The strength of the wolf is in the pack

 The Indian cricket team just did the seemingly unthinkable - beat Australia at it's ultimate stronghold, the 'Gabba! And did it in incredible fashion, chasing down 328 runs on Day 5 against the most potent quartet of bowlers in the world, including the top dog - Pat Cummins who is the #1 bowler by a fair distance.

In no particular order, here are some random thoughts that are floating through my head as I think about the match:

1) Speaking of colossal mismatches - nothing summarizes it better than this - at the start of the Test match, the Australians had collectively taken 1033 Test wickets while the Indians had a sum total of 13 (including 2 by Rohit Sharma who is not a bowler any more...though, ironically he did end up bowling in this match).

The famed Australian quartet took 17 wickets in this Test while the unfancied Indian bowlers took all 20 on offer.

2) Poor Tim Paine. For the last two years he has done his best to revamp the image of the Aussie team. All his hard work may have gone in vain because of his "conversation" with R Ashwin during the waning moments of the Sydney Test where he lost his cool. That may end up defining him as much as Kim Hughes is remembered for his teary press conference or Michael Clarke is for his "broken arm" sledge to Jimmy Anderson.

3) T20 cricket has changed the way we approach targets. When 140 plus runs were required in the last session, no one spoke in terms of time but only in terms of overs left. When 50 runs were required in 8 overs with only 5 wickets in hand, it was considered very achievable - a thought that would have resulted in shuttered doors even as recently as a decade ago (see below). It was a tight equation but 26 runs were plundered off the next two overs by Sundar and Pant and, suddenly, the match was gone from Australia's hands for all intents and purposes (except for minor blemishes from Sundar and Thakur that injected some excitement into the proceedings).

4) In 2011, the India cricket team had a golden chance to win a Test match in the West Indies. Chasing 180 to win, they were 94 for 3 when MS Dhoni agreed to a draw with the mandatory 15 overs (in the final hour) about to be bowled. The batsmen who were still not out or in the pavilion? Dravid, Laxman, Kohli, Dhoni and Harbhajan. As it was happening then, I was flabbergasted at how the Indian captain, fresh off a World Cup triumph, gave up the ghost of the chase so easily. I was thinking of that match as the last hour started in Brisbane. 

At Brisbane, at the start of the mandatory 15 over final hour, India needed 69 runs to win

Batting: Pant (51) and Agarwal (9) with Sundar and Thakur after them

At Roseau, in 2011, at the start of the mandatory 15 over final hour, India needed 86 runs to win

Batting: Dravid (34) and Laxman (3) with Kohli, Dhoni, Harbhajan after them

The fear of failure weighed heavily on the 2011 team. Unencumbered by any such pressures, the 2021 team finally released some of the anguish of that failed chase of a decade ago.

5) Rishabh Pant was the first visiting batsman to record scores of 25+ in 10 consecutive innings in Australia (surpassing, among others, Viv Richards who had a streak of 8). He got 23 in the first inning at Brisbane, snapping that streak, but then added 89* in the second inning. His scores across all Tests in Australia read:

25, 28, 36, 30, 39, 33, 159*, 29, and 36, 97, 23, 89* in this series

6) The Indian 4th inning was a tale of two strategies. At one end Pujara scored 56 in 211 balls, typical of a team fighting for a draw and at the other end Gill, Rahane, and Pant scored a combined 202 in 306 balls, symbolizing a team going for the win. Chalk and cheese, black and white, night and day - the beauty of Test cricket is that it can simultaneously accommodate two entirely opposite batting styles. As Harsha Bhogle pointed out in his post-match review after the Sydney Test - Test cricket showed the value of two opposite approaches seeking the same common goal (even there he was referring to Pujara and Pant's approach to the task at hand right at the start of the video). 

7a) At the end of day 4, Indians prayed for rain. And rain is what they got - a rain of runs!

7b) Actually, it DID rain. There were surreal scenes with about 20 overs to go when the ground was bathed in bright sunlight and yet the players were playing in a drizzle from a passing cloud. Maybe the gods felt the need to bless the batsmen as they dreamt the unthinkable.

8) Cummins set a record during the 2019 Ashes series for the most number of wickets in a 5 Test series without a five-for when he took 29 wickets with no five wicket hauls. In this 2020-21 series, Cummins once again led all bowlers with 21 wickets and no five-fors. I do not know if that is a record for a 4 Test series but it has to be up there if it isn't.

But it says something about Cummins: I do not recall him having a defining spell where he blasted away the opposition like Broad or Steyn or even Bumrah seem to have in our memory banks.

9) The man who spent the most time in the middle (after Pujara) seemed to be Nitin Patel, the physio. The number of times he ran onto the field to tend to an injured player almost warrants a sponsorship deal from someone!

