Flattering to whom?

Continuing on the theme that I first talked about here, the similarities between the storylines of Pocahontas and Avatar are too many to ignore.

Don't believe me? Take a look at this "preview" of Avatar, Pocahontas-style.



Just for comparison, here's the original preview from Avatar.

Slash and burn

Of all the tributes pouring in for Sachin Tendulkar after the 200* he scored in an ODI, the best is this one from Sambit Bal, the editor of CricInfo.

God hath no answer for a writer's fury

In the comments section of a recent post relating to a Manoj Kumar special, I exchanged a couple of messages about the complexity (read: are-you-being-serious-ness) of stories in Hindi movies, especially from the Golden Age of Melodrama.

On IMDB.com I love trolling through plot summaries of movies and user comments. There's enough hilarity there to keep most mortals occupied. Once in a while you come across a plot summary that is so gobsmackingly outrageous, you are sure even immortals are rendered speechless when confronted with it.

Fine wine

Approximately a year ago, I saw Sachin Tendulkar retire hurt at a personal score of 163 at the end of 45 overs in an ODI in New Zealand.  The way he was batting that day a double century was easily in sight, especially with the short boundaries in Christchurch. A few months later he surpassed that with a 175 at Hyderabad that was as emphatic as any of his innings. Crossing 150 is a rare enough feat in ODI's, doing it so many times in a career is phenomenal. Today, SRT finally crossed the rubicon, getting to the 200 run landmark that he richly deserves to be the first to get to, just as Brian Lara thoroughly deserves to be remembered as the first man to a Test 400.

There will be talk about how it was a flat pitch and the runs were there for the taking. Well, this was the 2,962nd ODI played and a batsman finally reached 200. I don't care how flat the pitch was, this was special. What made it even more special was that the team goal was not sacrificed at the altar of a personal record. (He did set the record for most 4's in a single ODI inning).

Heart of the matter

Two pieces of genuine mirth and awesome-ness.

a) What do you do if you are Manoj Kumar and your dad is suffering a heart attack, the doctor refuses to come, and all you have are two batteries? Why, you cure him, of course!

Speaking engagements

While Test matches continue to be exciting and there is plenty of drama on the pitch, the action on the field is almost being undone by the mind-numbing commentary off of it. Fluctuating between banalities or hyperbole, the commentators are outdoing themselves in uttering stock phrases, content to rely on a cliché to tide them over.

"Needs to bowl in the right areas."
"It's all happening out there."
"What they need are a couple of quick wickets."
"What they need are some partnerships."
"That went like a tracer bullet."
"They wont mind giving up the single."

Get with the program

When I have to go anywhere, I always make a mental note of the route in my head before I embark on the journey. My comrade-in-arms is usually Google Maps. While I do not particularly dislike Navigation Systems (erroneously called a GPS unit by most folks), I prefer to have the route in my head and am able to make adjustments on the fly if I run across bad weather or construction-related traffic irregularities.

Photographic memory

a) Inspiring awe and wonder in equal measures is this photograph of an owl in pursuit of its prey.

Voiceless eloquence

It is no secret that my favorite movie critic is Roger Ebert. A few years ago he suffered from cancer and the consequences of multiple surgeries, and can no longer speak, eat, or drink like he used to be able to.

Randomly speaking

Quick thoughts and feelings:

Hurt no more

The last Major League baseball player I rooted for recently announced his retirement. Frank Thomas, aptly nicknamed the Big Hurt, will not suit up any more. With him dies one of the last of the big men without the shroud of steroid-abuse tainting their legacy. If anything, for years, Thomas has been very, well, frank about the need for steroid testing in baseball.

Shah Rukh's changing persona

These days Shah Rukh Khan goes around loudly (and proudly) proclaiming that his name is Khan.

It wasn't always that way, you know. Why, just a few years ago he was singing a completely different tune. How fickle-minded of him!

He didn't think I'd forget, did he?

Never. A. Doubt.

After reading my Day 4 report of the India-South Africa Test match at Kolkata, Tifosi Guy left a very prescient comment:

I'd be very surprised if India don't win tomorrow. Getting Kallis was huge. I though think it will be a nerve wracking 'few overs to go before stumps' win.

And that is exactly how it transpired. India escaped by the skin of its teeth to register an innings victory with just 9 mandatory balls left to be bowled. (They could have squeezed in a couple of extra overs, if required).

Rather than give you a detailed breakdown of how it transpired, I will pen some thoughts that occurred to me in the aftermath of the game.

Three chips and some mild salsa

Overnight rain and some inept groundskeeping ensured that two possible results were rendered highly unlikely in the India-South Africa Test match at Kolkata. With a South African win and a tie knocked out of the loop, only an Indian win or a draw remain.

About 90 odd overs remain to be bowled, and the SAffers trail by 232 runs, with seven wickets in hand. In reality, a combination of bad light, slow over-rate, and rain will ensure that they actually need to survive between 50-80 overs. They have the batsmen - Amla, De Villiers, Prince, and Duminy to do it, but they have also lost two very important cogs - Smith and Kallis.

The underappreciated fulcrum

When the third day's play began in the India-South Africa Test match at Kolkata,the SAffers had an outside shot at pulling something off. Only one frontline batsman remained between the SAffers and the tail - VVS Laxman. For the entire day the visitors tried all kinds of lines, lengths, and bowlers at him. Barring an inside-edge for four and a half-chance to JP Duminy at gully, the fellow held firm.

Joining him in this endeavor was his skipper, MS Dhoni. When he first came on the scene, long hair with streaks, a sledgehammer for a bat, and hard hands behind the wickets, Dhoni seemed destined for a decent career in the Shahid Afridi mode - enough performances to keep people talking, but not really amounting to historical significance. While Samson lost his mojo when his hair was cut off, Dhoni has gone from strength to strength. His greatest gift is his mental strength to not worry about other people's perceptions. He is his own man. He possesses a gawky, awkward-looking, bottom-handed heavy approach to batting but it is a method that works. Behind the stumps he has improved leaps and bounds and is a safe catcher, improving with each year.

Is all well? It is, it is!

After missing the Nagpur Test match, VVS Laxman came back to shore up the middle order in Kolkata.  Sometime yesterday, while he was putting together yet another masterclass in middle-order calmness, it suddenly hit millions of fans of Indian cricket - the Indian team missed Laxman at Nagpur more than  he missed the team.

Spontaneously, everyone broke into a song and dance.  Or at least that's my impression of how events transpired all across the world.  It's my world and let me revel in it!  Like so:

The Force is strong in him

In my review of Day 1 of the India-South Africa Test at Eden Gardens, I had written:

Taking that last wicket quickly on the 2nd morning will be necessary. Though, as long as they don't allow too many more runs, it may not be a bad thing from India's point of view if South Africa bats long enough for the early morning dew and moisture to evaporate from the pitch! I'm not hoping it happens, though.

It was a little bit of both - the last wicket pair scored another 30 runs to take the score to 296 while playing out some of the juice in the track.

Juice in the track or ice in the veins, nothing seems to matter when Gautam Gambhir and Virender Sehwag are together at the wicket. The first over by Dale Steyn was a disappointment. Six balls were pitched outside the off-stump, going further away, and left well alone by Gambhir. It was as unsatisfying a start as was possible for South Africa. Here you had Gambhir, fresh off his first failure in 12 Tests, nervous about the situation, and you let him just ease those nerves by watching 6 balls go by?! Ugh! In spite of that maiden, after 9 overs the score was 68 for no loss.

Charge of the slighted brigade

South Africa had a fabulous chance to wipe India completely out of the series by batting for time. For most of the afternoon they did just that and then, in one manic session, they threw it all away, opening the door for an Indian comeback.

