success. A nation which was deeply in crisis had found an able leader to take it to the shores of glory. India under Ganguly was a different knit altogether- a belief that we can win was seen among all its members. The Natwest victory started a run of wins which took Team India to the Zenith of One Day Cricket-The world cup final. Beating Australia in Australia, Pakistan in Pakistan , England in England . Sourav Ganguly had broken many jinxes. Indian cricket literaly took a rebirth. The hearts that had stopped beating after the match fixing controversy once again beat in unison during a tense match. India had once again announced itself in the big league.
Sourav Ganguly during his leadership was lucky to have worked under one of the finest coaches to have led India- John Wright. The former Kiwi Captain assumed the role of a mentor and a coach so methodically that he gave breathing space to all members of the team. The captain was given the freedom to implement his ideas and the team was allowed to revolve around him. But after 5 hectic and demanding years in India, family took precedence over work and the man from New Zealand returned to his native place. With him he also took away the fortunes of his captain.
Greg Chappel - the man who replaced Wright was seen as a master tactician who could work wonders with the team. But actually things took a turn for the worse. Chappel was instrumental in the ouster of Ganguly not only from the Captaincy but also from the team. Suddenly every other person in the country became a cricketing pundit- Sourav cannot face the rising ball, Sourav cannot field , Sourav cannot run. A man who just some time ago was the country's best captain and one of its premier batsman was now made to look like a novice. As a sports fan it was sad to see one of India's greatest sporting heroes being meted out such step motherly treatment by his own "Family" members. Age was used as an instrument against him. But fighting against all barriers , Dada proved what he was made of when he made a fairy tale comeback in South Africa . The unity which was the USP of the team had completely disintegrated and it culminated in India being eliminated in the first round of the 2007 World Cup. Thus left Greg Chappel who was responsible for waning the morale of the team and more importantly ruining the talent of one of India's most promising talent with the ball- Irfan Pathan.
It is a very arduous task to build a team. Sourav Ganguly had done this practically on his own. The current Indian team under MS Dhoni is just a continuation of that team under Ganguly which had brought confidence amongst the players. Sehwag, Zaheer and Yuvraj were given space at a time when very few conservative captains would have dared to give them a place a team. Sourav was a cricketer who played cricket at his own pace and by his own rules. It is sad that a cricketer of such magnanimous proportions has had to prove himself time and again to his countrymen. People became sceptic that Sourav would not be effective in the IPL. Unbelievable comment- No one since Brian Lara has cleared the ropes so consistently in both One Dayers and Test Cricket as Sourav Ganguly has done. One of World Cricket's finest ever One day batsmen ever, Ganguly has been unfortunate to be at the receiving end of such blasphemous statements. The innings that he played in the last match of last years IPL was lesson in batting for any young aspirant of the game.
As this year's IPL commences, it is a matter of debate whether India's greatest southpaw will be able to cope up against his younger and fitter colleagues. His fans would be praying for their DADA to continue to rule their hearts with his performances. It would be a privilege for all of us to watch this great son of Indian Cricket lead his side in the IPL - we hope his DADAGIRI stays on for some more time
Thursday, April 16, 2009
John Buchanan's Multiple Captain Theory
John Buchanan- a name unheard of in the cricketing circles outside Australia came to prominence as coach of an Australian team in the late 90's that had taken cricket altogether to a different level. He defied convention, critics and all cricketing pundits to prove his masterclass as a coach without ever playing Test Cricket.Like every great thinking mind, Buchanan is unorthodox. His maverick methods have been met with positive as well as negative criticism. Master spinner Shane Warne was dismissive about his role in the team while his captain Ricky Ponting credits him as being one of the important reasons why Australia was able to complete a hat trick of World cup wins.
For a man who has had hardly anything left on the international stage to achieve,he aptly bowed out of International retirement on a grand scale . But with the advent of the Indian Premier League, the concepts and innovations in the game of cricket have reached stratospheric proportions. The Knights from Kolkata acted smartly and caught hold of the most prized fish in the world of coaching. Buchanan had led the knights to a creditable finish at the inaugural edition ,although things could have turned out much better .The 2009 IPL has already made waves till now- all because of non cricketing reasons and Buchanan hasn't been far from making the news makers page with his "Multiple Captain" theory. Perhaps it was only apt that a man who has written a book entitled "If Better Is Possible" to come out with a never before seen idea such as this. He started his book quoting Henry Kissinger, "take people where they have never been before".Now he has taken all of us to where no one ever in the history of the sport has ever been.
It was quite natural that his idea was met with severe criticism from all corners of the cricketing fraternity and the cricket frenzy public of India. What added to the turmoil was that he had almost taken head on with the captain of the team - Sourav Ganguly, the heart and soul of the Knights. For a man who is revered perhaps more revered than Goddess Durga in his homeland, Mr. Buchanan had to be ready with his weapons to confront the consequences. He supported his theory stating that multiple captains would ease the burden on one player as the respective captains would look into the different aspects of the game which is very essential in a format so unpredictable as T-20.It is true that the minutiae of each aspect would be addressed if we have a specialist for that role but the very essence of a team would obviously be disintegrated. History is replete with glorious instances that 11 great players do not make a great team. Former Cricket great Ian Chappel has rubbished this idea saying that every team looks up to its captain in times of crisis. A team of 4 captains would suggest vulnerability in the mental framework of a team as no individual would be completely responsible for the outcome. Shane Warne was instrumental in single handedly taking the Royals to victory in the inaugural season of the IPL. It was so evident that a man entrusted with the responsibility could make the team revolve around him. And what is more surprising is that when you have a natural leader in Sourav Ganguly, there actually seems no logic to disturb the mindset of a settled team. If given a chance anyone would want to lead a side and if you have multiple captains putting in their ideas at crucial junctures in a T-20 match, nothing but chaos will unfold. However flashy and innovative the game might become, team spirit is the most important thing for a team to succeed. And a team whose leader is unstable is bound to crumble at some stage. The theory might be tested at a lower level but implementing it successfully in one the biggest stages in world cricket successfully seems dicey. In a tournament so short and fast as the IPL, even a single match might turn out to be the difference between a knock out spot and elimination. As such if the idea falters at an important stage, the team morale is bound to go haywire. South African coach Mickey Arthur disliked the idea saying "It has to be one leader always .I favour the one-captain situation because everybody in the team is clear about who is in charge at all times".
Teams like Australia and India have had different Test and one-day captains, but not more than one skipper in a match in any form of the game. But what Mr. Buchanan is plotting can have extreme effects- both positive and negative. Also, we should not be rigidly harsh on Mr. Buchanan as his theory might yield positive results . But what goes against him is the platform on which he has tried testing his idea. Kolkata which has had a hell lot of sufferings meted out to its favourite son, could not withstand anything more. It had to react. Moreover when you have arguably India's greatest ever captain leading you, such ideas are bound to bring in detractors .As King Khan had said in one of his memorable dialogues in Chak de India" Har team ka sirf ek Gunda hota hain. Aur is team ka Gunda hoon main", Mr Buchanan is part of a team which has three Gundas" Ganguly, Shahrukh and Buchanan". No one would give his place. We hope the knights continue to rule whoever the Gunda is and bring a smile to the millions in the city of joy.