10) Over the course of 8 innings (both teams combined), 123 wickets fell on helpful tracks but there were only three 5-for (Pfeiffer in honor of Dean Jones) hauls in the series - two by Josh Hazelwood and one by Mohammad Siraj.

(***PTS messaged me to point out that in the entire series, the number of centuries scored was in the same ratio - Australia had two centurions (Smith, Labuschcagne) while India had just one (Rahane).)

11) In 2018, when India finally breached the Aussie stranglehold we were told that the result would have been different if Steve Smith and David Warner had been there. (And, they did not have Marnus Labuschagne either at that point in time). In this series, they had all of them at various times. In fact, Australia won the Test where Steve Smith contributed only 1 run and lost (or drew) the matches where he scored centuries or fifties. 

I am actually very happy that there were no broken Aussie players or missing players for any reason. There are no excuses left on that front to explain away the losses.

12) The Australian batting line-up was very brittle. Even Labuschagne received numerous lives in all his innings and it could have been much worse for Australia if India's fielding had been as disciplined as its batting or bowling. Even in the first Test at Adelaide, after posting 244, India had Australia reeling at 111 for 7 when Bumrah dropped an easy catch off Paine. The Aussie skipper then counter-attacked (with more luck and lives) and kept the lead down to just 54 runs. The rest is history (36 and all) but think about how the Test may have played out had we gotten them all out for, say, 125 and batted with a lead of 100 plus rather than having to come in the next morning on a fresh day at 9 for 1 and a lead of 63 runs.

13) After the events of the Sydney Test, where tremendous amount of energy was spent in achieving the draw, I was concerned that there would be a let down at Brisbane. I was convinced that if we lost the toss, the Australian batsmen would bat us out of the game. And they were close to doing so - at 200 for 3 (Editor's note: I had previously noted that it was 206 for 2, which was actually the score in the Sydney Test).**. From there onwards, the resilience and fight of the Indian team came to the fore. Getting Australia all out for 369 was a monumental feat. Had they reached 450 or even 400, it would have been devastating.

Actually, Rahane lost all three tosses in the Tests he captained, adding another layer of improbability to the stupendousness of the series win. Time after time, the odds were stacked against the team and they kept overcoming it. All along we had been told that the GOAT (Lyon) would be unleashed in the 4th inning on a wearing wicket while exploiting the footmarks made by Starc. Lyon was more bleat than roar.

14) Fame is fleeting, ephemeral. Success is occasional, failures are more common. The playing 11 at Brisbane will look nothing like the playing 11 in the next Test against England. In my estimation, only Sharma, Gill, Pujara, Rahane, and Pant are certain to play. The other 6 are unlikely to feature since the following will return: Kohli, Bumrah, Sharma, Ashwin...leaving spots for only 2 other players, who may both be spinners. I do not know when Thakur or Saini or Natarajan or Sundar will play again for India. If you think it is unlikely they'll never play again having contributed to this win, think about this:

The miracle of Kolkata 2001 was the last Test match for: Nayan Mongia and Venkatapathy Raju 

The euphoria of victory did not extend their careers. They were replaced by Sameer Dighe and Nilesh Kulkarni (for whom Chennai was the last Test of his career, too).

15) The value of Pujara's self-denial became apparent to me the moment I realized that when Cummins opened the bowling after lunch, he was already into his third spell of the day. And when Hazelwood replaced Cummins, it was his third spell, too. Drip by drip, drop by drop...the miles started piling accruing on those legs and when the second new ball was available the engine was willing but the body was not as sharp.

16) The loss was disastrous for Australia's World Test Championship (WTC) hopes. Here's what needs to happen in order for Australia get to Lord's for the final.

The unexpected series defeat against India has severely dented Australia's chances of making the top two. Their points percentage has dropped to 69.2, and they will need 89 points from the three-Test series against South Africa - which is yet to be confirmed - to go past New Zealand. That can only happen if they win at least two Tests and draw the third, in which case they will get 93 points from the series.

And, since you asked, this is what has to happen for India:

India have moved to the top of the table, with a points percentage of 71.67, with New Zealand currently second. To stay ahead of New Zealand's 70%, they need 80 more points out of 120 in the four-Test home series against England. They can get there with a 2-0 series win; if they lose one Test in that series though, they will need to win three. Given India's home record in the last eight years - 28 wins, one loss in 34 Tests - they should fancy their chances of securing those 80 points.

The WTC has added a new wrinkle to Test series, providing an additional layer of context where the outcome of a series matters not only to the participants but also to other nations, which is a good thing.

17) After the second Test, I had some misgivings about the umpires. I did not doubt their bias or their skill. Rather, I felt that there might be a subliminal tendency of lenience towards the Australians. For example, there were decisions that were given out to an Aussie bowler while a similar appeal from an Indian bowler was turned down (subsequently overturned on DRS appeal). That was my perception and it was reinforced when a few "out" decisions against the Indian batsmen were overturned upon review. 