Hello, world

Someday, somewhere, Tiger Woods will emerge from his self-imposed vanvaas. Numerous folks have voiced their opinion about how and when he should come back and which platform to announce it on.

I think it is time for Eldrick Tont Woods to change his nickname. He should take some inspiration from an iconic Hindi movie and announce his return thusly:

L-a-a-a-m-bert

It seems just appropriate that I came across this video on Valentine's Day. Hugs don't come much better or much odder than this:

Blast from the past

Sometimes, when you least expect it, the past comes tumbling back into your life, ensuring that old memories swirl into the foreground, fighting to explain what you remembered in light of who you have become today. Moreover, when these are memories that have spent more than two decades in the recesses of your brain, thinking about them is a surreal experience.

Before I talk about what triggered these memories, let me take you back in time. This story begins in the early 1980's when I was just starting to figure out the nuances of cricket. I was still a young kid, pre-teen and all that, but had a grandfather, who loved cricket, for company. From him I learnt a lot about the past of the game and the bliss of a properly contested Test match. India had just won the World Cup and cricket was popular like never before.

Sight and sound

A 100 years of magic in one clip. Oh, how the times have changed, but movie magic hasn't.

Color coded

If you are color-blind this video is not for you. I have never seen a movie of the actor (Prabhas) but adored the actress (Shriya) when I first saw her in Santhosham. It appears she has become a big star in the interim but I have missed most of her subsequent movies so I do not know if she has added to her range of expressions.

She can dance, though.

Apropos of nothing

Just like that only: How do you like them apples?



In case you were wondering, I was searching on YouTube Education for a video that talked about Mutualism and plant-animal interactions, for possible use in a lecture to my Environmental Science class tomorrow.  I found a lecture recorded at MIT in 2005 that was archaic and, sadly, stuffy and boring.  That got me thinking about the value of a good teacher and how a degree from an institution is not always representative of the greatness of the instruction.

Snow ... fall

This is Mt. Kilimanjaro from outer space, taken just a few days ago. The ice cap is almost gone, the once-grand glaciers are barely clinging on and, oh yes, summer is still a few months away.

(Click here for source and other pictures from outer space)

Selling celluloid

(Note: This is a re-post of an earlier entry, updated with another video of a TV interview (in two parts) at the end of the post).

When you get two people to sit down in front of a camera, ask them questions, and let the camera roll, after a while their personalities come through. With their movie My Name is Khan on the horizon, Shah Rukh Khan and Kajol are doing the rounds.

This is the first time I am seeing a long, unedited, full-fledged interview of either of them and I like the way the interview plays out. After a while, especially in the second part, their real personalities (and mutual comfort level) comes through quite well. SRK and Kajol talk about their camaraderie, their choice or roles, and lots of other things. Fun stuff.

Like a planet scorned

A few years ago, Pluto was kicked out of the big boys club and downgraded to the status of a dwarf planet.

Astronomers around the world beware - Pluto is starting to get a little angry!

Pluto is turning brighter and redder as its 248-year-long rotation around the sun changes its seasons, NASA reported on Thursday.

(Credit: NASA, ESA, and M. Buie (Southwest Research Institute))

Dark clouds ahead?

A few weeks ago, at the start of Day 4 of the 3rd India-Sri Lanka Test match, the visitors were in trouble, trailing by 322 runs with two days to go. At the start of that day I predicted that India would win the Test match because all they needed was 10 bursts of inspiration/factors to go their way to prise out the batsmen. The pitch was not too helpful and patience was the key. Sri Lanka managed to stretch it to the 5th day but still lost by an innings and 24 runs.

At the start of the 4th day's play of the first Test between India and South Africa, India were trailing by 259 runs but with just 8 wickets in hand. The wickets the SAffers had bagged were the big guns - Virender Sehwag and, more crucially, considering his recent form, Gautam Gambhir. Therefore, to win the match the SAffers needed just 8 bits of inspiration/luck/factors to go their way. The word of the day was patience. The SAffers would need lots of it as batsmen would be difficult to prise out once they settled in. And patience is a virtue that the SAffers have in dollops.

It's an ad, ad, ad world

One of the joys of a Super Bowl telecast is watching the commercials. When the team you are rooting for does not win, then it is the commercials that you draw solace from. This year neither the team I was supporting nor the commercials were memorable.

However, if I did have to pick an ad among the ones that were shown, I'd pick this one of Google's search engine:



But a parody of that ad featuring the world's most famous philanderer is even more amusing and would have brought many a house down if it had been the one to air instead.

Timber!!

(CricInfo 2006)

The third day of the South Africa-India Test belonged to two people - Dale Steyn and Virender Sehwag. Not since I saw Malcolm Marshall in 1984 have I seen such a sustained spell of aggressive pace bowling on Indian soil. But Steyn reminds me more of Kapil Dev because his stock ball is the one that goes away, the harder to bowl outswinger. Steyn has a long-ish run-up that builds up in pace, an easy action but some of the fastest hands in the business. After his jump his arms swing faster than his run-up suggests and the length of the ball is one that invites batsmen to lean forward and drive. A brilliant ball like that got Sachin Tendulkar to lean forward, slightly off-balance, and the movement did the rest. But Murali Vijay and Wriddhiman Saha, in particular, and other Indian batsmen barring Viru, in general, were tentative about stepping forward because of the 90mph pace and instead shouldered arms or prodded awkwardly and paid the price for their diffidence.

Speechless

I don't think I could even imagine something like this, let alone be able to pull it off.

Wow.

By the numbers

The South Africans had a chance to take a stranglehold on the first Test match but seemed reluctant to push the pedal to the metal when they had the Indians on the floor. I apologize for the mixed metaphors but the SAffers are just that - a relic, a cliché that belongs to a bygone era of Test cricket.

Before Mark Taylor began the modern trend of batting first and batting fast to bat an opposition out of the game, the practice used to be to pile up runs at a "safe" pace before setting the bowlers loose to exploit the pressure induced by the sheer weight of the run chase. A combination of flatter pitches and more aggressive batsmen has caused teams to revisit what constitutes a safe total. Apparently, South Africa did not get that memo.

Flair is not a word one associates with the SAffers. A better word would be efficient. Like the Little Engine That Could they bat along a preconceived plan, seemingly marking off checkpoints as they put up the runs, head down, fully focused to the task and little else, hardly ever deviating from said plan.

Hashim Amla gives glimpses of subcontinental wristiness but for the most part his game is defined by straight lines. And, boy, did he give a fabulous demonstration of that?! For over 11 hours he defied everything that the Indians threw at him, shrugging off more than ten occasions where Amit Mishra produced a leg-spinner's dream ball and batting along in a manner that the word serene was coined for. His 250-plus was the perfect base to launch a humungous score. With Amla in the zone and the score reading 400 for very few, the stage was set for the other batsmen to expand their horizons and take the game by the scruff of its neck. Instead, what we got was batsman after batsman playing like Amla. For a brief while, the boy-man named Abraham Benjamin threatened to do something about it, routinely jumping down the wicket to tackle the spinners. Initially, I was heartened by it, until it started reminding me of another player of similar style - Michael Clarke. Both de Villiers and Clarke like to play the spinner at the point where the ball pitches yet both approach it as a defend-first, attack-second option. AB got a few fours (5 by my count) off Mishra, but only two of them came from the shimmies down the wicket. The rest of the shimmies were followed by a defensive stroke, not even by a punch to long-on or long-off for a single. So even the one batsman who seemed to be trying to do something was using a safety-first approach. From 476 for 5 in 151 overs (when Duminy got out) to finishing up with 558 for 6 in 176 overs, a total of 82 runs in 25 overs, is not the stuff from which declarations should be made.