For a man who has had hardly anything left on the international stage to achieve,he aptly bowed out of International retirement on a grand scale . But with the advent of the Indian Premier League, the concepts and innovations in the game of cricket have reached stratospheric proportions. The Knights from Kolkata acted smartly and caught hold of the most prized fish in the world of coaching. Buchanan had led the knights to a creditable finish at the inaugural edition ,although things could have turned out much better .The 2009 IPL has already made waves till now- all because of non cricketing reasons and Buchanan hasn't been far from making the news makers page with his "Multiple Captain" theory. Perhaps it was only apt that a man who has written a book entitled "If Better Is Possible" to come out with a never before seen idea such as this. He started his book quoting Henry Kissinger, "take people where they have never been before".Now he has taken all of us to where no one ever in the history of the sport has ever been.
It was quite natural that his idea was met with severe criticism from all corners of the cricketing fraternity and the cricket frenzy public of India. What added to the turmoil was that he had almost taken head on with the captain of the team - Sourav Ganguly, the heart and soul of the Knights. For a man who is revered perhaps more revered than Goddess Durga in his homeland, Mr. Buchanan had to be ready with his weapons to confront the consequences. He supported his theory stating that multiple captains would ease the burden on one player as the respective captains would look into the different aspects of the game which is very essential in a format so unpredictable as T-20.It is true that the minutiae of each aspect would be addressed if we have a specialist for that role but the very essence of a team would obviously be disintegrated. History is replete with glorious instances that 11 great players do not make a great team. Former Cricket great Ian Chappel has rubbished this idea saying that every team looks up to its captain in times of crisis. A team of 4 captains would suggest vulnerability in the mental framework of a team as no individual would be completely responsible for the outcome. Shane Warne was instrumental in single handedly taking the Royals to victory in the inaugural season of the IPL. It was so evident that a man entrusted with the responsibility could make the team revolve around him. And what is more surprising is that when you have a natural leader in Sourav Ganguly, there actually seems no logic to disturb the mindset of a settled team. If given a chance anyone would want to lead a side and if you have multiple captains putting in their ideas at crucial junctures in a T-20 match, nothing but chaos will unfold. However flashy and innovative the game might become, team spirit is the most important thing for a team to succeed. And a team whose leader is unstable is bound to crumble at some stage. The theory might be tested at a lower level but implementing it successfully in one the biggest stages in world cricket successfully seems dicey. In a tournament so short and fast as the IPL, even a single match might turn out to be the difference between a knock out spot and elimination. As such if the idea falters at an important stage, the team morale is bound to go haywire. South African coach Mickey Arthur disliked the idea saying "It has to be one leader always .I favour the one-captain situation because everybody in the team is clear about who is in charge at all times".
Teams like Australia and India have had different Test and one-day captains, but not more than one skipper in a match in any form of the game. But what Mr. Buchanan is plotting can have extreme effects- both positive and negative. Also, we should not be rigidly harsh on Mr. Buchanan as his theory might yield positive results . But what goes against him is the platform on which he has tried testing his idea. Kolkata which has had a hell lot of sufferings meted out to its favourite son, could not withstand anything more. It had to react. Moreover when you have arguably India's greatest ever captain leading you, such ideas are bound to bring in detractors .As King Khan had said in one of his memorable dialogues in Chak de India" Har team ka sirf ek Gunda hota hain. Aur is team ka Gunda hoon main", Mr Buchanan is part of a team which has three Gundas" Ganguly, Shahrukh and Buchanan". No one would give his place. We hope the knights continue to rule whoever the Gunda is and bring a smile to the millions in the city of joy.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Beauty and the best
John Keats once said: “ A thing of beauty is a joy forever”. We all crave for beauty in life
and work because it acts as an fine ornament on our body of work. Across centuries, there have been been many instances of work across diverse fields where a certain element of beauty has always segregated the smart men from their workmanlike counterparts.Sports has given us ample opportunities to enjoy and cherish beauty.
The ultimate aim of all sportsmen or teams is winning.But the manner in which these wins
come define the grace and demeanour of these teams or individuals. There has to be a reason why we start following teams or players. We may support a team because it belongs to our locality and hate a team team because it is from a opposing locality.That sounds rational enough. But have we ever conjectured why a person residing in a narrow alley at Maheshtala in Kolkata would crave for an Argentinian team from an altogether opposite side of the world. He does not belong to Argentina nor does he has any of his acquaintances there. It is because of the manner in which players execute their work, they win hearts and gather fans all across the world.
There have been many examples where grace has coupled with aggression to bring in a virtuoso combo. But there have also been times where the beauty quotient have had to backseat to the ruthless aggressor.Let us explore the two worlds to find out how a touch of beauty can catapult any sport to another art form.
After the Italian team won its fourth world cup in 2006, one of the leading dailies had run a column which said" You dont always need to play beautiful football to win world cups. Well, I cant disagree to this. Germany has time and again displayed that by winning three world cups when there were far superior teams. The report wanted to convey was that winning requires strategy coupled with grit and a strong mind, which can compromise the aesthetics part of any sport. Very few can bring both flair and victory together. Brazil and Argentina have enthralled us with their beautiful football over the years and have gone on to win several big tournaments. On the other hand , we have had teams like Spain, the Netherlands, Portugal and Hungary who generally play the most beautiful football to watch but have perennially choked at the most
important time.Spain in the 2008 European championships, have after a long time undermined their chokers tag and played an amazing blend of football which won them their 2nd european championships. Even in the English Premier League, we can see that Arsenal plays the most fluid and beautiful game, but hardly have they got the number of silverware they actually should have deserved.
Pete Sampras and Roger Federer bring an interesting study in this discussion.Sampras had a monkish single-mindedness towards his game, which reflected in his style of play. He was more like a Julius Caesar"He came, he played, he conquered". Whereas the more silken Federer has brought out an unbelievable mix of beauty and dexterity in his approach which has elevated his game to an art of the highest form. We also have had a John Mcenroe who belonged to this same genre , but he could combine dominance and magic for a relatively short period. But what Federer has done over the years has given so much joy to the purists who argue that beautiful tennis can win tournaments apart from the occasional wows and clapping .Watching players like Federer or Mcenroe makes us feel as if they are painting on a canvas not playing with a racquet.
Every time a Sachin Tendulkar walks out to bat, watching a match becomes even more pleasing to the eyes.It is hard to comprehend how a boy of 16 years has turned into a man of 36 years and still uses his bat more like a magician's wand. The same can be said of a VVS Laxman, a Mark Waugh,a Mohammad Azharuddin or David Gower. It is just the manner in which these men play ,makes the game even more beautiful to watch. If you have a Vivian Richards plundering an attack, you also need a Greg Chappel who can make batting ridiculously easy.
There have been so many champions who have played the beautiful game and have made their sport richer. A Susi Susanti of Badminton, a Michael Jordan of Basketball,a Wayne Gretzky of Ice Hockey or a Stefan Edberg of Lawn Tennis will always add an extra smile on the eyes
of the viewers .As a fan , we feel great when our supported teams or players win. But we feel
elated when they play beautifully and win. Beauty and victory are not two different entities,
they are in fact two parts of the same coin. Class can always co-exist with mass.....any doubt.....
ask Mr. AR Rahman...he can provide us a lesson of how to combine both of them.
and work because it acts as an fine ornament on our body of work. Across centuries, there have been been many instances of work across diverse fields where a certain element of beauty has always segregated the smart men from their workmanlike counterparts.Sports has given us ample opportunities to enjoy and cherish beauty.