The fears that I had turned out to be largely baseless and unfounded. I did not sense any such umpiring bias during the fourth Test and was, actually, very impressed with the umpiring of Bruce Oxenford and Paul Wilson. Sure, they had to overturn a decision or two but there was nothing that was egregiously out of place. In fact, considering how tense the match was they were outstanding. I was particularly impressed with Paul Wilson, who seemed very calm and measured in everything he did. I hope he grows in stature and umpires more games.

And I dislike the rule that an umpire cannot stand in games featuring his home team. In this day and age with the scrutiny they go through and the ability to use DRS to overturn decisions, we could keep one umpire at least from the home nation on the ground, I would think.

18) In the long, storied history of Test cricket, never have 20 players been used by an away team during the course of a series. India did that this time, demonstrating the incredible turnover from test to Test, so much so only two players - Rahane and Pujara - played all 4 Tests for India. High turnover is usually associated with teams that lose by huge margins not series winners. Yet another amazing stat in a series filled with bizarre stats and facts.

19) When the series began: 

Ravichandran Ashwin had 365 wickets in 71 Tests. 

Nathan Lyon had 390 in 96 Tests.

The series ended with Ashwin on 377 (12 in 3 Tests) and Lyon on 399 (9 in 4 Tests). 

Ashwin clearly outbowled and outperformed Lyon in the latter's den (pun intended). I am going to make a very bold prediction - Ashwin will reach 400 Test wickets before Lyon reaches 400. You heard it here first!

19) Prior to the Brisbane Test, the general consensus was that the Indian team should stack it's roster with every healthy batsman available and hedge their bets and bat out for a draw. When the team was announced I was surprised to see FOUR fast bowlers and one spinner. FIVE bowlers on a ground that favors bowlers. It took guts to make that call and, in the end, turned out to be an inspired one when Saini pulled up lame. Kudos to the team thinktank for deciding that taking 20 wickets was more important than scoring an additional 50 runs while facing a larger deficit. 

It also put more onus on the batsmen to perform, knowing that there was little to follow as we effectively played with three #11 batsmen. The top order batsmen didn't score as big as they should have but knowing there was nothing behind them probably made Thakur and Sundar value their wicket even more and score all the runs they did. Runs that won us the game, honestly speaking, since it tired out the Aussie bowlers and demoralized them. Further, in the second inning, even when Agarwal got out (more on that below) there wasn't too much panic since we still had Sundar and Thakur to come. Think about that last sentence again. It's a sentiment that would have been improbable to consider at the start of the Test!

20) When Mayank Agarwal was padded up in the pavilion, I was content thinking that we had a competent player should the second new ball need to be played out in Brisbane. His first inning of 38 was very promising until a strange blunder - trying to punch on the up to the second ball after the lunch break, doomed him. I thought he would have learned from that but he did not. One ball after Agarwal survived a DRS review for caught behind he, inexplicably, tried to loft over the in-field and gave a catch to Wade at short cover. The fielder accepted the chance. Ironical since Wade himself had been guilty all series of gifting away his wicket to the Indians! 

If Agarwal had not perished and had survived till the end with Pant, imagine the plaudits that would have followed him. It is good to "play your natural game" but, at times, some context needs to be enforced. 

And, no, I would not have applauded his courage if that drive had gone to the boundary. I know it for a fact because, even as Cummins was running in, I was thinking to myself - play out the over, play out the over, expecting something disastrous to happen.

21) Shubman Gill scored: 45, 35*, 50, 31, 7, 91 - 259 runs @ 51.80 

I watched almost every ball of all his innings. I do not recall him being hit on the body even once. Every other batsman had moments of concern or times when they were flinching and getting hit, including Labuschagne and Smith. I do not know if it my mind blocking it but Gill came out unscathed, I think. He plays beside the ball and his technique will be tested in England or whenever the ball moves in the air but speed did not bother him one bit. Take a look at these highlights (see above/below) and just listen to the sound of the bat hitting the ball - it is hitting the sweet spot more often than not (look at the 1:12 mark as Isa Guha points out, too). And when you hook Starc in front of square leg (at the 2:25 mark, for example) it means you have a lot of time to play the ball. What a player. I hope he stays hungry and grounded and plays for another 15 years. (Touch wood). And if he does that...uff....who knows how many runs he will score.

22) During the first inning of the 4th Test, the broadcaster's shared an amazing bit of information. According to their ball tracking software, Pat Cummins had not bowled a single ball down the leg side in the whole series. In the whole series. Just think about that. To bowl at his level and not stray even once is as much evidence as anyone needs to support his standing as the #1 bowler in the world. What a bowler. Test after Test, inning after inning, spell after spell, over after over, ball after ball, he just ran into and through the wall relentlessly attacking the batsman. If Pujara was the immovable wall, Cummins was the irresistible force. 