Naturally, when AB finally decided to push the scoring along, he perished and the SAffers went back into a single-taking shell. MS Dhoni kept changing the field and rotating his bowlers but it was negated by another no-show by his premier horse - Harbhajan Singh. Economy Singh is a classic case of Georgie Porgie. If things are not going his way, a sulky, irritable Economy creeps out, content to try to hide his tail and plonk away on middle-and-leg hoping for mistakes. When Anil Kumble was bowling, no matter what the state of the game, you could never tell it from either his bowling or his demeanor. All the great ones have it. The "it" being that desire to do so well that the opposition knows that one mis-step results in their downfall. The book on Economy is simple. Negate him for a few overs, avoid rash shots that give him an early wicket, and then sit back and milk the square-leg area as he bowls faster and flatter onto the pads.

It is a telling commentary on Economy that the only time in the entire innings he looked even remotely like the Harbhajan he can be is when the SAffers were approaching the time-to-declare phase and a few quick wickets were in the offing. But when the big boys were out there, he was overwhelmingly outbowled by Mishra and that is not saying much considering Mishra's propensity to give up a short, faster one every once in a while. At least Mishra looked threatening right through the innings and definitely would have had more success on another day.

The day ended with the SAffers asking India to score 359 runs to save the game. If India does that, then I am pretty confident that the SAffers will bat the rest of the Test and move on to Kolkata. At least that is the impression I have been getting from the safety-first approach taken by the Proteas. Economy Singh would fit right into their team. And that is an indictment of both of them.

P.S. Ignore the title and read this article. It tells you all you need to know before Day 3 of the Ind-SAffer Test.

Quietly dominant

The first Test match between South Africa threw up a few surprises by the time the lunch interval was ushered in. Before the match, Rohit Sharma, riding the wave of popular opinion and one huge triple century against Gujrat, was a shoe-in for the middle-order spot that opened up when VVS Laxman injured himself in Bangladesh. (In spite of the 309*, Sharma had the 20th highest run aggregate in the Ranji Super League this year).

About an hour before play was to start, Sharma stepped on another player's foot in a routine pre-game play-around and was done for the day. Suddenly, Wriddhiman Saha, a wicket-keeper batsman from West Bengal, drafted into the team because the selectors (very wisely, really) deemed that Dinesh Karthik was better spent leading South Zone in the Duleep Trophy, found himself with the coveted debut match. Fortuitously, Saha leapfrogged more worthy aspirants (Pujara, Kohli, Pandey, Rahane come readily to mind) into the Test team as a specialist batsman. Since I will not mention his name again today, let me say that Saha is a very good and active fielder, especially in the deep, based on what I saw.

Zaheer Khan began as only he does - bowling to a plan in his mind, wide of the off-stump, asking the batsmen to reach out for the ball or at least pantomime letting it go. Everyone, including the scorer and his chaiwalla know that this is a set up for the ball that comes in or the bouncer, yet ZAK's current aura is such that when the ball inevitably comes, it causes discomfort. Ashwell Prince got injured in a series against Australia and JP Duminy stole the thunder. On Prince's return, he was drafted in as an opener, the selectors indicating they felt Duminy was the better long-term option. Prince is in a scoring rut and, not surprisingly, was dismissed by an iffy decision, the ball bouncing off his arm-guard to the keeper. Prince did not help matters by fending so awkwardly at the bouncer that, on first impression, it clearly looked out. Only slow motion capture from the square angle showed that he may have been not out. I cannot fault the umpire for that decision at all.

Graeme Smith and ZAK go way back and he was content to watchfully play out the medium-pacer's spell. The sucker ball to Smith is the one the comes in after pitching and the South African skipper still managed to play an angled shot to an incoming ball and heard his middle-stump rattle. Just like that South Africa was 6 for 2 and the door was open for India to come thundering in.

Instead, Jacques Kallis and Hashim Amla sedately set about surviving ZAK's probes and negating Ishant Sharma's run-denying line. The introduction of Harbhajan Singh, playing purely on reputation of late, opened the floodgates (relatively speaking). In the recent past, in my opinion, two things have conspired to make Economy Singh a ghost of the bowler of the past - both of which have to do with the doosra. The ICC is more vigilant than ever before about chucking and Economy no longer uses it as frequently as he used to, but his off-middle stump line has remained the same. Secondly, as Saqlain Mushtaq found out and Trever Jenner recently pointed out, a bowler who bowls a lot of doosras loses the action that produces the heavy overspin and loop that is the trademark of a good off-spinner. In pursuing that doosra Economy has lost his loop and bounce. Sad, really. A few weeks in purgatory may be the jolt he needs to get his rhythm back. If Virender Sehwag, VVS Laxman, and Sourav Ganguly could be dropped, why not Economy?

Anyway, Economy helped Kallis and Amla settle down. Amit Mishra found some turn and bounce but a propensity to not be able to bowl a full length on his faster balls meant that he repeatedly got pulled away to the midwicket region everytime he pitched short. Soon the SAffers were glued into the crease and, once that happens on flat pitches like this, it takes a special ball or a stupid shot to prise good batsmen out. Neither Amla nor Kallis were prepared to give it away and, barring ZAK, no Indian bowler looked capable to pulling out that zinger.

Runs, which came at a trickle in the first hour, began to gush forth in a more steady flow as the day progressed and at close South Africa had reached close to 300 runs for the loss of those early wickets. Slight advantage, South Africa, but this is a position that this Indian team has been in before and still managed to pull it out. (I will give you some examples of this later today).

For now, though, it is time for the Indian team to sit back, rest those tired feet, and plan some rebuttals. If Day 2 belongs to the South Africans, then 3 days of saving a Test match beckon.

White out

If you haven't already guessed it, there are very few things I like more than a good SNOWFALL! While the eastern part of the US is being buffeted by an "epic", record-breaking storm, in the Midwest it is just as serious, but still it is business-as-usual for us residents.

This is the view from my office today:

(C.S. Manish 2010)

Elsewhere, on campus, this is a common sight. B-E-A-U-T-I-F-U-L.

(C.S. Manish 2010)

Making a mighty ocean

I talked about the amazing properties of water to both of my classes today.

However, I wish I had seen this amazing video before I lectured to them. Fret not, I shall show it to them come Monday. I bet they'll like it.

I have a feeling they will.

Minimum fuss, maximum efficiency

MS Dhoni has captained India in 11 Tests so far, winning 8 of them. The 8 wins have been distributed over 6 different nations.

Of the Test-playing nations, the only countries missing from his captaincy resume are Pakistan and West Indies. Pretty impressive, isn't it?

Aye, aye, captain.

(Rediff 2009)

King of cameos

Alfred Hitchcock had a peculiar trait of appearing, albeit fleetingly, in all of his movies. In most cases, they are of the blink-and-you-miss-it variety. But not always. I particularly like the way he cameo-ed his way into Lifeboat.

Rumble in the dustbowl

The next India-South Africa Test match is a few hours away and there are plenty of storylines to ponder.