The ultimate aim of all sportsmen or teams is winning.But the manner in which these wins
come define the grace and demeanour of these teams or individuals. There has to be a reason why we start following teams or players. We may support a team because it belongs to our locality and hate a team team because it is from a opposing locality.That sounds rational enough. But have we ever conjectured why a person residing in a narrow alley at Maheshtala in Kolkata would crave for an Argentinian team from an altogether opposite side of the world. He does not belong to Argentina nor does he has any of his acquaintances there. It is because of the manner in which players execute their work, they win hearts and gather fans all across the world.
There have been many examples where grace has coupled with aggression to bring in a virtuoso combo. But there have also been times where the beauty quotient have had to backseat to the ruthless aggressor.Let us explore the two worlds to find out how a touch of beauty can catapult any sport to another art form.
After the Italian team won its fourth world cup in 2006, one of the leading dailies had run a column which said" You dont always need to play beautiful football to win world cups. Well, I cant disagree to this. Germany has time and again displayed that by winning three world cups when there were far superior teams. The report wanted to convey was that winning requires strategy coupled with grit and a strong mind, which can compromise the aesthetics part of any sport. Very few can bring both flair and victory together. Brazil and Argentina have enthralled us with their beautiful football over the years and have gone on to win several big tournaments. On the other hand , we have had teams like Spain, the Netherlands, Portugal and Hungary who generally play the most beautiful football to watch but have perennially choked at the most
important time.Spain in the 2008 European championships, have after a long time undermined their chokers tag and played an amazing blend of football which won them their 2nd european championships. Even in the English Premier League, we can see that Arsenal plays the most fluid and beautiful game, but hardly have they got the number of silverware they actually should have deserved.
Pete Sampras and Roger Federer bring an interesting study in this discussion.Sampras had a monkish single-mindedness towards his game, which reflected in his style of play. He was more like a Julius Caesar"He came, he played, he conquered". Whereas the more silken Federer has brought out an unbelievable mix of beauty and dexterity in his approach which has elevated his game to an art of the highest form. We also have had a John Mcenroe who belonged to this same genre , but he could combine dominance and magic for a relatively short period. But what Federer has done over the years has given so much joy to the purists who argue that beautiful tennis can win tournaments apart from the occasional wows and clapping .Watching players like Federer or Mcenroe makes us feel as if they are painting on a canvas not playing with a racquet.
Every time a Sachin Tendulkar walks out to bat, watching a match becomes even more pleasing to the eyes.It is hard to comprehend how a boy of 16 years has turned into a man of 36 years and still uses his bat more like a magician's wand. The same can be said of a VVS Laxman, a Mark Waugh,a Mohammad Azharuddin or David Gower. It is just the manner in which these men play ,makes the game even more beautiful to watch. If you have a Vivian Richards plundering an attack, you also need a Greg Chappel who can make batting ridiculously easy.
There have been so many champions who have played the beautiful game and have made their sport richer. A Susi Susanti of Badminton, a Michael Jordan of Basketball,a Wayne Gretzky of Ice Hockey or a Stefan Edberg of Lawn Tennis will always add an extra smile on the eyes
of the viewers .As a fan , we feel great when our supported teams or players win. But we feel
elated when they play beautifully and win. Beauty and victory are not two different entities,
they are in fact two parts of the same coin. Class can always co-exist with mass.....any doubt.....
ask Mr. AR Rahman...he can provide us a lesson of how to combine both of them.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Games of Love- A Valentines day special
There was a line scribbled in one of our hostel walls. It said:
“ There is a girl behind the failure of every boy.
There is a woman behind the success of every man ".
I don’t know the authenticity of the first statement, but the second one definitely holds. My commiserations to the heartbroken guy who has pencilled in his thoughts to make it public. The festive season of love has arrived. Sports also has not been far behind in concocting romance between players. Many sporting greats have seen affairs which have been page-3 news and have kept their fans at the edge of their seats.
If we take a look into the pages of history we find so many glorious examples that have made sports stars famous than many cine- stars. One of the very first names that come to mind is the marriage between Baseball's greatest ever player, Joe di Maggio and arguably Hollywood's most famous pin-up-girl, Marilyn Monroe. But sadly, the affair was shortlived
as Monroe literally went ahead on a marrying spree before committing suicide. Perhaps one of the most beautiful athletes of all time, Tennis legend Chris Evert has had a truly "colourful and romantic” sporting career. No one can ever forget the 1974 Wimbledon Champions’ ball where Evert and Jimmy Connors provided the photographers a dream picture of love and expression. It was the happiest time of my life,” Evert said. Beep! Double-fault! They split a few months later, shortly before their planned wedding. Evert later married British tennis player John Lloyd but that also proved short-lived. All throughout her life, this great tennis player has been a fighter. Later on, golfing legend Greg Norman fell in love with her and they got married, both well within their fifties.
Love seriously has no rules. It is evergreen. Tennis has also given us perhaps the greatest sporting couple of all time. Well you don’t need to be a Bud Collins to guess who I am referring to. They won the 1992 Wimbledon, but nothing happened at the Champions’ Ball that year. But it did, 7 years later, when they won the French Open. Steffi Graf and Andre Agassi have taken their superstar status to another level and have given their fans a reason to rejoice when they tied the knot. It was a wonderful scene to watch Steffi with their two kids at Andre's matches in the players’ box during his later years, playing the role of a mother with equal grace and dexterity in the same way she used to wield the tennis racquet.
There have been some other interesting and great stories about sportspersons. The Swiss Miss, Martina Hingis has been known as the “Black Widow” because either her lovers get hurt or they vanish from the scene. The disgraced US Sprinter Marion Jones and her husband shot putter C J Hunter were nicknamed " Beauty and the Beast" in the 2000 Olympic Games. The Sydney Olympics also proved Miroslava Vavrinek's undoing as far as her tennis career is concerned. She left tennis but found her man with whom she is always seen nowadays- Roger Federer. The great US athlete Joyner-Kersee was coached to track glory by her husband, winning more athletics medals than any other American woman. Love birds
Emil and Zana Zatopek are the only husband wife pair to have won gold medals at the Olympics. The Olympics have been the setting for another legendary pairing. The 1992 Badminton gold in both the men’s and women’s went to Indonesians Alan Budikusuma and Susy Susanti who later went on to tie the knot. The 1968 Olympic decathlon champion Bill Toomey
married Olympic gold-medal winning British athlete Mary Rand in 1969 which lasted for 22 years.
India has also not lagged behind .The captains of the Indian Table Tennis teams, Kamlesh Mehta and Monalisa Baruah fell for each other which led to Miss Baruah become Mrs Monalisa Baruah Mehta. Anju Mahendru was the first Bollywood star to be romantically linked with
an international star. She had a whirlwind love affair with arguably the greatest cricketer of all time, Sir Garfield Sobers.Neena Gupta also had an affair with Vivian Richards with whom she also has a child. The story does not end here. It would go on and on. The very existence of a man is a woman, once said Agassi in one of his interviews. He was correct and so is my friend who had written those lines in my hostel. Love is the essence that binds two individuals. Sport is no different. It just acts as a medium to unite two souls
“ There is a girl behind the failure of every boy.