23) On his YouTube channel, Ashwin sat down with the fielding coach, R Sridhar, and got him to reveal what happens off the field while the action we know so well unfolds on it. Ravi Shastri comes out looking really good from a tactical and leadership point of view. Many nuggets of information are revealed with a good dose of humor and self-deprecation. 

It's in Tamil but has subtitles if you don't follow the language. Well done, Ashwin.

24) One moment stood out for me from the above video. Sridhar pointed out that, after the dismal batting collapse of 36, the conventional wisdom was that the batting should be strengthened. Instead, the Indian think tank went the other way - strengthened the bowling by making it a 5 bowler attack and relying on Jadeja to replace Virat Kohli. What a masterstroke it proved to be. Simply brilliant. Especially when Yadav pulled up lame in the second inning.

I still think Ravi Shastri is more of a rah-rah guy than a nuts-and-bolts coach but he has, smartly, surrounded himself with very competent coaches in the specialist positions of his support staff. While they take of the nitty-gritty stuff, he is able to macromanage the whole thing in his typical, bombastic way. Kudos to him and his support staff for keeping the players focused on the big picture while not dwelling on the past.

25) BD asked if if I thought Brisbane 2021 trumped Kolkata 2001 as the definitive Test win for an Indian team. This was my response to him: 

On an individual basis, Kolkata 2001 still comes out on top, in my opinion. Considering the context (following on 274 runs behind, playing a team with a streak of 15 straight Test wins, the Final Frontier, and the fact that in the Aussie team there were at least 5 all-time Australian Greats - Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist, Ponting, Waugh and 4 Modern Greats - Hayden, Junior Waugh, Langer. Gillespie and the last 2 - Slater and Kasprowicz - were no mugs by any stretch of imagination) the Kolkata win was more improbable and seminal.

As a whole, this Test series has to be almost the best ever, even factoring in recency bias.

Each Test had its own script and context. No two Tests were similar and all were enthralling.

Every Test, every session was meaningful. No lulls...no periods of boring domination. (The 36 was mesmerizingly bewildering and so out of the blue... it wasn't domination so much as dream-like. It's how Hazelwood would have dreamt bowling a perfect Pfeiffer would be when he was a kid).

26) As Julius Caesar once proclaimed: Veni, Vidi, Vici.

The ecstasy of the agony

 During a game, I have always felt it is tougher to be a spectator than a participant. At least the participant can do something to influence the outcome. The spectator can only resort to superstitious gimmicks to believe that they have some influence on the proceedings.

While the Sydney test was going on, Ravichandran Ashwin and Hanuma Vihari were battling together during a 261 ball partnership that kept the Australians at bay. They had it easy - they only had to worry about the ball being bowled at them (and the occasional pointed barb from the increasingly frustrated Aussie tongues). 

Here's how it feels to be a helpless spectator, especially one who knows more about the behind the scenes events than the viewing public does. Prithi Ashwin describes the 5th day's activities from her unique perch. It's a must-read for anyone who wants to know how the support staff feels.

I would never forget the surreal moment when Ashwin walked into the room that evening. We laughed, we cried, we laughed. We didn’t know how to react. And we howled. It wasn’t an euphoric cry – that was after the Melbourne win in the second Test. That had a different feel. I had rarely seen him that light, that bouncy, that delirious. This was something different. We were howling. It was utter relief – a draining out of emotions from our system. We just had two minutes together; he had to get back to the physio and medical scans. He came back at 11 that night. Next morning, the daughters were surprised when we said it’s time to go to a new city. “Why, aren’t you going to play today, match over?” Akhira asks. “Did we win, appa?’ the nosy one asked again.

Of nerves of steel and worsdmiths

When the Indian team toured Australia in 2020-21, the conventional wisdom was that the first Test would be the most competitive because India would have the services of its full team, including the captain Virat Kohli. His subsequent departure for the rest of the series for paternity reasons was proposed to be a hole too big to fill. 

 I did not share the same misgivings. Having seen, time and again, sports teams outperform expectations when a star player is lost or not playing, I expected a better than hoped-for response. What I have seen in the Melbourne Test and the Sydney Test has far exceeded even my expectations.

My thoughts on the Sydney Test are many but nearly all of them were encapsulated by Prem Panicker, who came out of hibernation to pen a post that is a celebration of the fightback as well as a eulogy for his recently departed beloved uncle. 

For a little over a day this team — of which, thanks to an attrition without parallel in our history, I at least had little expectations — made memories to cherish. And, more importantly, helped me forget that an uncle who was the wind beneath my wings is no more; that as the fourth Test winds down to a close in Brisbane, I will be back in Calicut, immersing his ashes in the sea and bidding him a last farewell.