• Will VVS Laxman be fit enough to play? A few years ago, while playing in a local league I split the webbing in my left hand between the index and middle finger, requiring 7 stitches. It took about 10 days for the split to heal and the stitches to come off but more than a month or so before my hand stopped feeling tender. Laxman injured himself on 20th January (10 stitches), approximately 15 days ago. My gut feeling is that he has not had enough time to recover from it. I fully expect Rohit Sharma and Badrinath to shore up the middle order between Sachin Tendulkar and MS Dhoni. Murali Vijay will slot in very easily in Rahul Dravid's #3 spot. Ladies and gentlemen, here's a (premature) glimpse of India's future.
• How will the debutants respond to their one chance? Rohit Sharma has the knack of looking uninterested which goes a long way towards masking any outwardly sign of nerves (a la Virender Sehwag) while Badrinath gives off the Mohammad Kaif-like vibes - constant movement betraying an inner excitement and nervousness. 
• Irrespective of what transpires, India loses out on its slip catching heroes but gains three outstanding ground fielders. The fielding stocks of the Indian team look good when you think of an off-side that has Vijay, Sharma, and Badri patrolling gully to cover. Too bad Yuvraj is a ghost of the man that he used to be. Anyone remember those days when the dude patrolled point like no Indian before or since?
• Will I be doing a running diary? I am going to leave it till the last moment possible and gauge my mood. I will be attending a play (Fiddler on the roof) tonight and that may have a role to play. Let's see.

Talking points

As part of his contract with CricInfo, Harsha Bhogle is recording interviews with cricketers and folks related to cricket. The first installment of Opening up features VVS Laxman.

You can hear the fellow speak here (or read the transcript if you wish to). Fairly predictable answers to softly lobbed questions. Occasionally, Laxman wanders off the beaten track but not too far. Also, when it happens, Harsha does not delve deeper. The following exchange is an example of that. Laxman identifies a problem and rather than probe further, Harsha continues with his line of (presumably) prepared questions.

Harsha Bhogle: So when you are not playing international cricket and there is this big gap, the only form of cricket you really can play is domestic cricket. I know you've played in England, but I will come to that as we go along. Domestic cricket in India, how much is the gap, how much do you have to raise your game to play Test match cricket?

VVS: There is a huge gap, and there is no doubt about that. Especially in the last three years, because the players left their domestic state teams and joined Indian Cricket League (ICL); so definitely there was a huge void in the quality of players playing. (...) That said, there is definitely a huge gap between international cricket and domestic cricket, for the single reason that you are not getting good quality bowlers. The Indian team itself is struggling to find some quality spinners, apart from the guys who are playing for the team. You will find that there is no bench strength as far as spinners are concerned. So definitely the quality of domestic cricket has come down as far as bowling department is concerned.

Harsha Bhogle: Is concentration a problem, because you know when you are playing first-class cricket there is a bad ball coming every couple of overs that you can actually put away. Do you still have to get used to the idea of waiting for the bad ball when you come back?

Gauging interest

Should I do a running diary of the India-South Africa Test series? Let me know.

Here are some of the running diaries I have done in the past.

Test 3: India-Sri Lanka 2009

Test 1: India-Sri Lanka 2009

Holding court

(Ben Solomon 2010)

Roger Federer had some interesting things to say at the press conference after winning the Australian Open.

Some of the more interesting nuggets (all emphases mine):

Q. We saw you engage in psychological warfare, talking about the pressure on him, how long it's been, using 150,000 years out on court. Was it so much sweeter beating Andy because he has a very good record against you and has got under your skin in the past?

ROGER FEDERER: Well, I think it got exaggerated. The on‑court interview, I don't take those serious anyway. If you think it was a mental thing, it was not the case, you know.

But you ask me a question, I'll give you a straight answer. That's how the press conference was after the Tsonga match. It's not an easy thing to do to win your first Grand Slam. That's not mental, you know, trying to screw with his head, you know. It's just a tough thing, you know.

The next one is not gonna get any easier. But his game is so good that I'm convinced he will win one, you know. And I thought he did really well tonight because conditions were tough. I mean, I think I played a great match. So someone's got to win, and I'm happy it was me.

(...)

ROGER FEDERER: This felt similar to the Wimbledon victory in a way, because all of a sudden it was over and it hit me, you know. Whereas before I made the dropshot and I think I won, and might have been much more emotional, you know.

But then after losing that point, I'm thinking, My God, he just grabbed the trophy out of my hands. I might end up losing this thing. Two or three points later, I'm the winner after all.

It was very much a rollercoaster with the emotions. You know, you just try to stay focused. I guess the match point was over, and I was like, Oh, my God, this is it. That's kind of how I felt. It was great.

(...)

Q. How do you keep doing it year after year, Grand Slam after Grand Slam? You make it look so easy, and obviously it isn't.

ROGER FEDERER: (...) But I just ‑‑ you know, I always knew I had it in my hand. The question is do I have it in my mind and in my legs, you know. That's something I had to work extremely hard at. Now I feel like obviously I'm being pushed a great deal by the new generation coming up. I always feel sort of tennis changes sort of every five years.

Because when I came on tour, matches were played very differently. It was more of a bluff game, guys serving well, but there was always a weakness you could go to. Today that doesn't exist anymore. I think that's also thanks to guys like Murray. They've made me a better player, because I think this has been one of my finest performances, you know, in a long time, or maybe forever.

(...)

Q. You mentioned a couple times it's your first major win as a dad. Did you ever doubt you'd be able to keep winning as a father?

ROGER FEDERER: Not really. I mean, it was more put out there, you know, that apparently it's hard to do. Not as hard as it seems (laughter).

I mean, I think the special win for me was winning in Cincinnati, I think. I think the girls were barely two, three weeks old. That was terrific. That was very special. Sure, this is the first Grand Slam, but it doesn't feel as much as the Cincinnati victory felt like, just because there it was right off the bat; it was fresh.

It was all in my mind, you know. So to get through that tournament by beating Andy and Novak in the semis and finals was very special. Then, of course, being a dad, just coming off the whole thing was amazing.

This is obviously terrific, as well. Maybe not as much as the dad part, but just more that I can still do it, you know, after losing the US Open final.

Q. Can you understand why Andy got emotional at the end? You've been through that yourself. You say it's hard to win the first one. Can you appreciate why he felt as deflated as he did at the end?

ROGER FEDERER: (...) You know, in a way it was hard to watch, but at the same time I like seeing players who care for the game. I don't know. It's nice to see, you know. So you wish, you know, only the best for him.

(Click here for the transcript of the entire interview. Since it a word for word transcription, obviously, you'll have to work around the, you know, repeated phrases. Definitely, this is him on the fly, I mean, and it is endearing, in a nice way).

Icing on the cake

Before Federer won the Aussie Open, another favorite of mine, Leander Paes, won the mixed doubles with Cara Black of Zimbabwe. Sweet!

(C.S. Manish 2009)

I watched them from extremely close quarters at the 2009 US Open and was disappointed when they did not win. Luckily, they did not make it three losses in a row in Grand Slam finals (they had previously lost at the Wimbledon final, too).

Not only is he a great player, like Federer, Paes is a wonderful speaker and a great ambassador for the sport. Federer is good at speaking with compassion and clarity but even he can take a leaf out of Paes' interviewing skills. Read this interview of Paes and you will get a great idea of how good he is for tennis.

Editor's note: Here's the full transcript of the post-match press conference of Paes and Black. My favorite bit:

Q. Does he talk non‑stop on the court as well?
CARA BLACK: It's great. I love it (laughter).

I am now rooting for Roger and Paes-Black to get a single season Grand Slam!

Stomping grounds

From Azhar's Facebook page I came across this oldie-goldie. The photo in and of itself is not that remarkable, except that it jogs a lot of memories in my head. Not for Mohammad Azharuddin and Raj Singh Dungarpur, though that has a lot of connotations with it, but for the backdrop. I spent many days at Fateh Maidan Club and the lawns of Lal Bahadur Stadium that doubles up as the floor of the dining hall. The paranthas and tandoori chicken of FMC remain etched in my mind and I have never found any that have even come close to duplicating them.

My mouth is watering as I type these words.

Aside: The last time I attended a match at LB Stadium, I was fortunate enough to watch Azharuddin and Hadlee in a splendid face-off that was thrilling in every sense of the word.