There is a woman behind the success of every man ".
I don’t know the authenticity of the first statement, but the second one definitely holds. My commiserations to the heartbroken guy who has pencilled in his thoughts to make it public. The festive season of love has arrived. Sports also has not been far behind in concocting romance between players. Many sporting greats have seen affairs which have been page-3 news and have kept their fans at the edge of their seats.
If we take a look into the pages of history we find so many glorious examples that have made sports stars famous than many cine- stars. One of the very first names that come to mind is the marriage between Baseball's greatest ever player, Joe di Maggio and arguably Hollywood's most famous pin-up-girl, Marilyn Monroe. But sadly, the affair was shortlived
as Monroe literally went ahead on a marrying spree before committing suicide. Perhaps one of the most beautiful athletes of all time, Tennis legend Chris Evert has had a truly "colourful and romantic” sporting career. No one can ever forget the 1974 Wimbledon Champions’ ball where Evert and Jimmy Connors provided the photographers a dream picture of love and expression. It was the happiest time of my life,” Evert said. Beep! Double-fault! They split a few months later, shortly before their planned wedding. Evert later married British tennis player John Lloyd but that also proved short-lived. All throughout her life, this great tennis player has been a fighter. Later on, golfing legend Greg Norman fell in love with her and they got married, both well within their fifties.
Love seriously has no rules. It is evergreen. Tennis has also given us perhaps the greatest sporting couple of all time. Well you don’t need to be a Bud Collins to guess who I am referring to. They won the 1992 Wimbledon, but nothing happened at the Champions’ Ball that year. But it did, 7 years later, when they won the French Open. Steffi Graf and Andre Agassi have taken their superstar status to another level and have given their fans a reason to rejoice when they tied the knot. It was a wonderful scene to watch Steffi with their two kids at Andre's matches in the players’ box during his later years, playing the role of a mother with equal grace and dexterity in the same way she used to wield the tennis racquet.
There have been some other interesting and great stories about sportspersons. The Swiss Miss, Martina Hingis has been known as the “Black Widow” because either her lovers get hurt or they vanish from the scene. The disgraced US Sprinter Marion Jones and her husband shot putter C J Hunter were nicknamed " Beauty and the Beast" in the 2000 Olympic Games. The Sydney Olympics also proved Miroslava Vavrinek's undoing as far as her tennis career is concerned. She left tennis but found her man with whom she is always seen nowadays- Roger Federer. The great US athlete Joyner-Kersee was coached to track glory by her husband, winning more athletics medals than any other American woman. Love birds
Emil and Zana Zatopek are the only husband wife pair to have won gold medals at the Olympics. The Olympics have been the setting for another legendary pairing. The 1992 Badminton gold in both the men’s and women’s went to Indonesians Alan Budikusuma and Susy Susanti who later went on to tie the knot. The 1968 Olympic decathlon champion Bill Toomey
married Olympic gold-medal winning British athlete Mary Rand in 1969 which lasted for 22 years.
India has also not lagged behind .The captains of the Indian Table Tennis teams, Kamlesh Mehta and Monalisa Baruah fell for each other which led to Miss Baruah become Mrs Monalisa Baruah Mehta. Anju Mahendru was the first Bollywood star to be romantically linked with
an international star. She had a whirlwind love affair with arguably the greatest cricketer of all time, Sir Garfield Sobers.Neena Gupta also had an affair with Vivian Richards with whom she also has a child. The story does not end here. It would go on and on. The very existence of a man is a woman, once said Agassi in one of his interviews. He was correct and so is my friend who had written those lines in my hostel. Love is the essence that binds two individuals. Sport is no different. It just acts as a medium to unite two souls
PERFECTIONING CRICKET- THE 20-20 WAY
This is the season of 20-20 cricket and nothing seems to overshadow it....especially when the audience concerned is of the country that is hosting the lucrative INDIAN PREMIER LEAGUE. The TV ratings have pummeled obscurely and suddenly every other guy on the roadside seems to be a cricket analyst -not that the scenario was much different in this cricket crazy country. Whatever the analysts and the so called protectors of the REAL GAME may say about the IPL , it has made inroads into the minds and hearts of cricket lovers all across the world. Now when the talk of the town has been 20-20 Cricket why not peep a glance into what exactly is 20-20 cricket, how much different is it from REAL CRICKET and what is the correct approach of playing it.
20-20 cricket like all good things began in England. The British seem to be have a magic potion while inventing new games but while executing their invention that potion just seems to flow away to their opponents .The performance of the English in most of the sports invented by them bears ample testimony to this fact.
Initially the game was played in English county cricket. Slowly it began to be played at the international level and then it has gathered momentum since then. The first ICC world cup was held in 2007 with India getting the better of Pakistan in a theatric end to an absolutely magnificent tournament. Fittingly the most lucrative league has been hosted by the world champions in their own backyard.
Before analyzing what exactly should be the perfect or rather correct approach of playing 20-20 cricket we should look back into the pages of history where the modes of playing the game has undergone an appreciable paradigm shift. When the shorter version of the game was introduced people were skeptical of its longevity, but it has soon quashed all doubts which existed. Whenever a new concept evolves, understanding the best possible mannerism of execution requires time. Initially a score of 200 had seemed more than sufficient in one day cricket. But now even a target of 434 is chased…which logically would have seemed impossible to score…let alone chase. If we observe how these changes have evolved, we find that these have taken effect with time. Initially in one day cricket, a score of 100 was considered standard in the first 25 overs, where you needed to protect wickets in order to stabilize the innings. This theory was massacred in the 1996 world cup when jayasuriya and kaluwitharna completely redefined the concept of batting when the restrictions were on. Thus a new concept evolved-Utilising the first 15 overs to the fullest brim- pinch hitting as a term was added to the cricket lexicon. Hitting the ball in the air- which was considered as a major flaw in a player’s repertoire is now considered a necessity- so essentially nothing is right and nothing is wrong. The legendary Sunil Gavaskar said during one of his stints as a commentator that during his days coaches would penalize people for playing shots in the air. Nowadays no coach would penalize you if you can use the long handle effectively. This is because the game has changed, new innovations if successful are always welcomed.
One interesting aspect to note is that 20-20 cricket mathematically is a curtailed version of a 50-50 game. So during the initial phases of its launch , it was always considered a good practice to bat first if you win the toss. The logic behind this comes from the fact that in any curtailed one day match you never know what is a good score. So if you bat 2nd , you know at what rate you need to bat. This theory again was contradicted by our maverick skipper MS Dhoni at last year’s world cup when India almost won all their matches batting first. So again we see that there is nothing as correct or wrong –every strategy is a hit if executed properly. Gautam Gambhir is a prime example of the fact that raw hitting is not the only method of succeeding in this format as he has by far been the most successful 20-20 batsman by dint of sheer panache and class. With time you tend to develop new strategies which when successful gets implemented and then are classified as rules to the novices. But those who can execute their theories with conviction can stand apart like the Jayasuriyas and the Dhonis.
20-20 cricket like all good things began in England. The British seem to be have a magic potion while inventing new games but while executing their invention that potion just seems to flow away to their opponents .The performance of the English in most of the sports invented by them bears ample testimony to this fact.