To borrow from Shakespeare, ‘For this relief much thanks. ‘Tis bitter cold, and I am sick at heart.’

Read it in its entirety to comprehend the magnitude of the task at hand and how a bunch of steely professionals did not flinch in the face of sustained hostility for 131 overs.

High on the hills was a lonely GOAT

Only one man could bring me out of blogging semi-retirement: the Rajah himself.

The story arc of Roger Federer's resurgence has been written many times over by multiple authors around the world and I will not repeat it here. A cursory Google search will suffice. Instead I want to put down some random, disjointed thoughts that float through my brain...

a) For a long time DH and I were reconciled to the fact that he'd be stuck on one prime number - 17. When he won #18 earlier this year in Australia, DH remarked that he would HAVE to win one more to get back to a prime number because that's where he should be (by himself and one). Well, what do you know? It may be time to start thinking of 23 now. Impossible? Well, many of us thought 18 was impossible.

b) Remember this commercial from 10 years ago? It was released on July 6th, 2007, just moments after Roger had won his 10th major and was narrated by Tiger Woods who ended it with the haunting words: My name is Tiger Woods. I have 12 majors and counting. So keep up, buddy.

Yesterday, Roger did what Tiger always dreamed of - overtaking Jack Nicklaus' major count (18). For the record, Tiger has stalled at 14 for over eight years and it does not appear he is going to add to that total.



c) The Federer of 2017 is winning because he is better than the Federer of a few years ago. He is winning because he has improved. His backhand, especially, is a lot flatter and more potent. the elegant top-spin laden one has been beefed up by another version - a flattened, whiplash of a shot that singes across the court with power that is approaching Wawrinka territory.

d) The 2017 Wimbledon final was, finally, lacking in excitement or prolonged tension for Federer. But I am not complaining one bit. I'll take that any day over the 5 set gut-wrencher from earlier this year at the Australian Open where he was (gasp!) trailing 1-3 in the fifth set. Even today I sometimes break into a cold sweat thinking about what might have happened had Roger not raised his game.

Imagine this - Nadal wins the Australian Open. Suddenly the major head-to-head is 17-15 in Roger's favor with the French Open coming up where Nadal would make it 17-16. Oh dear...the GOAT narrative would have taken a drastic turn for the worse for us FedFans. Phew! Thank heavens for that atomic backhand (and Robin Soderling).

e) The loss to Juan Martin del Potro at the 2009 US Open stung for a long, long time. Then came the capitulation to Marin Cilic in 2014 when all Roger had to do was take out Cilic and then Kei Nishikori (neither of whom he had ever lost to at that point in time). For years, I've wondered what those two missed US Opens would have done for his legacy. Suddenly, after what has transpired this year, the pain has eased tremendously.

f) Roger is the only man to have played at least 5 finals at each major. At the French, he has one win (in 2009, thank heavens for Soderling) and 4 losses to the clay GOAT - Rafael Nadal. One wonders what the actual count might have been if the gods had not sent Nadal to mess with us FedFans.

g) But seriously, just watch these 5 games from the 5th set of the 2017 Australia Open again and marvel at how close it was to being a completely different narrative. A matter of inches...literally, on multiple occasions.



h) In 2012 after the Olympics in London, in spite of winning a silver medal, it seemed quite inconceivable that Federer would last as long as Rio in 2016. Verily, it came to pass - Federer did not play in Rio while recovering from his myriad injuries. But if you had told me in 2012 that he would not play in Rio but would win multiple majors in 2017, I would not have believed it possible. I am still having a tough time believing it.

i) Hailing from a nation where we revere the Krishnans and Amritraj for simply making it to the quarter-final at Wimbledon, it is astonishing to think that Federer has played 70 Grand Slam events (tied for first all-time with Fabrice Santoro) and has reached the quarter-final or better in 50 of them. Yes, 50 of them!

j) For a man known for the beauty of his groundstrokes and the fluidity and grace of his foot movement, it is mind-boggling to think that he is third all-time in the list of aces hit on the ATP tour. And, if he plays the rest of the year, he's definitely going to be #2 behind Ivo Karlovic.

k) The final word has to, definitely, belong to the late, great David Foster Wallace from his famous essay: Federer as a religious experience. Mind you, this was published on August 20, 2006, almost 11 years ago, but it still resonates just as loudly today:

... Roger Federer is showing that the speed and strength of today’s pro game are merely its skeleton, not its flesh. He has, figuratively and literally, re-embodied men’s tennis, and for the first time in years the game’s future is unpredictable. (...) Genius is not replicable. Inspiration, though, is contagious, and multiform — and even just to see, close up, power and aggression made vulnerable to beauty is to feel inspired and (in a fleeting, mortal way) reconciled.