Having evoked those two greats, let me leave you with two videos. The first is of Richard Hadlee's greatest performance with the ball - 15 wickets (9+6) at the Gabba. He had a chance to get all 10 but unselfishly took a splendid catch for the 9th out. (Aside: Considering the recent troubles that Ricky Ponting is having with the hook/pull shot, it is interesting that in Andrew Hilditch, the current chairman of the selectors, he has a kindred spirit, one who understands the fascination with playing a hook shot.)



Finally, Azharuddin during the most purple patch of his career. Breath-taking stuff.

Running Diary: Australian Open 2010 - Federer-Murray

A year ago, I stayed up all night to do a running diary of the Australian Open men's final between Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. Twelve months later, Roger Federer is back in the final, this time against Andy Murray. I was going to just watch it this time...but suddenly feel compelled to maintain another running diary.

So, here goes:

2:23am: This running diary will not be as up-to-date as my previous one. I am less emotionally vested in this one than I was 12 months ago. The reason is that in the past year Roger has won that elusive French Open to complete a career Slam, equaled and then surpassed Pete Sampras' record of Grand Slam singles titles (for men, obviously). The rest of his career, from here on in, is just icing on the cake as far as I am concerned. In my mind he is the GOAT!

2:27am: Obligate (awe-inspiring) numbers that have to be mentioned and gotten out of the way: This is Roger's 22nd Grand Slam final (second place: Ivan Lendl with 19). He has reached at least the semi-final of the last 23 Grand Slam tournaments (second place: Ivan Lendl 10). (Here is a list that was made up before the French Open in 2009, so some of the streaks have been added to or surpassed!)

2:29am: One final thing: starting from Wimbledon 2004, Federer has either won or lost to the eventual winner in every Grand Slam, a running total of 23 Grand Slam tournaments. Phew! A streak that continues today.

2:38am: If you feel that I am short-changing Andy Murray, then you are right. If it really gets you angry, then please feel free to maintain a Murray-centric blog and let me know, I will swing by and take a look at it.

2:40am: Why can't folks say Rafa-EL? Why do they keep saying Raf-E-al? Am I missing something about Nadal's first name? Grrr.

2:31am: My prediction? Federer in 4 sets. Big surprise there.

FIRST SET

2:32am: Federer starts the final by serving first. Murray begins with a fantastic backhand down the line. He needs to do that all day to win. Two booming forehands by Federer paves the way back from 0-30 to 30-30. The game goes to deuce but Federer works his way out of the slightly stressful game to hold serve. 1-0 Federer.

Interesting tidbit. Federer's first Grand Slam win was in his 17th attempt. This is Murray's 17th Grand Slam tournament. Does that portent well for Murray?

2:51am: After being very aggressive in the first game of the match, Murray regresses into a passive mode. Federer pounces and hits a backhand and a forehand winner to capitalize on two Murray mistakes that made it 0-30 to break. 2-0 Federer.

2:54am: Murry fights right back, hitting two brilliant passing shots to get back the break! After the first one, a backhand winner from way beyond the backhand side of the court, Federer acknowledges the winner by clapping on his racquet. Interesting. 2-1 Federer.

2:57am: Players almost exclusively serve to Federer's backhand on the second serve and Murray's strategy is no different. Federer is content to slice them back in for now. Murray is missing his first serve and that is not helping matters. When he finally does get two in, he controls the game from that point on. 2-2.

3:03am: Murray efficiently gets to double break point, capitalizing on Federer's propensity to attack lines, but Federer gets back to deuce with two winners, one off his first serve. Murray defends his way to a third break point and Federer responds with another first serve that puts Murray off-balance and he wins the point easily. Federer builds on that with two aces. Boom, boom and it is 3-2 Federer.

3:15am: Both players go through their service games to hold on, but Federer looks more shaky than Murray. Interestingly, Federer is trying different things and attempting to force the pace while Murray is content to pound away from the baseline to Federer's backhand. A quick analysis by ESPN shows that Murray has targeted Federer's backhand about 60% of the time so far today. 4-3 Federer.

3:22am: Murray slips up and falls behind on his serve, first 0-15, and then 15-30. Two exquisite backhands gets Federer to break point and he capitalizes by smashing an inside-out forehand to the Murray backhand to break. 5-3 Federer. Serving for the first set.

3:26am: Without much trouble Federer holds his serve. A couple of deep angled serves, two errors from Murray and the first set goes to Federer, one of history's best fast starters in Grand Slams (the exact stat escapes me but I believe Federer has an obscenely humungous advantage when he wins the first set in a Grand Slam match).

(Editor's note: Found it! Federer is 171-5 in Grand Slams when he wins the first set. 172-5 after this match.)

In the first set, Murray's first serve was abysmal, except for in one game where it bailed him out. He will not win today if he does not improve his first serve. Murray changes to a white t-shirt. Maybe that will change his luck.

SECOND SET

3:30am: Murray does exactly that, putting in a few more first serves, getting Federer to scramble and wins the first game easily. Encouraging signs. The humidity on the court is close to 80% and that is making it harder to hit outright winners as the ball is not traveling as fast as it normally does on hard courts. On an average there have been about 9 strokes per rally so far. Tennis strokes, that is. 1-0 Murray.

3:34am: Murray is an incredible ball-retriever but he needs to be more aggressive and take more chances. Federer is more fit and will outlast him in a slug-fest. 1-1 Federer.

3:36am: If you want to see Federer at his best, take a look at this game! Federer strings Murray from corner to corner, raises the ante, and smashes 4 winners to break Murray at love. The passing shot to get to 0-40 is among the best I have ever seen him hit. Not only was the placement good, it was emphatic, too. 2-1 Federer.

3:42am: Murray has a slight chance at 30-30 but he is oddly regressing to a passive style of play and Federer capitalizes by pounding away at Murray's confidence and ending the game with another forehand winner. 3-1 Federer.

3:45am: Murray is being taken to the cleaners here by Federer who hits two brilliant winners, the second one a backhand down the line from Murray's stable to get to double-break point. Murray responds with an ace and a backhand down the line of his own, as if to show Federer he can do it, too. Another service winner takes him to game point. Two deep backhands later, Murray holds. An important hold for him. It was at a similar point in the 2009 US Open final that Federer cracked against Del Potro and gave up all the momentum he had. 3-2 Federer.

3:52am: Eerily, at 40-30, Federer dumps a drop shot in the net when he had the whole court in front of him after a short return. He had done a similar thing (tried a stupid drop shot) against Del Potro and lost momentum. Luckily for him, Murray does not make him pay for it and Federer escapes. Phew! That as closer than any causal observer may imagine. 4-2 Federer.

3:56am: Federer settles down after that hold, and a settled Roger is a dangerous force of nature. Murray finds out the hard way, as Federer crafts a brilliant gameplan, moving Murray back and forth across the baseline, probing away and then swinging a winner to the opposite side to get to three break points. Murray responds by attacking Federer's backhand and constructing three good points to get to deuce. Good for him. Now he needs to sustain it and hold on. Aaargh! He plays the next point from 6 feet behind the baseline and Federer toys with him - break point again. Murray's first serve percentage is really going downhill and escapes when Federer barely misses the baseline from his forehand side. The next rally is one of the best of the match so far, which Murray wins when he attacks the net and Federer barely misses a running forehand down the line. Game point Murray. Another long rally later, Murray holds as Federer dumps a backhand into the net. Important game for Murray. Still some life left in the set. 4-3 Federer.

4:05am: Murray can learn something from Roger. Four huge first serves, huge for accuracy and direction more than speed, and an easy love game for Federer. Four emphatic winners. Vintage Federer. 5-3 Federer.