Initially the game was played in English county cricket. Slowly it began to be played at the international level and then it has gathered momentum since then. The first ICC world cup was held in 2007 with India getting the better of Pakistan in a theatric end to an absolutely magnificent tournament. Fittingly the most lucrative league has been hosted by the world champions in their own backyard.
Before analyzing what exactly should be the perfect or rather correct approach of playing 20-20 cricket we should look back into the pages of history where the modes of playing the game has undergone an appreciable paradigm shift. When the shorter version of the game was introduced people were skeptical of its longevity, but it has soon quashed all doubts which existed. Whenever a new concept evolves, understanding the best possible mannerism of execution requires time. Initially a score of 200 had seemed more than sufficient in one day cricket. But now even a target of 434 is chased…which logically would have seemed impossible to score…let alone chase. If we observe how these changes have evolved, we find that these have taken effect with time. Initially in one day cricket, a score of 100 was considered standard in the first 25 overs, where you needed to protect wickets in order to stabilize the innings. This theory was massacred in the 1996 world cup when jayasuriya and kaluwitharna completely redefined the concept of batting when the restrictions were on. Thus a new concept evolved-Utilising the first 15 overs to the fullest brim- pinch hitting as a term was added to the cricket lexicon. Hitting the ball in the air- which was considered as a major flaw in a player’s repertoire is now considered a necessity- so essentially nothing is right and nothing is wrong. The legendary Sunil Gavaskar said during one of his stints as a commentator that during his days coaches would penalize people for playing shots in the air. Nowadays no coach would penalize you if you can use the long handle effectively. This is because the game has changed, new innovations if successful are always welcomed.
One interesting aspect to note is that 20-20 cricket mathematically is a curtailed version of a 50-50 game. So during the initial phases of its launch , it was always considered a good practice to bat first if you win the toss. The logic behind this comes from the fact that in any curtailed one day match you never know what is a good score. So if you bat 2nd , you know at what rate you need to bat. This theory again was contradicted by our maverick skipper MS Dhoni at last year’s world cup when India almost won all their matches batting first. So again we see that there is nothing as correct or wrong –every strategy is a hit if executed properly. Gautam Gambhir is a prime example of the fact that raw hitting is not the only method of succeeding in this format as he has by far been the most successful 20-20 batsman by dint of sheer panache and class. With time you tend to develop new strategies which when successful gets implemented and then are classified as rules to the novices. But those who can execute their theories with conviction can stand apart like the Jayasuriyas and the Dhonis.
Would Rfa win the Chmapionships?( written before the championships...2008)
It is difficult to compare generations. More so with the changes in racquet technology, the varying pace of the courts, the lesser number of quality opponents and many other researched factors that come in the way, one thing is for certain. There has been hardly a player as mentally stronger than Rafael Nadal, especially when the colour of the surface beneath his Nike sponsored shoe is RED. If asked to choose the greatest player on clay, I would go with Nadal , although I haven’t seen Borg, because realistically and unfortunately for all other tennis players, it is impossible to beat a fully fit , even a half fit Rafael Nadal on clay. He retrieves opponents winners and converts them into winners of his own. Any normal human being is bound to get frustrated. So I , despite being a fan of Federer , am not surprised at the outcome. Not during one point in the match did Federer looked assured that he would win the point. This statement enough sums up the entire match. We are lucky to have witnessed such a player as Nadal during our lifetime. He is an inspiration to youngsters as to never give up even in times of adversity.
As regards Wimbledon, if Nadal manages to survive the early rounds and meet Federer in the final, I would say it would be -70% mental battle for Federer. He won Wimbledon last year because he believed he would not lose. If he can maintain that self belief and play with confidence, he would win else we would see , for sure , a different Wimbledon champion for the first time since 2002. Times are changing....this is not an omen...it is soon becoming a reality...Mr. Federer .. Buck up.....
As regards Wimbledon, if Nadal manages to survive the early rounds and meet Federer in the final, I would say it would be -70% mental battle for Federer. He won Wimbledon last year because he believed he would not lose. If he can maintain that self belief and play with confidence, he would win else we would see , for sure , a different Wimbledon champion for the first time since 2002. Times are changing....this is not an omen...it is soon becoming a reality...Mr. Federer .. Buck up.....
NADAL AND THE RED DIRT…..(written before the French Open 2008)
Whenever a bull sees red….it goes berserk. Especially when the bull concerned is a certain Rafael Nadal from the Spanish island of Mallorca, the significance of RED assumes Herculean proportions. By the way for your information, you might be wondering who Rafael Nadal is----Ohh!!…I forgot to mention- he is a 3 time defending champion at the French Open and health permitting would be holding aloft the musketeers cup for a 4th consecutive time in a weeks time( Nadal is already into the quarterfinals of this years open at the expense of just 22 sets….and a blistered foot).
After all there has to be something very special in this muscleman man from Spain that all the players at the beginning of the clay court season run helter skelter at the prospect of facing the southpaw. Only two people have been able to find themselves as winners against him on the red clay over a period of 4 years and 112 matches running , that too courtesy fatigue and injury hampering him respectively on the two occasions. Let us take a brief sojourn into the land of the variegated repertoires found in this unrelenting warrior’s game. The journey would be nothing short of awe and inspiring…..
Clay as a surface is the slowest of all the surfaces on which tennis is played. Here the ball bounces much higher than the other surfaces and the pace of the ball once it lands on the surface considerably slows down. This explains why serve and volleyers over the years have found that surface menacing .I just wish Sampras to have said “ Clay is for bulls” akin to Ivan Lendl’s famous comment “ Grass is for cows”. That explains why clay court specialists generally under perform on faster surfaces.
So what is that magic potion that has kept Rafael Nadal way ahead of his contemporaries when it comes down to playing on the red dirt. There are many clay court specialists in today’s game but none of them stand a chance when playing against Nadal. Reasons: Many. Apparently it seems that the mitochondria count of Nadal exceeds his peers by a huge amount, which is why even after a long match, Nadal always seems to be fit enough to play another match. But this alone cannot be the reason for this seemingly impossible record on the most difficult of surfaces. There must be something in his game.
Firstly Nadal has a serve which may not be the most powerful but is extremely effective on clay. He serves to the wide of the player and uses the court to his advantage. His serve involves a lot of top spin which imparts considerable bounce and pushes the opponents way off the court. That gives him ample time to use the court to his will which he does wonderfully even staying way behind the baseline. Moreover statisticians would find it interesting to note that Nadal’s first serve percentage in most of his matches on clay is alarmingly higher compared to the other surfaces. What sets him apart is his defensive abilities , with the added advantage that the ball travels slower than most surfaces, Nadal is always there to retrieve the ball. This puts the opposition under immense pressure as they go for winners more often than not , as a result of which their unforced errors creep, and the end result- another Rafael Nadal win.
The story does not end here. Any thoughts of Nadal winning only because of his defensive abilities vanishes when you watch this man execute his attacking game. The striking feature is that he keeps opponents perplexed, as most of the time he plays the waiting game and suddenly changes gear unleashing one of his vicious forehands down the line or an unbelievable cross court backhand winner. The opponent in most of the cases is nothing but a sitting duck.