(Credit: SI.com)

Reading the tea leaves

When the draw for the men's singles event of the 2015 French Open tennis tournament was announced, all eyes were focused on the quarterfinal where two titans were slated to clash against each other. Learned reporters nodded their collective heads and the phrase de facto final was bandied about.

After the first four rounds, the mega-clash came to be and so it came to pass - the winner of this particular quarterfinal DID win the French Open. While most people thought it would be the Djokovic-Nadal clash, any true tennis fan knew - the de facto final was the all-Swiss clash between Wawrinka and Federer. When Federer lost, my good friend DH and I knew that the GOAT had missed a golden opportunity to pad his resume.

Either way, watching Stan Wawrinka's blistering one-handed backhand made me smile, albeit with a tinge of sadness that it wasn't the other Swiss one-handed backhand player mesmerizing the audience.

चलो कोई बात नहीं, Federer नहीं तो Wawrinka ही सही!

Grateful to a GOAT

For many years I watched sports to root for a particular team, usually the Indian cricket team. But all that changed after I lost touch with (watching) cricket in the 1990's. When I was finally able to watch cricket again, the way I watched sports had changed.

I no longer root for a team. Instead I root for individual players and, by proxy, the teams they play for. I realized this aspect the year(s) I rooted for the New England Patriots (gasp!) simply because Randy Moss was on their roster. Now that Moss has left, I am back to not caring for the Patriots.

As the years have gone by the number of sportsmen who make me turn on the TV/computer to watch them has diminished due to retirement. VVS Laxman, Randy Moss, post-2010 Sachin Tendulkar and Greg Maddux were the prominent ones on the list. There are some stragglers who I don't watch any more but used to a until a few years ago like Jeff Gordon, Kobe Bryant and Tiger Woods (in his prime, El Tigre was as deadly and clutch under pressure as any sportsperson as I have ever seen).

Today, there is just ONE sportsman whom I try to watch whenever I get a chance to because I never know when he will stop playing professionally. A few days ago, it gave me great pleasure to wake up early in the morning to watch the man tick off one of the last items missing from his career resume - the Davis Cup.

Look at that concentration! He takes "watching the ball till the last moment" very seriously.

Watching Roger Federer play tennis is something else altogether. Most matches are won or lost on his terms because he is relentlessly attacking in nature, always looking for a way to end the point. The way he glides across the court, the way he manufactures shots from seemingly-impossible angles are the reasons I watch. In the future, there may be others who win more than him or have a more impressive career resume than him. But none of them will be able to convince me that Federer is not the best all-round tennis player I have ever seen. I was privileged enough to watch him once in person on Arthur Ashe stadium at the US Open and that memory is something I will always cherish. 

Roger is not my favorite tennis player ever (that would be Ivan Lendl) but he is definitely the one who has given me the most joy. Even as he fights Time and plays as well as he can, I know the light is burning fiercely but the candle is burning out soon. Yet he is out there "tarnishing" his legacy in the eyes of some, piling up the years without Grand Slam titles. But he is not going down quietly. He ended 2014 a few points shy of the #1 ranking (I predict he will return to #1 sometime before May 2015) and wowed us with the Davis Cup triumph and continues to play on.

And for that I am very grateful.

The curious incident of the dog in the nighttime

So, Sunil Narine's bowling action has been found to be illegal and he has been suspended from further participation until he rectifies it (in some tournaments and not others...but that is grist for another mill).

Sunil Narine in action.
(Click here for photo credit)

I have ALWAYS thought his action was dicey, so I am not surprised. In general, I do not like bowlers who have jerky actions so I am not shedding tears at the recent clampdown on illegal bowling actions.

Here is what is interesting to me in the entire Narine saga: even as various conspiracy theories are floated for the timing of the ban and many folks (including Clive Lloyd) fume about the ban itself, one thing is striking - no one is defending Narine's action as being legal. Not. One. Person.

Everyone is harping on about how he has been allowed to bowl for so long (as if that is reason enough to not suspend him now) and how it is w itch hunt bu why is no one even talking about the elephant in the room - that his action is dodgy.  That to me is more damning than any video evidence.

Raise your hand in protest, Mr. Narine, but be sure you don't bend that elbow when you do so.

Mad Dog and the Big Hurt

I have never really followed Major League Baseball too closely and it has been exactly 5 years since I even paid attention to the scores or highlights.  After I moved to Chicago two baseball players with connections to Chicago held my interest.  Greg Maddux, a pitcher, and Frank Thomas, a first baseman for the White Sox.

Maddux had been a Cy Young award winning pitcher for the Cubs who had been unsigned by the Cubs, paving the way for the Atlanta Braves to grab him.  Maddux would win the Cy Young for the next three years as well underscoring how badly the Cubs had misjudged his greatness.  Frank Thomas was a huge (6' 5", 240 pounds) hitter who was as good a singles hitter as he was a slugger.