4:08am: Murray and Federer play an odd game, where neither really took the initiative but for one splendid crosscourt forehand from Federer. Unfortunately for him, that was his only winner and Murray holds to make Federer serve for the second set. 5-4 Federer.

4:12am: Roger Federer is on cruise control now. Four winners gives him a two sets to love lead. When Federer wins the first two sets of a match in a Grand Slam, he is 155-0. Federer is a virtual lock to win the tournament. Murray has not shown me much to suggest he can turn this around.

At this point, Murray has to throw caution to the winds and attack Federer - both forehand and backhand, hammer the serve in on both tries, and look to come into the net and shorten the points. No shame in losing the set but if he does not try to take more chances then it will all be for naught.

THIRD SET

The last time Federer lost a 2 set lead was on this very same court in 2003 in a Davis Cup match against Leyton Hewitt. A defeat that prompted Federer to be more aggressive and change his mental thought process. Since then he has waged an assault on the record books of staggering proportions.

[Editor's note: Tifosi Guy points out "Correction there JQ.
David Nalbandian defeated Roger Federer in the Master's final in Shanghai in 2005 after being two sets down.
Nalbandian won 6-7, 6-7 , 6-2, 6 -1, 7-6."

Mea culpa, TG.]

4:17am: Murray gets a few first serves in, and thunders his way to the first game. His body language is not encouraging, however. He is walking around with a mopey look, as if searching for pebbles on a beach. 1-0 Murray.

One thing that Murray has done very well all day has been to anticipate which direction Federer is going to serve. Either Murray is very quick to respond or he is picking up on some cue from Roger. In his autobiography, Agassi points out that he knew which way Boris Becker was going to serve based on which direction Becker stuck his tongue out.

Murray reaches break point and plays the best point of the match for him, stringing Federer back and forth but misses a backhand down the line to get back to deuce. Federer quickly capitalizes with a brilliant backhand overhead winner and a serve and charge to finish the game. 1-1.

Federer has got to be one of the best ever at hitting the overhead backhand volley. Sampras was quite good, though Agassi was even better at it. Federer is right up there with Andre, in my esteem.

4:24am: Murray is showing some signs of life, pounding away at the corners and taking a love game, with the help of a couple of errors from Federer. Errors induced by the pace of Murray's hits. I hope this registers in Andy's brain. 2-1 Murray.

4:28am: Federer holds (2-2) and Murray grapbs his right quad muscles (or maybe his right knee). These are not encouraging signs for him. Federer hits 8 straight flat shots - forehand and backhand- to start the next game and goes up 0-15. Murray responds with a service winner. Roger runs around a backhand and hits a crunching forehand down the line for a sweet winner. 15-30. Murray hits out from his forehand side and wins the next two points to go to game point (40-30). This is a pivotal game. If Murray cannot hold, the match is done. Federer gets a second serve, tries to run around his backhand and hit a forehand winner. Epic fail and Murray holds. 3-2 Murray.

4:36am: Murray gets up very quickly to 0-40 with one superlative winner and two errors. Federer hits three great first serves, which elicit weak returns. He is able to pound winners off the first two but unable to capitalize on the third and Murray breaks! 4-2 Murray.

4:38am: Murray begins the game with a fabulous cross-court forehand that was hit with a venom that has not been on display all game to go to 15-0. The second point features the first really bad mis-hit by the Federer sliced backhand all day. 30-0. A forehand in the net by Roger brings Murray to 40-0. Murray has won 10 of the last 12 points. Murray finishes the game with an ace down the middle. 5-2 Murray. Game on!

4:45am: Federer responds with an easy hold, two aces taking him to the end of the game. 5-3 Murray. Murray is 4 points from the third set. After a good first serve and a forehand miss from Federer he is 3 points away. A Federer forehand blast and an error from Murray later it is 15-30. Throats are tightening up as Federer does not move his feet and misses a forehand slice. 30-30. A second serve from Murray is eaten alive by Federer, a cross-court top-spin forehand later it is breakpoint Federer. A booming serve from Murray brings it back to deuce. Good time to get a 133mph first serve. Federer responds with a great running backhand passing shot that elicits a weak volley from Murray. Breakpoint again. A long-ish rally ends with Murray hitting a routine forehand into the net. Federer is back on serve. Ouch-time for Murray fans. 5-4 Murray.

4:55am: Federer suffers a couple of odd decisions (hitting back to Murray on an approach shot and a drop shot hit into the net from behind the baseline) but battles his way back on the basis of that big first serve of his to hold serve. 5-5.

4:58am: Three brilliant serves from Murray (two aces) and two errors from him on the forehand side bring the game to 40-30. Federer then responds by pounding the second serve, coming into the net, and surviving a great passing shot with a drop volley to get to deuce. Murray then comes into the net very quickly and Federer misses the passing shot to get to game point. Federer's answer to that is to hit a looping forehand crosscourt, wrongfooting Andy to get back to deuce. Murray and Federer are finally playing high quality tennis simultaneously, with Murray winning the point with an overhead winner. He follows that up with an ace, his third of this very game, to get ahead once more. 6-5 Murray.

It took quite a while for the match to produce good tennis from both players at the same time, but now that it has come, it is well worth the wait.

5:05am: Four winners from Federer takes it to the tie-break. Federer's career record in tiebreaks is 266-139, Murray's is 70-41. In Grand Slam Finals, Federer is 18-5. Murray starts with an ace and then wins the longest rally of the match on a forehand error by Roger. A quick 2-0 lead. A service winner by Federer gets him to 2-1, but the advantage is with Murray. Murray hits what seems like three straight winners before he finally wins the point to get to 3-1. Murray follows that up with a horrible backhand that barely falls inside the doubles line to give the mini-break back to Roger. Roger capitalizes with a booming serve to Andy's backhand for an easy service winner. They change sides at 3-3.

Murray is talking to himself, while Federer has not displayed any emotion, those Great White Shark-like dark eyes just boring away into the distance.

Another backhand error from Murray and Federer inches ahead 4-3. Still on serve, though. Nice crosscourt winner from Murray shows a gutsy side to him. 4-4. He follows it up with an ace. Once again Andy is two points away from winning the set. As Federer approaches the net, he asks Andy to hit a passing shot and Murray obliges. 6-4 and two set points for Andy. Federer saves one set point with an acutely angled forehand winner. Still set point, 6-5 Murray. Federer plays excellent defense and forces a forehand error from Murray. 6-6.

Has Murray lost his chance? I will go out on a limb and say yes. It will be either set point or match point the rest of this tiebreak on alternate points!

Federer hits a lousy forehand and gifts a set point to Murray. 7-6 Murray. Federer plays great defense once again and Murray misses a volley to get back to 7-7. Federer responds as he does best - an ace to go to match point! 8-7 Federer. Inches!! A forehand passing shot (by Roger) missed by just inches and it is 8-8. Phew! What a point. Roger mishits a backhand slice into the net and it is set point Andy. 9-8 Murray. Roger rushes to the net, forcing Murray to hit the winner and Murray fluffs his third attempt at a passing shot. 9-9.

Federer comes to the net yet again and hits a delicate backhand drop volley to get to his second match point. 10-9 Federer. Andy to serve to stay in the tournament. Federer is not showing any emotion whatsoever. He bombs away at an Andy second serve, and tries another drop volley that Andy reaches and pulls off a passing shot to tie it at 10-10. Federer rushes a forehand crosscourt shot, with Andy horribly out of position, and another set point for Murray. 11-10 Murray. Another of Federer's service bombs saves that set point. He follows that up with a typical big serve-second hit winner to get back to match point. 12-11 Federer. Is this it? Yes, it is!!!!!! Murray hits a backhand down the line into the net and Federer has won Grand Slam number 16. The first man to win three different Grand Slams at least 4 times.