Now the question comes who can master him on Clay?? At the moment I feel nobody can beat him precisely because of his belief that he will win under any circumstances. Ask Mr. Federer, no one has suffered more at the hands of Nadal than the current world number one. At Hamburg this year, Federer was leading 5-1 and had set point against a half fit and fatigued Nadal, went on to lose the set-5-7. This sums up the never say die attitude that Nadal possesses. You cannot try and become a Federer but you can try and become like Nadal- he is an inspiration to all and sundry – he never gives up till the point is lost. When the chips are down , very few players can play in the manner in which Nadal plays. Watching him on the court is a much better option than attending self-confidence gaining lectures. Even after being so dominant, he says "I feel when I go on court I can lose every day and I feel I have to play my best tennis if I want to continue winning”.
Talent coupled with such grit has merged into lethal weapon –which has destroyed the self belief of his opponents when they take on him on clay. Sometimes it looks as if the players just go there to complete a formality-i.e. play the match. If he has to be beaten on that surface, then self belief is the most important ammunity.In the case of Federer there have been so many occasions where he could have emerged out victorious , but he just needs that self belief that he can beat him-because he has the game to beat him on clay.
Federer won Wimbledon in 2007 because he believed he would not lose. He somehow has to transcend that same confidence which he possesses in the hallowed grass of SW19 to Paris to beat Nadal. Its just that he has to be patient, wait for the opportune moment to attack and more frequently employ his sliced backhand so that he can fulfill his long cherished dream of winning in Paris on the 2nd Sunday. If not every time he would fall short of this Bull from Mallorca and time is fast catching up with him as he is getting no younger.
I just wish by the time Roger hangs up his racquet he can add a French Open crown to his glittering CV else children of the future generation might have to remember another famous last words as part of their general knowledge curriculum. Those last words would be that of a certain Mr. Roger Federer, a one time tennis player, who died as the CEO of EVERADY INDIA LIMITED uttering his last words as: “GIVE ME RED”.
After all there has to be something very special in this muscleman man from Spain that all the players at the beginning of the clay court season run helter skelter at the prospect of facing the southpaw. Only two people have been able to find themselves as winners against him on the red clay over a period of 4 years and 112 matches running , that too courtesy fatigue and injury hampering him respectively on the two occasions. Let us take a brief sojourn into the land of the variegated repertoires found in this unrelenting warrior’s game. The journey would be nothing short of awe and inspiring…..
Clay as a surface is the slowest of all the surfaces on which tennis is played. Here the ball bounces much higher than the other surfaces and the pace of the ball once it lands on the surface considerably slows down. This explains why serve and volleyers over the years have found that surface menacing .I just wish Sampras to have said “ Clay is for bulls” akin to Ivan Lendl’s famous comment “ Grass is for cows”. That explains why clay court specialists generally under perform on faster surfaces.
So what is that magic potion that has kept Rafael Nadal way ahead of his contemporaries when it comes down to playing on the red dirt. There are many clay court specialists in today’s game but none of them stand a chance when playing against Nadal. Reasons: Many. Apparently it seems that the mitochondria count of Nadal exceeds his peers by a huge amount, which is why even after a long match, Nadal always seems to be fit enough to play another match. But this alone cannot be the reason for this seemingly impossible record on the most difficult of surfaces. There must be something in his game.
Firstly Nadal has a serve which may not be the most powerful but is extremely effective on clay. He serves to the wide of the player and uses the court to his advantage. His serve involves a lot of top spin which imparts considerable bounce and pushes the opponents way off the court. That gives him ample time to use the court to his will which he does wonderfully even staying way behind the baseline. Moreover statisticians would find it interesting to note that Nadal’s first serve percentage in most of his matches on clay is alarmingly higher compared to the other surfaces. What sets him apart is his defensive abilities , with the added advantage that the ball travels slower than most surfaces, Nadal is always there to retrieve the ball. This puts the opposition under immense pressure as they go for winners more often than not , as a result of which their unforced errors creep, and the end result- another Rafael Nadal win.
The story does not end here. Any thoughts of Nadal winning only because of his defensive abilities vanishes when you watch this man execute his attacking game. The striking feature is that he keeps opponents perplexed, as most of the time he plays the waiting game and suddenly changes gear unleashing one of his vicious forehands down the line or an unbelievable cross court backhand winner. The opponent in most of the cases is nothing but a sitting duck.
Now the question comes who can master him on Clay?? At the moment I feel nobody can beat him precisely because of his belief that he will win under any circumstances. Ask Mr. Federer, no one has suffered more at the hands of Nadal than the current world number one. At Hamburg this year, Federer was leading 5-1 and had set point against a half fit and fatigued Nadal, went on to lose the set-5-7. This sums up the never say die attitude that Nadal possesses. You cannot try and become a Federer but you can try and become like Nadal- he is an inspiration to all and sundry – he never gives up till the point is lost. When the chips are down , very few players can play in the manner in which Nadal plays. Watching him on the court is a much better option than attending self-confidence gaining lectures. Even after being so dominant, he says "I feel when I go on court I can lose every day and I feel I have to play my best tennis if I want to continue winning”.
Talent coupled with such grit has merged into lethal weapon –which has destroyed the self belief of his opponents when they take on him on clay. Sometimes it looks as if the players just go there to complete a formality-i.e. play the match. If he has to be beaten on that surface, then self belief is the most important ammunity.In the case of Federer there have been so many occasions where he could have emerged out victorious , but he just needs that self belief that he can beat him-because he has the game to beat him on clay.
Federer won Wimbledon in 2007 because he believed he would not lose. He somehow has to transcend that same confidence which he possesses in the hallowed grass of SW19 to Paris to beat Nadal. Its just that he has to be patient, wait for the opportune moment to attack and more frequently employ his sliced backhand so that he can fulfill his long cherished dream of winning in Paris on the 2nd Sunday. If not every time he would fall short of this Bull from Mallorca and time is fast catching up with him as he is getting no younger.
I just wish by the time Roger hangs up his racquet he can add a French Open crown to his glittering CV else children of the future generation might have to remember another famous last words as part of their general knowledge curriculum. Those last words would be that of a certain Mr. Roger Federer, a one time tennis player, who died as the CEO of EVERADY INDIA LIMITED uttering his last words as: “GIVE ME RED”.
Who is the greatest?
The tag of the greatest player is one of the most interesting debates that don the sporting world. In most cases, it boils down to the statistical supremacy but in many of these debates, there are multidimensional arguments which in most gets never get resolved. Also the ifs and buts which should ideally not be taken into account, somehow come into the picture. It is very puzzling to find analysts churn out their minds to say who the greatest ever is. But have we ever thought why a categorical use of the superlative degree in this particular field is so difficult ? Let us try to explore with refelections from some of the greatest names in sport.
Statistically speaking, there can hardly ever be a cricketer who can out-average the great Don .So if we go on to decide who the greatest ever test cricketer is , apparently there should be no competition at all. But if the topic becomes a research paper for cricket purists, the outcome would not seem so obvious in favour of Australia's greatest ever sportsman. The don scored runs at a time when cricket was technically a "gentleman's game", played amongst the elitist of commonwealth countries with the palyer having ony test cricket to contend with. Hence the breating space was much more. Contrariwise, if we take a look at some of his modern day competitors as to where they stand, we find that there can be a twist in this tale.With the advent of one day cricket , players nowadays are playing too much cricket which takes a toll on their bodies. Morever in an age of constant media- glare, every iota of a failure assumes herculean proprtions. Hence the mental pressure which the players have to cope up with was actually not heard of in the earlier days. Every time a certain Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar has walked out to bat , he single handedly has been carrying the hopes of a billion countrymen on his shoulders.This is his 20th year in International cricket with nearly 150 tests and 425 onedayers.And to write about his achievements , an entire book would be not enough. In the modern age, we have players of the calibre of Viv Richards, Brian Lara, Ricky Ponting who all fall in the same bracket and have dominated both forms of cricket at will. The crictical point here is that every time these greats have gone on to bat, they have been under the scanner. The pressure nowadays is so high that one Sachin failure practically erupts a gossip-mongers paradise as to who should replace him. Television channels seem to be researchers more adept than the best of scientists. Hence taking these accounts into issue, some scepticism must arrive before we come to a genuine conclusion.
Many people still believe what would have happened if a certain Teofilo Stevenson would have fought Mohammad Ali in a professional fight. But the great man refused to turn profesional saying " What is one million dollars compared to one million cubans".Hence even today, some critics still regard the great cuban as the finest boxer of all time.But these ifs and buts can never be categorigcally resolved.
What Rod Laver achieved seems impossible in todays high octane world of tennis.But again it is to be noted that Laver won 4 of his grand slams in 2 surfaces- grass and clay.In this context, the achievements of Andre Agassi and Rafael Nadal stand apart as they have won on all surfaces at the most trying of times. But still the debate of the greatest player in modern tennis primarily hinges on two players who never have won the red clay of Paris- Pete Sampras and Roger Federer.Probably in some years time, Rafael Nadal would put all those doubts to rest but at the moment the debate would linger on. Sampras fans would vie for their man while Federer fans will defend their man who they say wields a tennis racquet like picasso wielded his brush. Again there is a twist here. Even if Federer one day wins the French , he cannot be regarded as the greatest till the point he improves his head to head record against Nadal. If your record against your nearest rival stands 13-6 in your rival's favour, you cannot be titled the greatest.
Similarly Pele and Maradona, Woods and Nicklaus provide another glorious topic for debate enthusiasts. Very few persons have left no space for discussion . The ones that come to mind include Wayne Gretzky,Babe Ruth,Michael Phelps,Michael Jordan ,Carl Lewis,Yelena Isinbayeva,Sergei Bubka, Dhyan Chand, Gary Kaparov and some other greats. But even people might bring these greats into a competition with a logic which no one might have thought of.
So what is the criteria that entitles one the tag to be the greatest? May be there actually is nothing absolute index to determine . Its a perception that we hold of the players performance in their lifetime that allows us to put our thoughts . Perhaps the best criteria would be to judge how a player is performing against his contemporaries. An important point to note is that one cannot compete with his predecessors as dwelving into that imaginary land would be like building castles in the air. The extent to which a player or a team dominates its contemporaries entitles the tag of being supreme. Records obviously have their own importances but the manner in which these records are achieved should also be taken into account. That is the very reason why your contemporaries play a stellar role in your rise. This explains why a Rafel Nadal will make every other grand slam that Roger Federer wins seem like a priceless diamond. Somebody has rightly said" Quality cannot be quantified". Its better to be an appreciator of beauty than to be a judge of it.
Statistically speaking, there can hardly ever be a cricketer who can out-average the great Don .So if we go on to decide who the greatest ever test cricketer is , apparently there should be no competition at all. But if the topic becomes a research paper for cricket purists, the outcome would not seem so obvious in favour of Australia's greatest ever sportsman. The don scored runs at a time when cricket was technically a "gentleman's game", played amongst the elitist of commonwealth countries with the palyer having ony test cricket to contend with. Hence the breating space was much more. Contrariwise, if we take a look at some of his modern day competitors as to where they stand, we find that there can be a twist in this tale.With the advent of one day cricket , players nowadays are playing too much cricket which takes a toll on their bodies. Morever in an age of constant media- glare, every iota of a failure assumes herculean proprtions. Hence the mental pressure which the players have to cope up with was actually not heard of in the earlier days. Every time a certain Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar has walked out to bat , he single handedly has been carrying the hopes of a billion countrymen on his shoulders.This is his 20th year in International cricket with nearly 150 tests and 425 onedayers.And to write about his achievements , an entire book would be not enough. In the modern age, we have players of the calibre of Viv Richards, Brian Lara, Ricky Ponting who all fall in the same bracket and have dominated both forms of cricket at will. The crictical point here is that every time these greats have gone on to bat, they have been under the scanner. The pressure nowadays is so high that one Sachin failure practically erupts a gossip-mongers paradise as to who should replace him. Television channels seem to be researchers more adept than the best of scientists. Hence taking these accounts into issue, some scepticism must arrive before we come to a genuine conclusion.
Many people still believe what would have happened if a certain Teofilo Stevenson would have fought Mohammad Ali in a professional fight. But the great man refused to turn profesional saying " What is one million dollars compared to one million cubans".Hence even today, some critics still regard the great cuban as the finest boxer of all time.But these ifs and buts can never be categorigcally resolved.
What Rod Laver achieved seems impossible in todays high octane world of tennis.But again it is to be noted that Laver won 4 of his grand slams in 2 surfaces- grass and clay.In this context, the achievements of Andre Agassi and Rafael Nadal stand apart as they have won on all surfaces at the most trying of times. But still the debate of the greatest player in modern tennis primarily hinges on two players who never have won the red clay of Paris- Pete Sampras and Roger Federer.Probably in some years time, Rafael Nadal would put all those doubts to rest but at the moment the debate would linger on. Sampras fans would vie for their man while Federer fans will defend their man who they say wields a tennis racquet like picasso wielded his brush. Again there is a twist here. Even if Federer one day wins the French , he cannot be regarded as the greatest till the point he improves his head to head record against Nadal. If your record against your nearest rival stands 13-6 in your rival's favour, you cannot be titled the greatest.
Similarly Pele and Maradona, Woods and Nicklaus provide another glorious topic for debate enthusiasts. Very few persons have left no space for discussion . The ones that come to mind include Wayne Gretzky,Babe Ruth,Michael Phelps,Michael Jordan ,Carl Lewis,Yelena Isinbayeva,Sergei Bubka, Dhyan Chand, Gary Kaparov and some other greats. But even people might bring these greats into a competition with a logic which no one might have thought of.
So what is the criteria that entitles one the tag to be the greatest? May be there actually is nothing absolute index to determine . Its a perception that we hold of the players performance in their lifetime that allows us to put our thoughts . Perhaps the best criteria would be to judge how a player is performing against his contemporaries. An important point to note is that one cannot compete with his predecessors as dwelving into that imaginary land would be like building castles in the air. The extent to which a player or a team dominates its contemporaries entitles the tag of being supreme. Records obviously have their own importances but the manner in which these records are achieved should also be taken into account. That is the very reason why your contemporaries play a stellar role in your rise. This explains why a Rafel Nadal will make every other grand slam that Roger Federer wins seem like a priceless diamond. Somebody has rightly said" Quality cannot be quantified". Its better to be an appreciator of beauty than to be a judge of it.
The true picture of Indian Sports
At a time when the Indian cricket team is passing through its brightest phase and the IPL has reduced the term"economic recession" to comic proportions, there also exists a parallel world where some of the doyens of Indian sports are striving hard to get themselves known to the masses. This apparent reality is a beautifully crafted vice which has gained ground surprisingly with time . Indian sports today is no longer a one sport show.But recognition and money sadly still is. Cricket is not to be blamed here. The BCCI has build and marketed its own image. Neither the government are to be blamed. It is we, the people of the country who are responsible for this state of affairs .
Recently the governement declared the winners of the Padma Awards. Two Indian sportsmen,who some months ago had brought joy and pride to a billion countrymen , had hoped to be rewarded for their deeds. But when the awards are announced, they found themselves nowhere. The only consolation they gained was the sympathy of their fellow sportsmen. This is the story of Vijender Kumar and Sushil Kumar, two young men who managed to fight all odds and bag individual medals at the Olympics , only to find themselves in the same situation as they were before the Olympics when virtually no one knew of them. In contrast, one cricketer who even was not nominated by the BCCI was surprised to find himself awarded.I am finding no suitable language to describe this situation. As a person who has followed and loved sports, I can feel what those two jewels of our country might be going through.This is something that will make any Indian lower his/her head with shame. The history of Indian sports is replete with such "Glorious" instances.
Some time back , when four time world champion MC Mary Kom was for the umpteenth time ignored for the Khel Ratna awards, she had said" What more can I do to win an award". Seriously even I dont know.I hope if anybody knows.The saddest part is not that she was ignored, it is when the minister concerned said:" Mary Kom, who?". This sums up everything . In 2007 when Vishwanathan Anand, arguably India's greatest ever sportsman, said after winning the world championship in Mexico" I doubt whether I would get the same reception as the Indian team got when it won the T-20 world cup".The former India football captain and the lone surviving Arjuna awardee in football of Bihar, Chandeshwar Prasad is literally begging for a living.India's greatest archer,Limba Ram, who missed an Olympic medal by the narrowest of margins used to live in a garage till he was made the coach of the national team. After his arrival from Barcelona, he was promised a job by Hindustan Zinc,only to find himself given the post of cutting grass.The story of such valiant sportspersons just doesnt end here. It pains to write sad stories about our heroes but there has to be some solution to stop this impending and unforgiving vice.
We might not make them millionaires but at least we must give them their dues. If we cannot inspire them we have no right to dampen their spirits time and again. The corporates might differ because they need money which only glamour can bring. Hence when the undisputed queen of Indian chess, Koneru Humpy was replaced as the brand ambassador of an Indian bank with an Indian cricketer, the bank authorities said the cricketer sells more than her. At a time when we are projecting the growth of our country into a developed nation, this kind of an existing mentality projects nothing but doom .The economic disparity which had dominated India is still swaying at large.
It is we who can bring about a change, else many Vijender and Sushil would be destroyed and the birth of an indian sporting nation ,which now seems realistic, would be nipped in the bud. At a time when we are hosting the Commonwealth Games, these stories portray the intrinsic scenario that dominates the indian mentality. Sports is just another field which is sufering. Unless there is a collective stance against these, we can never dream to achieve . No parent can aspire to make their children a Vijender Kumar or a Sushil Kumar. This is because the constant threat of financial security would be hanging over their heads like a sword of Damocles.
The Mittal Champions Trust is one of the very few initiatives that has been taken by Steel Baron Lakshmi Mittal to encourage young talents from across the nation . Many such initiatives are to be taken if we want to dream a better future for our posterity. Who would have imagined a country like China , which won its first gold medal at the olympics in 1984 to lead the medals tally 24 years later. On the contrary , India which won its first gold in 1928 has not managed even 2 golds at a single olympics in the last 80 years. It is a strong will coupled with a system with its roots pinned towards a collective goal that can help the country prosper. Unless we change our mindset, a billion countrymen would be taking vicarious pleasures at the achievements of a Michael Phelps or an Usain Bolt every time. Its high time we removed this vice from our system and start sowing the seeds of a healthy nation which knows how to honour its heroes.
Recently the governement declared the winners of the Padma Awards. Two Indian sportsmen,who some months ago had brought joy and pride to a billion countrymen , had hoped to be rewarded for their deeds. But when the awards are announced, they found themselves nowhere. The only consolation they gained was the sympathy of their fellow sportsmen. This is the story of Vijender Kumar and Sushil Kumar, two young men who managed to fight all odds and bag individual medals at the Olympics , only to find themselves in the same situation as they were before the Olympics when virtually no one knew of them. In contrast, one cricketer who even was not nominated by the BCCI was surprised to find himself awarded.I am finding no suitable language to describe this situation. As a person who has followed and loved sports, I can feel what those two jewels of our country might be going through.This is something that will make any Indian lower his/her head with shame. The history of Indian sports is replete with such "Glorious" instances.
Some time back , when four time world champion MC Mary Kom was for the umpteenth time ignored for the Khel Ratna awards, she had said" What more can I do to win an award". Seriously even I dont know.I hope if anybody knows.The saddest part is not that she was ignored, it is when the minister concerned said:" Mary Kom, who?". This sums up everything . In 2007 when Vishwanathan Anand, arguably India's greatest ever sportsman, said after winning the world championship in Mexico" I doubt whether I would get the same reception as the Indian team got when it won the T-20 world cup".The former India football captain and the lone surviving Arjuna awardee in football of Bihar, Chandeshwar Prasad is literally begging for a living.India's greatest archer,Limba Ram, who missed an Olympic medal by the narrowest of margins used to live in a garage till he was made the coach of the national team. After his arrival from Barcelona, he was promised a job by Hindustan Zinc,only to find himself given the post of cutting grass.The story of such valiant sportspersons just doesnt end here. It pains to write sad stories about our heroes but there has to be some solution to stop this impending and unforgiving vice.
We might not make them millionaires but at least we must give them their dues. If we cannot inspire them we have no right to dampen their spirits time and again. The corporates might differ because they need money which only glamour can bring. Hence when the undisputed queen of Indian chess, Koneru Humpy was replaced as the brand ambassador of an Indian bank with an Indian cricketer, the bank authorities said the cricketer sells more than her. At a time when we are projecting the growth of our country into a developed nation, this kind of an existing mentality projects nothing but doom .The economic disparity which had dominated India is still swaying at large.
It is we who can bring about a change, else many Vijender and Sushil would be destroyed and the birth of an indian sporting nation ,which now seems realistic, would be nipped in the bud. At a time when we are hosting the Commonwealth Games, these stories portray the intrinsic scenario that dominates the indian mentality. Sports is just another field which is sufering. Unless there is a collective stance against these, we can never dream to achieve . No parent can aspire to make their children a Vijender Kumar or a Sushil Kumar. This is because the constant threat of financial security would be hanging over their heads like a sword of Damocles.
The Mittal Champions Trust is one of the very few initiatives that has been taken by Steel Baron Lakshmi Mittal to encourage young talents from across the nation . Many such initiatives are to be taken if we want to dream a better future for our posterity. Who would have imagined a country like China , which won its first gold medal at the olympics in 1984 to lead the medals tally 24 years later. On the contrary , India which won its first gold in 1928 has not managed even 2 golds at a single olympics in the last 80 years. It is a strong will coupled with a system with its roots pinned towards a collective goal that can help the country prosper. Unless we change our mindset, a billion countrymen would be taking vicarious pleasures at the achievements of a Michael Phelps or an Usain Bolt every time. Its high time we removed this vice from our system and start sowing the seeds of a healthy nation which knows how to honour its heroes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)