Even as their careers wound down and they changed teams, I kept track of the box scores just to see how they were doing.  Maddux finally ended with 355 wins, one more than Roger Clemens which pleased me no end (and still does even today)!

Yesterday, in their first year of eligibility Maddux and Thomas were voted into the Baseball Hall of Fame.  A perfect ending to my "association" with them.

Someday I will tell you of the one time I went to see Thomas play live.  I was more fortunate with Maddux, seeing him pitch multiple times, including a 9 inning gem where he did not give up a single run and still did not win the game!  That game - on August 28th, 2002 - remains my favorite baseball game.  I had a seat right behind home place at PNC Park in Pittsburgh and got to watch Maddux unveil a 100 pitch masterpiece.  When he left in the 9th inning the score was 0-0!

Maddux was not only a good pitcher, he was also a great fielder, winning the Golden Glove a record 18 times.  Think about it, for 18 different years he was best fielding pitcher in baseball.  A testament to his longevity and excellence at that position.

Poetry in slow-motion

It's no secret that I believe Roger Federer is the greatest tennis player of all-time.  Or, at least, if there was/is a tennis player with a greater range of shots combined with grace in hitting the yellow ball, I'd like to have watched him/her play.  And I'd still think Roger could have held his own.

The secret to his success (as it is with most other successful sportspersons) is how focused he is on the ball at the moment of impact and beyond.  Check out this video:

And if that isn't enough for you, check him out in super-slow-motion....
 

Quiet, please

Reason number 1,456,687,432 why I am a bigger fan of Roger Federer than Rafael Nadal:  Their pace of play.

In the time it takes Nadal to serve between points, the viewer can surf other channels, catch up on the endings of all the NFL games and still not miss a single shot of the match.

With Federer, blink a couple of times and you may have already missed the latest exhibition of shot-making from the maestro.

Check out this split-screen video.  Roger Federer wins a game in the time it takes Nadal to get ready to serve the next point.  Roger's video begins with him serving at love-all.  Nadal's video begins with him hitting the winning shot of a point.

Surf's up: Random musings - 7

a)  So, last night the result of an NFL game was determined by the shoddiness of replacement referees.  Ho-hum.  The debacle could have been avoided had any of the Green Bay Packer defenders followed the first rule of defending Hail Mary passes - KNOCK THE BALL DOWN!

Take a look at the replay - no less than three Green Bay defenders had the chance to ice the game by simply batting the ball away.



Yet, all of them went for glory and tried to intercept the ball.    See for yourself.

Serves you right.  You don't have my sympathies.

b)  VVS Laxman retired a few weeks ago and it hasn't sunk in yet.  I am still not in the mood to write my eulogy but am getting ready for it.  Until then, here are two must-read articles about the good guy of Indian cricket.

First, Peter Roebuck is no longer here to write about VVS, but when he did (in the aftermath of 281) it was fantastic.  Poetry in prose.

As Laxman took guard he found himself surrounded by the din of the crowd and the biting resolution of his gum-chewing, green-capped opponents near at hand. Habitually, he cuts an impressive and impassive figure upon which hostility falls like raindrops upon a bear. He stood his ground.

Laxman was about to play the innings of a lifetime, one of the greatest knocks the game has known. His effort has not shrunk in retrospect for it was not a mere protest against fate but rather a purposeful pursuit of an impossible dream.

Second, check out Siddhartha Vadyanathan's piece, not so much for what he wrote but for some of the videos link to in the comments section.

c)  If you are a famous sportsperson, maybe even the best ever in your sport, winning a match is not the end of your day's work.  Here's Roger Federer's grueling post-match interview schedule.  I used to wish I could play like him.  Now I don't, for I do not want to have to do all the additional things that come with that gift.

d)  Roger Federer is the Most Interesting Man in the World.  Stay thirsty, my friends.

e)  Very rarely do I burst out laughing when I read a straight-forward sports article about how someone can help Tiger Woods get his game back on track.  But this one did.  Johnny Miller is soooo modest, it makes me blush to hear about all the great things he has to say about....himself.

Bonus: Here's Johnny's unvarnished thoughts from a different article:

The drive I hit on the last hole at Oakmont in 1973 at the U.S. Open was special. I'd hit every green that day, and my average birdie putt was about 10 to 12 feet. To this day, I've never seen a major championship round of that precision, with tee shots and iron shots, by anyone. That sounds like bragging, but I've seen a lot of rounds. 

f) If you have a few minutes, take a look at some of the photographs submitted to National Geographic for the National Geographic Traveler Photo Contest 2012.  Which is your favorite one?

g)  And finally, one last look as VVS walks off into the sunset.  A big part of cricket's allure died that day.