Federer wins 6-3, 6-4, 7-6.

By the way, in my mind: Never. A. Doubt.

At this point, Federer is starting to get closer to the real Grand Slam leaders of all-time - the Margaret Court mark of 24 is within sight. Albeit quite some ways away but starting to get closer. After all, he is two-thirds of the way there! His competition is the ladies from here on in:

Margaret Court - 24
Steffi Graf - 22
Helen Wills Moody - 19
Martina Navratilova and Chris Evert - 18

Andy: "I can cry like Roger; it's just a shame I can't play like him.."
Roger: "Andy, you're too good of a player not to win a Grand Slam, so don't worry about it.."

Okay, this was as much fun for me as it was last year (the result notwithstanding). But it is time to sit back and reflect on Federer's performance, consistency, and elegance. He is a fabulous mix of durability and winning, something that has eluded some of the folks that have his number such as Murray, Guillermo Canas, David Nalbandian, and, of course, Rafael Nadal. They have the winning thing down but, sadly for tennis fans, are unable to sustain their presence on the court. I hope they come back strong, especially Rafael.

I leave you with this image of Federer telling you where he lies in my esteem:

(Associated Press 2010)

Speaking engagement

My admiration for Roger Federer knows no bounds. With less than 15 minutes to go before his latest attempt at a Grand Slam championship (in the Australian Open against Andy Murray) I have just enough time to put up the post-match interview conducted on-court by Jim Courier, moments after Roger dismantled J-Wilfried Tsonga in the semi-final.

Not only does the fellow produce outstanding tennis, he is the antithesis of a typical sportsperson interview - he is candid, charming, funny, revealing, and, above all, respectfully entertaining.

Bleep, bleep

For decades, folks have been watching Wile E. Coyote unsuccessfully chase Road Runner. Here's a video that turns that notion on its head and asks...well, why don't you watch it for yourself and see what Wile wants to know!?

Good timing

I am a sucker for time-lapse photography. I like it even better than slow motion (super slo-mo has its moments, though, I must admit). So when I came across this incredible video of a series of time-lapse videos of Vancouver, I was mesmerized enough to see it numerous times.

Here, you can share my sense of awe too:

Who dat?

Take a close look at this photograph. Can you guess who player #22 is? The name of her school is a big clue, by the way.

Quick release

It did not take long for Kurt Warner to decide that he is done playing professional football. With that, another of the fellows I rooted for and followed assiduously has left the stage. Gah!

(Sports Illustrated)

From the time he became the QB of the St. Louis Rams in 1999 till his final playoff game against the Packers, Warner found a way to throw touchdowns and win games. He played in 3 Super Bowls, winning one. The top three passing marks in Super Bowl belong to him. It is a measure of his greatness that the last plays made by him in all three Super Bowls were touchdown passes to give his team the lead (twice) or tie the game. In 2001 and 2008 his defenses could not stop the other teams from scoring or the fellow would have had multiple championships to add to the one he won in 1999.

I trolled the web looking for tributes to the QB and this one by Seth Wickersham, I felt, best captured the essence of the man.

Here are some of the highlights of his great career.

Losing your head

One hour into the 4th day, with the score reading 290 for 3, 21 runs behind India, Mohammad Ashraful looking unruffled - serious advantage Bangladesh.

And then it happened: a wicket fell, another followed. A setback, but nothing too serious just yet. Shakib Al Hasan, Mushfiqur Rahim, and Mahmudullah were still alive and well.

Then Shakib jumped out and smashed the first ball he faced for a six over long-off. Madness! Put it down to a rush of blood? Nope! A few balls later he swept hard and straight to square-leg and the floodgates were well and truly opened. Zaheer Khan reversed his way to three wickets in 4 balls and just like that 6 wickets were lost for 14 runs.

Mohammad Ashraful (rightly) gets a lot of grief for his impetuosity but this display by Shakib was as egregious as any of Ashraful's misdeeds. Seriously, dude, what were you thinking? You had a chance to put India under some serious pressure and you gifted them a win.

(I know, I know, there's still one wicket to go but when I was brave enough to predict an Indian win after the first day of the Test, do you really think I'm going to balk at predicting one now?).

P.S. Even as I posted it, Zaheer Khan ripped through the defence of the last batsman and India now needs 2 runs to win. ZAK gets 10 wickets in the Test.

Musical medley remixed

Remember this? Mile sur mera tumhara was a phenomenon when it was first aired in the 80's.



A new version of this has been released - longer, more elaborate, and with a lot more star power than the original. I prefer the original which seemed to flow more easily and was less strained. (Also, one can't help but wonder about Salman Khan, who sends such mixed signals). Where the first one ends with Amitabh Bachchan, the new new starts with him. It is in two parts. Here's Part 1:



Here's Part 2:

Leveling the playing field

Before the series began, Virender Sehwag stated that the Bangladeshi team did not have the firepower to take out 20 Indian wickets in a Test match. The Woofing Gods sat up and took note when he said this. They agreed it was true so something had to be done.

By the time the first Test finished, the bulwark of the middle order, VVS Laxman was out of the team. The Indians foxed the Gods by bringing in MS Dhoni and Murali Vijay. But the Gods did not get to float on clouds in the sky by simply sitting back when attacked. They responded by getting Rahul Dravid to duck into a bouncer that did not rise, caused Yuvraj Singh to rupture a tendon and got Sachin Tendulkar to take a tumble in the field while attempting a catch. Take that, mere mortals!

Suddenly, the Bangladeshis need to take just 8 wickets to win a Test if they get a lead. Of the 8 wickets, the trio of Pragryan Ojha, Zaheer Khan, and Ishant Sharma do not inspire confidence that they can last long. So that means they need to prise out 5 wickets. Ooooh, this gets easier now.

Bangladesh is 83 runs behind with 7 wickets in hand. They made a massive blunder yesterday by sending in a nightwatchman. Mahmudullah bats too low as it is, now he will be batting with one fewer tailender as a buffer. It is bound to play on his mind. There's only so many times a team can drink from that well.

All in all, a very intriguing two days lie ahead of us. My suspicion is that Bangladesh will take a lead, but not one that is too substantial. India has Gambhir, Sehwag, Vijay (promoted to #3), Tendulkar, and Dhoni to get those runs. It is time for Sehwag to put his bat where his mouth is and ensure that the task does not even reach Dhoni.

Maybe overcoming this adversity will appease the Gods...for now.

P.S. Quick math should tell you how hard it will be for Bangladesh to set India a target of more than 200. Trailing by 83, they need to score 300 runs to set a target of 213. Tamim Iqbal and Junaid Siddiqui put on 200 runs yesterday and it was the first ever 200-run partnership in Bangladesh's rich Test history. In a given day they will have to bat about 85 overs (a combination of bad light and MS Dhoni's typically languid pace of going through overs) and that would get them close to that 300 mark.

My gut feeling? Based on what I have seen so far, India will wrap up the win late on the 4th day or early on the 5th.

6 of one or glass half-full?

If you are a fan of the Minnesota Vikings, do you praise Brett Favre for playing well enough to get you within a few seconds of the Super Bowl or do you want to burn him in effigy for that (all-too familiar) bone-headed interception that effectively finished the season for you today?

That across-the-body, into the middle of the field, off-balance throw he made was one you'd expect a 19-year old QB to make, not a QB with 19 years of NFL experience. Sheesh! What a way for him to end his career. Or was it the end? As far as I am concerned, I am going to studiously avoid any news article between today and next Fall that mentions the word Brett Favre. The likes the Peter King are more than welcome to genuflect and pander to the ego of this fellow. I'm just glad I did not have any of my hopes tied to him.

Slash and burn

Bangladesh won the toss, chose to bat, Billy Bowden started the wicket-taking and Mohammad Ashraful provided a succinct exclamation point to the morning session. If you ever wanted to know who Ashraful is, this innings of his would be the perfect example. A large dose of dash, a healthy sprinkling of pizazz, and moments of luck are all capped by a final virtuoso act of maddening stupidity. Career-defining (and career-ending?) moments don't come with more clarity than this. What a dolt!

The opposite end of the temperamental spectrum is inhabited by Mohammad Mahmudullah Riyad. Mahmudullah's innings was characterized by his composed manner and calm demeanor and never did it seem like he was overextending the boundaries of his skill set. Coming in at 106 for 6, he then made 96 of the remaining 127 runs scored while playing with 9,10, and Jack.

Mahmudullah knows how to farm the strike. Here's one of those times when statistics do tell the entire tale: From over number 38 to 73, Mahmudullah was batting with 9,10, and 11. In those overs he consciously tried to take a single only from the 4th ball onwards in order to protect the tailenders (in the first three balls of the over he either tried to hit boundaries or refused easy singles). In 22 of those overs he was able to accomplish it, against just 6 times when the Indians were able to prevent him from doing so. (The remaining overs came when the other batsman faced the first ball of the new over). Think about that. In the company of the tailenders he batted as many overs as the top 6 batsmen had done combined.

Bangladesh has the makings of a competitive Test team. Taking potential into account, they have a good opener in Tamim Iqbal, a great all-rounder in Shakib Al Hasan, a fine wicketkeeper in Mushfiqur Rahim and a good middle-order batsman in Mahmudullah. What they need is some mettle and the mentality to want to win games rather than being happy with drawing them.

By wasting the first use of the wicket and the advantage of the toss they have handed all the initiative back to India. If India bats two entire days (that's 160-180 overs, depending upon the light, and anywhere in the region of 550-650 runs), Bangladesh will have to survive for 2 whole days just to save the Test. I don't see it happening.

The Test series will be remembered for long by Bangladeshis for its what-if moments. What if certain things had panned out differently? For me, the biggest what-if is this: What if Mohammad Ashraful had not gotten carried away by the ease with which he was getting boundaries?

Maggie Noodle Review - Sherlock Holmes

Honestly speaking, when I saw the preview of the Sherlock Holmes I had no intention of watching it. I have read every Sherlock Holmes story there is (including the clunky ones like the The Valley of Fear) and can quote from them extensively. I resisted for a while and then succumbed as it was either that or It's Complicated. Guy Ritchie is the director of this movie, and he has a cult following for some off-beat movies. I expected something along those lines. Friends, I was in for a surprise. What the writers have done is to take some of the less-detailed aspects of Holmes's life - that he is a fairly accomplished fighter with some advanced knowledge of martial arts, an occasional dabbler in narcotics when ennui sets in, and his fascination for Irene Adler - to weave an engrossing movie out of it.

This is not the clean-shaven, sharp featured, quirky detective that Jeremy Brett made popular. Instead Robert Downey, Jr. takes the Sherlock we know and sinks his teeth into some of the neurosis that the man surely possessed. Another entertaining deviation from the Conan Doyle era Holmes is that Dr. James Watson (Jude Law) is shown to be a gallant, brave, and surprisingly perceptive man. Watson is not shown as the fall guy for Holmes to show-off his deductive skills. Instead all through the movie, Watson is shown to be his equal in figuring out clues. Naturally, like the truly good sidekick he is, Watson lets Sherlock resolve the big mystery at the heart of the story, but features in the adventure all the way to the end.

This is not to say the movie does not have its defects. Downey, Jr.'s British accent comes and goes, the movie is shot in murky colors making a lot of the action hard to follow, and the characters have the terribly annoying habit of speaking their important (and plot revealing) lines when the camera is not on them. I have noticed this same problem with the Harry Potter movies, too, where the character may be saying something important to the plot but the camera lingers on some other actor or a side-incident and it is hard to keep track of both. Ugh!

Usually it takes me about 5-10 minutes for my ears to adjust to the British accents but I could not do so till the end. I missed out on many utterances and was only able to intuitively glean what the character was saying based on what happened next or how the characters responded.

So, do I recommend the movie or not? I will slip into Hyderabadi movie review mode and say that this is a time pass movie and not a story movie, so don't go in with the wrong expectations. Do not try to solve the case many of the "clues" are not revealed to us but if you sit back and enjoy the ride, you will be carried along to a pleasant enough experience. Or you can just wait for the sequel.

P.S. Mary Morstan first came to Sherlock's attention as his client in The Sign of Four but the movie shows them to be strangers until Watson introduces Mary as his fiancee. Surely, the writers could have found some other character to parade as Watson's fiancee? Or am I being too much of a stickler here?

I think I shall go and re-read my favorite Holmes story - Silver Blaze now.

Maggie Noodle Review - The Book of Eli

A man walks across a treeless, mostly monochromatic and ravaged landscape. Mostly in slow motion, but walk across it he does. The Book of Eli continues the recent trend of Hollywood movies that show the US in the future as a post-apocalyptic disaster zone where plants do not exist, barren deserts are the norm, and everyone wears as many leather-bound clothes as they can lay their grubby hands on. Personal hygiene is a way of distinguishing the good guys from the bad (except for the main bad guy who always manages to be above the mess he deals with). In this barren zone there are pockets of humanity spread far enough apart so as to provide set pieces of action sequences to keep the story going. You'd think that a band of people struggling to survive would try to pool together as many resources as they could. But that is a story not meant for this movie.

Denzel Washington portrays a man on a mission. A mission to head towards the West where he has to deliver a book. He has been walking for 30 years and has not reached the west coast yet. (You'd think 30 years would be enough to head across the continent but let's disregard that for now). On the way he comes across bandits hell-bent on ignoring his wishes to be left alone. Bad things happen to them when they try to force Eli to give up his possessions. Bad things, yes, but in a stylish ninja-fighting-cool kind of way.

All Eli wants to do is read the book and head west. Along the way he bumps into Carnegie, a book-burning lover of books, a contradiction that Gary Oldman makes believable by chewing and slithering his acting chops into the role. He wants Eli to work for him, Eli naturally refuses. Carnegie dangles some bait in the form of Solara (Mila Kunis). Eli demurs. Carnegie goes to Plan B (which was Plan A all along) - snatch the book from Eli by force.

After this the movie settles into a paint-by-the-numbers series of action sequences, setting up the payoff at the end. Then the directors (the Hughes brothers) stun you with a gobsmacking surprise. I refuse to tell you what the surprise is and if you have any intention of seeing the movie please don't talk to anyone who may tell you what it is. Going into the movie, I knew that there was a surprise twist at the end. I watched carefully for it and it still hit me with full force. When the movie is done, you continue to think about it, dissecting all that went on in light of the revelation. A fun way to leave the theater, I promise.

Apart from that surprise, two things stood out for me. Denzel Washington can make any character seem serious and respected by just being himself and a new star is looming on the Hollywood horizon - Mila Kunis. Mila is mostly known for playing the airhead girlfriend of Ashton Kutcher on the TV sitcom That 70's Show but in this movie she holds her own against Washington and comes out strong. She is impressive and I shall be following her career closely to see if she justifies my praise.

In the end, The Book of Eli delivers what it promises in the preview and contains enough intrigue to make it worth you while to spend a couple of hours peering at the screen. Also, I'm not giving anything away when I say that the the twist at the end gives you a perfectly good reason for why it has taken Eli 30 years to walk across the continent. Or has it?

Here's the really cool preview of the movie: