Stuck in a date

I have been a fan of Andre Agassi from the time he burst on the scene in the late 80's. My brother, who was touring the US during that time frame, brought back a Tennis magazines that featured Agassi and I was hooked. After Ivan Lendl retired, I needed a player to root for and I stuck with Agassi through thick and thin.

When I found out he was coming out with an autobiography, I was excited and pre-ordered it from Amazon that day itself.

To whet our appetites, an excerpt was released on Sports Illustrated (link here). Lost in the scandal about recreational drug use was the story of a kid who did a fantastic job of hiding his dislike for the game. It is compelling reading, but not without its critics.

Martina Navratilova is shocked at Agassi's admissions. Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal are not far behind in expressing their displeasure, too.

In India, Harsha Bhogle stepped onto a soapbox and used his column to slam Agassi for letting down his fans and that he had "spoilt the week" filled with other good news. His thesis is that pardoning Agassi would open the floodgate to impressionable fans choosing to go Agassi's route. I am not sure Harsha thought this through well enough. This article is not up to his normal standards. He starts off with a statement that is so absurd, it bears repeating here:

Andre Agassi has just added a convenient truth to an earlier, convenient lie. In an attempt to come out smelling of roses, he does far too much damage to those who look up to him, and other sportsmen, as role models. At the best of times it’s a flawed equation, this assumption that a fine sportsman is a fine person, but it exists and I fear Agassi may have given people reason to indulge in drugs.

What? Did he really write that? He, of all people, should know better than to gauge the contents of a book based on a few articles in the media. To quote Sherlock Holmes: "It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgment."

Rick Reilly (of ESPN.com) goes to the other extreme and lauds Agassi for his honesty.

Why is Agassi so scorchingly honest in these excerpts? Maybe because he once lived enough lies for five men. Or maybe because, as an educator, he's heard the truth can set him free.

But hopefully, by the time you close "Open," you'll know that this book is about more than the wrong turns he took. It's about how that broken road led him straight to the good man he is now.

Finally, I will leave you with Prem Panicker, who addresses Harsha's article and provides a searchingly personal article in support of Agassi's decision.

I don’t mean to suggest that post facto honesty absolves Agassi of a ‘crime’ we would have known nothing about had he not chosen to speak to the record. He confessed, and now he can take whatever knocks come to him, and welcome.

I do, however, intend to point out that in our obsession with the ‘scandalous’ coda to the story of a life lived on the edge [from which we single out for notice not the important bits, but such inanities], we are perhaps in danger of overlooking the intrinsic worth of this book. And that (...) would be a tragedy, because such openness is rare enough to be treasured.

I shall read the book from cover to cover. For all his faults (and he appears to list so many of them) Agassi has been at the helm of many great causes, and the reason for many of my fond memories of tennis. I shall always hold him in high stead for that.

(C.S. Manish 2007)

Linking up

1) The half-time entertainment at the Super Bowl was Bruce Springsteen. Sitting at home, I could barely make out his lyrics and only a die-hard fan would guess what he was singing. I was marveling at the "fans" who were on the field at the "concert". Rick Reilly was one of the "fans" and he tells you that it wasn't sweet music to his ears!

Most answered an online ad from the halftime show's producers that read, in part: "We're looking for enthusiastic volunteers to be part of the on-field audience."

"YOU'LL BE 10 FEET FROM BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN! THE GAME'S GOING TO BE A BLOWOUT ANYWAY. WHAT'LL YOU MISS?"

What the 2,000 found out is: The "on-field audience" doesn't get "paid." They don't get a ticket to watch the game. They don't even get a T-shirt. They can't bring cameras or cell phones—unless they're a group leader. They'll be bussed in and bussed out. They will be on the field for 12 minutes and have to sign a release that they won't sue in case they're flattened by a forklift.

2) Harsha Bhogle is a member of the IPL in his role as a "consultant" for the Mumbai Indians. So, it is not surprising that he has been talking up the good points of the league, and he almost always makes relevant points. His latest column is no different and has some interesting takes on the whole phenomenon. It will still take a little more than that to get me to endorse the league - especially as it (through the BCCI) continues to treat the ICL like a pariah. (To his credit, Harsha has spoken up against the BCCI's attitude in the past.)

It baffles me that in some places the IPL is still being seen as a financial rather than as a cricketing phenomenon. As recent events in the world have taught us financial products with little to back them deliver a lot of promise, a lot of pain and eventually go bust. The IPL is about cricket and as it settles down and acquires a learning curve of its own, will reward cricketers who deliver returns on their investment. This is not a large moneypot into which you dip your hands and run away with the booty. This is serious stuff and some observers around the world are in denial about it. This is not a poor little rich kid seeking its place in the world by throwing money at anyone who knocks at its doors.

3) I had decided not to watch "The Reader" as I thought it was yet another movie about the holocaust. I am still not convinced I want to watch it, but Roger Ebert makes a long-winded but passionate argument for why the real theme of that movie is something totally different. I am intrigued enough to think about it, though.

I was watching Tony Scott on the Charlie Rose program, and he said, in connection with "The Reader," that he was getting tired of so many movies about the Holocaust. I didn't agree or disagree. What I thought was, "The Reader" isn't about the Holocaust. It's about not speaking when you know you should.
(...)
Is "The Reader" a "Holocaust movie?" No. In terms of its two central characters, it is a movie about lacking the courage to speak when we should. That's something I think we can all identify with.

We are all guilty of lacking the courage to speak when we should. I know I most definitely am.

The goose and the gander

After watching the end of an absorbing (and sometimes engrossing) series between a surging India and a crumbling Australia, here are some of the thoughts that went through my head while the post-game festivities were going on.

1) MS Dhoni has that important ingredient that a successful captain needs - luck. Winning the toss was important and he has done it in all three Tests that he has captained (and won). Sourav Ganguly supposedly said something along those lines, too. But there is a lot of truth in the adage that winners make their own luck. Dhoni is a shrewd judge of situations and scenarios. He adopted the go-slow tactic on Day 3 and the Australians could not think of another way of scoring (a point brought out by CSD in a comment on one of my earlier posts) when confronted with this challenge. Dhoni's greatness is not that he thought of this plan, but that he convinced his bowlers to keep at it, ball after ball, over after over, half hour after half hour. Like a predator that sits patiently by a watering hole, he bid his time, knowing that the Aussies would come. They took a long time coming and when they did, they meekly accepted their fate. Not what I expected from the #1 ranked team in the world (note that I did not say they were the best team in the world. For my money, that is Sri Lanka). John Buchanan was a better coach than the current one and his tactical acumen must be greatly missed by Ricky Ponting, who does not think well on his feet.

2) Ricky Ponting is pretty frank in his post-game interviews (he freely admitted that India had outplayed them in the series and deserved to win) but gets prickly when the questions become directed to him as an individual. When asked about the bizarre decision to bowl part-timers on day 4 after the tea break, he brought out his "spirit of the game" defense. Sad. Instead of addressing the question he treats it as an affront to his dignity and tries to divert the attention to something else. When you are winning, it is easy to appear magnanimous. When you are losing, your man-management skills get tested. Considering how thoughtful and gracious Ponting was in the prize ceremony interview, it is odd that he regressed when questioned about a decision that may well have cost the trophy.

3) MS Dhoni made two brilliant moves yesterday, and neither of them got the Indians a single wicket. First, after 9 wickets were down, he walked up to Ganguly, took him aside, and was seen talking earnestly to him. Ganguly demurred, but Dhoni gave him a big hug, and Ganguly led the side for the next few overs. In his last Test match, Dhoni gave Ganguly a taste of what he said he'd give his right hand for - captaincy. Dhoni's second move was to insist that Anil Kumble step up to the podium to accept the Border-Gavaskar Trophy. When the last wicket fell, Dhoni ran to the wicket, but only to pick up two wickets - one of them was a souvenir for Ganguly (he also kept one for himself...methinks he then gave it to Kumble, but I have no way of knowing). Rapturous celebrations by him are usually reserved for big wickets, not for the grand finish. I am reminded of Rudyard Kipling, "If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs..."

4) I am as big a fan of Dhoni's captaincy as you can find, but I HATE the 8-1 field that he adopts, and the slowing down of the over-rate. While it was happening I could see why he was doing it and I admired his guts for taking the unpopular road to keep the bigger target in sight, but I hope he does not make it his typical modus operandi. It may be the best tactic, for now, against extremely aggressive and dominant batsmen; however, there's just a handful of those in Test cricket, and many of them are on the Indian team. I fear that other captains will see this tactic and start applying it willy-nilly. Test cricket will get bogged down into a game of pseudo-attrition and that will take away some of it's charm. Dhoni, you also need to keep the over-rate going. You are at the forefront of a new wave of Indian cricketers and I'd rather see more of that aggressive, innovative captaincy, than a paint by the numbers go-slow tactic.

5) By dropping a couple of sitters, Rahul Dravid lost a golden chance to equal Mark Waugh on the all-time list of catches by a fielder. He is a 179, while Waugh is at 181. Ironically, his being so close may have delayed the stay of execution on him. Had he succeeded in reaching or crossing Waugh, the selectors (ever mindful of milestones and public perception) would have felt that there was no reason to keep him going. I foresee Dravid scoring some runs in the next month in the Ranji Trohpy, making his way back to the Test team against England, and if unable to rediscover the touch that made him India's best match-winning batsman ever (yes, ever) retiring quietly. Simply playing two Tests will be enough to cross Waugh (he does average more catches per innings than Mark Waugh did, actually!).

6) India is on the verge of becoming the next great team. It has the players and the skill set to be so, led by an admirable captain. I hope they learn the good things - aggressive mentality, positive outlook, sharp fielding, good running between the wickets, incisive bowling, and patience - and not the bad things - sledging, whining to umpires, slow over-rate - from the Australians. The Indians drop too many catches, and misfield too many balls to be considered the best. Hopefully, with the new blood that is coming in, the fielding levels will increase, and that that gap will be bridged, too.

Trolling the web

While taking a break from preparing lectures, I wandered around the web and these are the articles that caught my eye:

a) When cricketers retire and go to the commentary booth, I expect their analysis to consist of more than the banal "What India needs right now is a couple of quick wickets." or "A good over or two will change the complexion of the game." D-uh! What I am looking for is an insight into the game that someone looking on from outside may not readily pick up on. Here's a perfect example and it comes from someone who is still playing the game at a very high level. Aakash Chopra tells us why the type of ball used in matches makes a huge difference. That's insight, dear analysts.

The SG Test ball that is used in first-class and Test cricket in India is relatively soft (made with a soft cork inside and a finer quality of leather) with a very pronounced seam. The ball doesn't move too much, but once it gets a little old, if maintained properly, it swings throughout the day. The ball comes a bit slower off the surface unless it's been made to pitch on the seam. The only way to succeed with an SG Test ball is to land it on the seam, for otherwise you're doomed. On the contrary, the SG Tournament ball has a lot more glaze on it, and is made with hard cork and not-so-fine leather. The ball does a lot when it's new, and travels much quicker after pitching even when it is not pitched on the seam.

The figures we see at the end of the game could be quite misleading. You can't pick a fast bowler just because he wreaked havoc with that ball in the winters in north India. Spinners get less purchase, and hence shouldn't be condemned, and poor openers might not get big scores.

b) Just a day or two after blasting Anil Kumble, Dilip Vengsarkar lets bygones be bygones upon hearing about the leg-spinner's retirement. The article itself is very bland and poorly written, but there is a nugget that was very interesting to read about.

However, DDCA’s curator was quoted as saying that the grass was cut without his knowledge on the eve of the match, making it a lifeless wicket that invariably produces dull cricket, and leaving the curator furious.

c) Rick Reilly used to write the last page article for Sports Illustrated for years. Often it was the best thing in the whole magazine. Now he works for ESPN and, occasionally, still produces brilliantly written pieces, such as this one about John Wooden, the celebrated coach of the UCLA men's basketball team of the 60's and 70's. A must-read from start to finish.

d) One of the people who caught my eye in the early part of this millennium on a cricket field was Shane Bond. He had an injury-ravaged career in which he showed what could have been. When fit, he was the best FAST bowler in the world, better than the Lee's and Akhtar's of the world. Way better. Here, he reminisces about his achievements and his role in the ICL.

e) Harsha Bhogle waxes eloquently about Laxman. I may have already linked to this earlier, but I don't care. Read it again, if you already have. Or read it for the first time and enjoy a writer describing a batsman, with both at the top of their game.

This will be one of Laxman's more satisfying moments. He was treated very shabbily during the IPL, was prevented, in a most bizarre episode, from playing for a month in England and had to witness the swords being sharpened for his execution. Don't forget this is a man who gave up a million dollars a year so the Deccan Chargers could get better players and help develop cricket in his state. In England they are going crazy over a million dollars per player. Laxman gave up a million a year for three years! At the end of the first season in the IPL, he was sacked when he had been captain for six games and the job was given to a man who had led in the other eight!! And not a thank you for the extra three million!!

f) Finally, the folks at CricInfo try to describe VVS Laxman in a elegantly written article. Wonderful writing. One for the archives.

When VVS Laxman plays like he did today, there isn't a worry in the world. For 470 minutes over the last two days even the Feroz Shah Kotla's garish stand at the Tata End didn't look ugly. For 470 minutes, Laxman disguised violence with grace and left Australia hopelessly spellbound.

When Laxman plays like he did today...