(Copyright 2011, AFP)

287*

On the day Roger Federer reaches the very top, Nike says it best:

Here's a tribute to the 287 weeks he has spent at the very top of men's tennis: On a similar note, here's a tribute to Roger and the 17 Grand Slam tournaments that he has won:

The morning after

The after-life of a Wimbledon champ.  Here's a quick peek on what happens the next day as various media outlets try to find a nugget of information that will make for a different story than the rest of the competition.

My admiration for Roger Federer goes up even more.  What a gentleman!

Backhanded complement

When Roger Federer was ruling the roost, his backhand was a fairly simple stroke, harking back to gentler times of serve-and-volley tennis.  While he was quite capable of the top-spin version, he much preferred to set up points by slicing it back with varying levels of spin and then running around it to unleash his forehand, once described by John McEnroe as the "greatest shot in tennis".

Lotur Rotak*

There are many ways to play tennis and the trivalry at the top of men's tennis today - Federer, Djokovic and Nadal - exemplify it better than ever before in the history of the game.  Federer is the artist, Nadal the ferocious fighter who is a ball-retrieving machine par excellence, while Djokovic has the ability to switch from offense to defense more decisively than anyone I've seen before.

From 2003-2008, Federer was the king of all he surveyed, picking up tournaments like nobody's business, at one point winning 24 consecutive tournament finals.

Hat tip

One Saturday evening, RT and I exchanged text messages in anticipation of the final round of the Master's tournament.  One thing we agreed upon was that the winner would not come from the final pairing of Peter Hanson or Phil Mickelson.

My pick was Louis Oosthuizen.  RT picked his namesake - Bubba Watson.

20 holes later, Bubba came through with a shot for the ages.

This post is to acknowledge how prescient RT was.  Too bad he wasn't as prescient when he picked Duke to go all the way a few weeks ago.

Anyway, I owe him a G&T the next time we meet in August.

Stepping back to move forward

I am not the only person who has noticed the shortcomings of LeBron James when the spotlight gets intense. I was fortunate that my time in Chicago coincided with MJ's golden finish after his basketball "sabbatical". I even got to watch him play at the United Center (January 26th, 1997, against the Miami Heat). The Bulls won by 22 points, and went on to win an unparalleled 72 games (out of 82) in the regular season.

For the rest of his career LeBron will be compared to the man I firmly believe is the greatest sportsman in the clutch I have ever seen. Unless LeBron discovers some inner toughness he will lose out on the GOAT stakes.

If LeBron is the reading type, I'd ask him to read this tribute that describes Jordan's last run for the Bulls. Taking command of the tight moments is what defines a leader. Until he does that, Lebron will just be another talented fellow who faded away from the basket during crunch-time.

By the way, late in his career, Jordan taught himself to fadeaway from the basket, too. Except he did it as a scoring option that was virtually unstoppable. Watch and learn, LeBron.

Yesterday, once more

A few months back I realized that very few sporting events held my fancy any longer. Since then I have stopped watching TV just for the sake of watching it. To me, whether I watch TV or not has become a litmus test for sporting events. If I care enough about a sporting event I shall turn it on. If I don't then I don't care.

Simple. Right?

Stretching arms towards perfection

(This is a very long post. Disjointed and unorganized. It is a post 28 years in the making but I did not realize it till I sat down to actually write it. I can remember every little detail about the 2nd of April, 2011 like it was (day before) yesterday but just not in sequence! My reminisces about the day are also like that. I nearly deleted this post because of its rambling nature until I was convinced that I should publish it nevertheless because there are people who want to read what I write!)

...Oh My God! I think I may have just cost India the World Cup. How could I be so stupid?! It is 3:10am and I am driving east on Maple Street approaching the 204th street intersection. The light is red and I tell myself, if it stays red India loses, if it turns green India wins. It turns green! Phew! But not satisfied with dodging that bullet, I decide that if the light stays green until it is no longer visible in my rearview mirror then victory is assured. Oh no...oh no...oh no... Phew! I can no longer see it but then I reach 168th street and turn left. Oh dear, I can see the traffic light to the left in the distance, still green but how long can it hold on? Idiot!! How could I be so stupid?!!

Miracle of miracles, it stays green the whole time! India is going to win! After that - Never. A. Doubt. Honestly, God promise.

Maggi Noodle Review: The best movie of 2010

2010 was an odd year for me. I saw very few movies, so much so, that during the recent Oscar telecast, the only nominated movies I had seen were Inception, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - part I and *ahem* Tangled.

So when I present to you the best movie of 2010, I do so from my limited viewing list. I thought about making it Inception but I decided against it. Much as I was impressed by the movie and all the conversations it has generated in its aftermath, the movie that moved me the most was: