How tennis has changed over the years

Just have a look at these two videos.

1. Bjorne Borg vs. John McEnroe, 1980 Wimbledon final

2. Federer vs. Nadal, 2008 Wimbledon Final

See the difference? Forget the big fibre-based racquets of Nadal and Federer, forget their improved athletics. Notice the grass on the Centre Court in both the videos. In the first video, you will see that the grass is considerably worn out even near the net, indicating the dominance of serve-and-volley type of play. Watch how frequently McEnroe and Borg rush towards the net in order to play their volleys and remove the sting out of the opponent's returns.

In the second video, you will still notice green grass near the nets. But at the base line, the grass is completely worn out. This is the change I am talking about. From the serve-and-volley type of game to booming from the baseline itself. Notice how rarely do Federer and Nadal come close to the net. Both try to hit towards the base line and from there itself.

Tennis has changed over time and as usual, Wimbledon is there to remind us about it and help in etching these changes in our memories.

Awful terminologies used in IPL

IPL-4 is back with a bang. With the new rounds of "auctions" over, there is a need to ponder over the terms used to describe the transactions between the franchisees and players. In a previous post too, I have expressed concern over wrong or harsh terms being used to describe such transactions. In today's politically correct world, if I were to call an African-American a Negro I am bound to face the boos of the people. Coming closer to home, if I were to abuse a Dalit, I can be prosecuted. You cannot call people "disabled" but have to call them "differently abled". There would be a huge hue and cry in newspapers if the older terms are used.

And that is why I am surprised, about the continuing usage of inappropriate terms in the IPL. First of all, the formation of teams, is termed an "auction" and team owners have to "bid" for each player. The dictionary meaning of auction is "a public sale in which properties or items of merchandise are sold to the highest bidder". Now, are our revered players property or items of merchandise? In the olden days, when European colonialism was spreading its wings, they used to buy and sell slaves, especially native Africans in an auction, which used to be held in a public square. The winner of the auction used to then own these slaves who then had to behave as per their master's wishes. Do we want to project our players in this manner? That they are owned by the likes of Shilpa Shetty, Preity Zinta, Shah Rukh Khan, Juhi Chawla, etc.!!

Now, look at the news that describes the outcomes of the "auction". Times of India reports:

Shah Rukh Khan was not present in person but his Kolkata Knight Riders, which had been reduced to an also-ran in the last two seasons, proved to be the big spender of the day by also buying hard-hitting all-rounders Yusuf Pathan (Rs 9.66 crore) and Jacques Kallis (Rs 5.06 crore) for the fourth edition of event to be held from April 8 to May 20.

Note those words in bold. Players were "bought" like pieces of artwork or antiques, to be displayed on the field and used to earn more money!! And, there were a few players "unsold" because none were interested in "buying" them.

But there were some surprise names in the unsold list with former India and KKR captain Sourav Ganguly, West Indies batting star Chris Gayle and the legendary Brian Lara failing to find a buyer.

rediff.com reports

Gautam Gambhir was sold for the highest price with Kolkata Knight Riders signing him for a massive $2.4 million.

And many more reports from the media might have reported the IPL "auctions" in a very similar manner. We continue to devour the IPL news without giving a second's thought to the terminology used. We, who worship Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, V. V. S. Lakshman and many other cricketers, do not feel uncomfortable about them being "bought" or remaining "unsold". 

Softer terms can be used to describe the above transactions. Even the football leagues in Europe use such terminologies. E.g., a player is not bought but is signed on by a team. Similarly, a team doesn't sell a player, but he is transferred. And a player needn't be unsold but he can remain unsigned by any of the franchisees. This helps maintain the dignity of the profession and also stresses the fact that the players are anyone's slaves but have made available their talent to a particular franchisee at their own will. The auction itself needs to be redefined. Currently, I cannot find an appropriate word to replace it, but readers would be of great help, if they can help me find one.

These are finer nuances of the language, which if implemented convey a completely different meaning of the entire process. Remember Michaelangelo said, "Trifles make perfection, but perfection is no trifle". That is how it is any language. But is there anybody listening? Are we concerned only about the sixers that will be rained in the IPL or also about whether the dignity of the cricket profession and the game is maintained?

Tendulkar vs. Bradman: Unfair to compare

With the Master Blaster having completed a half century of test centuries, the media has predictably begun doling opinions (less of experts, more of amateurs) comparing Don Bradman and Sachin Tendulkar. Let us try and see how both of them compare:

1. Pitch Conditions:
   Bradman: During Bradman's times, playing pitches used to be left open overnight and were hence prone to be affected by the overnight weather conditions.
   Tendulkar: Pitches are well covered with water-proof material and are, hence, less affected due to changes in the weather conditions overnight.
2. Bowling Conditions:
   Bradman: In Bradman's era, bowlers could, legally, bowl six bouncers to the batsman. Moreover, with uncovered pitches, the conditions could tilt in favour of the bowler on every morning of the test. There were no restrictions on field placements. Fielders could be placed anywhere the bowler wanted.
   Tendulkar: In test matches, two bouncers per over are allowed. In one-day internationals, one bouncer per over. So, no more rattling the batsmen by hurtling down an over full of bouncers. No more than five fielders can be placed on the leg side of the batsmen, thereby limiting the nature of attack.
3. Sports Gear:
   Bradman: No protection over the chest and no helmets. Imagine facing Larwood when your head is exposed and your heart, ribs and lungs have no protection against the thud of the ball which could hit you at around 140 km/h. And then, you would realise Bradman's situation.
   Tendulkar: All sort of safety equipment are now available. Helmets, elbow guard, chest guard, etc. Not that cricket has become easy, but batsmen can think of risking being hit, without having to worry too much about how grievous the injury will be.
4. Fielding:
   Bradman: Watch those grainy videos of the test matches involving Bradman, and you will realise that the fielders in that era didn't dive around or run their heart out, to save a few runs or to get the crucial wickets. Hence, runs were a little easy to come by.
   Tendulkar: In the modern era, cricket has become heavily competitive. It not only matters how many runs you score, but it also matters how many can you save. You can see fielders diving around to save singles, latch on to catches that would have the opposition down by one more wicket. Hence, Tendulkar has had more hard work, while compiling those runs.
5. Oppositions and conditions:
   Bradman: Bradman has played most of his cricket against England and in two countries: England and Australia. He hasn't played on the turning tracks of the subcontinent or on the ferocious pitches of South Africa.
   Tendulkar: He has played test cricket all over the world, against nine countries. This means his runs have come against different types of opposition and many more different conditions than Bradman. From the placid pitches of India, to the bouncy pitches of SA and Australia, to the seaming pitches of England, he has conquered them all. From Abdul Kadir to Warne, Ambrose to McGrath, he has tamed almost all of them.
6. Statistics: In cricket, statistics are always biased. They comment on the results, but ignore the efforts that went into them. A century on Motera, Ahemdabad is far less difficult than a one on WACA, Perth. But statistics places equal value on both. Hence, these should be seen only as a formality.
   Bradman: Tests: 52, Runs: 6996, 100s: 29 (includes 12 double hundreds and 2 triple), Average: 99.96.
   This means, almost every time he went out to bat, he scored a hundred runs.
   Tendulkar: Tests: 175, Runs: 14513, 100s: 50 (includes 6 double hundreds, but no triple), Average: 56.91.
   Sachin's stats are as of 26th December 2010, before the start of the 2nd test match between SA and India, at Durban.

Now, these were individual parameters on which the two greats were compared. But, in no match, does it happen that only one of the parameter dominates and the rest don't. Hence, if we were to analyse a combined effect of all these factors (multivariate statistical analysis) coming into play together, it would be much more difficult to come up with a conclusion. So, it is better we stop demeaning either of the two by saying one is a greater batsman than the other. Bradman, is as great as Tendulkar is. Both batsmen have taken cricket to new frontiers in their respective era. Both have set new benchmarks to achieve for their successors. Hence, I would say, it is unfair to try and compare the two greats. Fair, would be to savour all those exciting cricket that Tendulkar continues to generate.

Yes, we can

The Ayodhya verdict, for once, showed that we are a mature democracy. The promise given by leaders that no party would celebrate or indulge in riots irrespective of the nature of the decision was kept by the leaders. Many may claim that they said this because the option of going to the Supreme Court was available to both sides. And because there could be political implications of wild celebrations or riots. But, whatever be the reason, the promise given was kept. India, as a nation, desires to move on towards development and prosperity. Sensible youth are hungry for more opportunities in the new Indian economy. They have the desire and energy to build a career for themselves. All stakeholders in the story of India's economic success should strive to channelise this desire and energy in a way that would benefit the country, both, socially as well as economically. While this does not mean that we discard our faith, it means that people desire to practice their faith in a manner that is minimally intrusive to others.

For once, India showed that we can digest a particular verdict in a manner such that there is peace in the society as a whole. Murmurs in some corners are bound to occur, but the leadership should stand up and try to see that these murmurs do not come to mainstream. Ofcourse, the media has a role to play, but then today's media does not desire to take any such responsibility.

And, there is another event where we need to show, we can. The Delhi Common Wealth Games (CWG) 2010. Yes, agreed there is a huge scandal involving the games, taxpayers' money has definitely been swindled, brazen corruption has taken place, payments made for works that haven't met specifications, funds for other causes have been diverted to the Games. Poor people have been uprooted from their shanties and dumped on the fringes of Delhi. Lots of injustices and bad practices. We have been snubbed and taunted about the way the preparations have gone. But, all said and done, we should be solidly backing our athletes who are depending on the support of the home crowd to give them the extra edge in performance. We should show them, that we back them, despite this callous government and the tardy preparations for the Games. We should show them, yes we can be enthusiastic about sports apart from cricket. Ditch the Australia-India test series. Go out, watch the CWG, only for our athletes. Support them, they are playing for the nation. Remember, BCCI admitted in the court that it does not send an Indian team, but a team representing BCCI. If the time for India has really come, we should support those who truly compete for India, not only for namesake.

Let's us show the athletes, yes, we can thumb our nose to cricket. Yes, we can support sports despite every controversy that surrounds it. And yes, we can help them inspire others, which will create a fresh set of talent in the country.

Amritraj is tennis's Arun Lal

Vijay Amritraj and Arun Lal have two things in common. Both are commentators, and both decide the person/team they are going to support during the course of the match. Why does Star Sports have Amritraj as a commentator? He isn't as famous as John McEnroe. He hasn't won a Grand Slam at any level. Ramesh Krishnan is better than him. He atleast has won the French and Wimbledon juniors' titles. In India, people would know more about McEnroe's achievements rather than Amritraj's. And why doesn't Amritraj stick to giving balanced views of the play, rather than gettting hyper about every stroke that his favourite player plays.

I was watching the epic Wimbledon final. The match was awesome and is fit to go into the annals as one of the best matches ever played on grass court. No player was relaxing for any moment, giving their hundred percent for every point. But, our Amritraj had planned to support Andy Roddick. Every bit of his commentary was brazenly pro-Roddick. About Federer, he was completely unenthusiastic. If Roddick barely managed to take a point, Amritraj was touting it to be a master stroke, whereas difficult shots and beautiful returns by Federer were mentioned as if they were ordinary shots. Even Alan Wilkins, who was Amritraj's partner, was giving a balanced view, though Wilkins too was inclined towards Roddick.

In the fifth set, Amritraj even went on to say- "If Federer hasn't broken Roddick even once in the past three hours, where is this match going?" If it wasn't enough to say it once, Amritraj repeated his statement once the set went past 6-6. Well, eventually Federer did break Roddick's serve. He broke it once and that's what mattered to be crowned as Wimbledon Champion.

In cricket too, Arun Lal does the same thing. Sometimes, he himself doesn't understand what he is talking about. After the T20 World Cup, Arun Lal demanded that Dhoni should resign from the captaincy. Two weeks back, the same Arun Lal was praising Dhoni's 'coolness' in the IPL games.

Why are we supposed to hear to such mediocre commentary? As cricket has its Sunil Gavaskar, tennis too might have someone. I'm not sure who, but probably McEnroe would be a better commentator than Amritraj. We viewers should write to Star Sports and force them to remove Amritraj. After all, customer is the king!

Test Match or T20?

This debate seems to be happening everywhere. Newspapers, websites, cricket forums, columns, news channels, debating shows, on the tea-stalls near offices, canteens, messes, buses, trains, airplanes, and even on the cricket field. The latest format of cricket seems to have taken the world by storm. Reducing the five-day game to mere 3 hours of action packed hitting around the park. Of course, bowlers too have their say, and fielders have to be athletes of the highest quality to prevent runs from being scored.

Talks have been doing the round that Test cricket is on its way to death, T20 is the 'in'-thing. To justify their arguments, people talk of the huge response to IPL and the T20 world cup. What also provided fillip to T20 in India was the Indian team's victory in the inaugural edition of the T20 WC. And then IPL took T20 a step further and tried (with some success) to become like the footballs leagues in England. Building loyalties around cities and franchises, rather than states. Critics point out to the decreasing popularity of Test cricket by pointing out to the empty stands in the Nagpur test between India and England in 2008. They point that Test cricket is unsuited for the fast lifestyle of today and T20 cricket allows us to enjoy the game in under 3 hours and then get on with our work. Yes, we have changed. Our lifestyles have changed. Quick value for money is the mantra for today.

But then, really, does T20 provide all the excitement that we desire in a sport? As Sachin Tendulkar said, in T20 a batsman is 'good' if he can hit the ball around the park for three or four overs. So, a Yuvraj Singh is a must in T20. When he hit Stuart Broad for six sixes in the WC match in South Africa, it was considered a great display of batting. A bowler with bowling figures of 4-0-20-0 (O-M-R-W), is considered 'good'. The bowler's main activity is to stop flow of runs. The bowler doesn't need to trap a batsman into committing mistakes to get him out. So, we see spinners of the highest quality relying more on line and length, rather than flight and turn. Imagine Harbhajan Singh bowling yorkers, straighter and flat through the air deliveries. Where is his craft as a spinner put to display? In very very few situations, I would say.

The other end of the spectrum is Test cricket. Spread over five days, it requires a team to bowl its opposition out twice over. Or, if batting second, score more runs that the other team's combined first and second innings total. Only then can it be declared a winner. It tests the grit and determination of batsmen and bowlers alike, their skill to endure onslaughts. Batsmen have to face swinging deliveries, bouncers, four slips, and a point. A slight nudge outside the off stump and the batsman may loose his wicket. Sachin faced this problem in the 1999 and 2004 tour of Australia. But in the third test match, he was determined to get back the flow of runs. So determined that he didn't touch any ball bowled outside his off-stump. Such was his judgment that he knew exactly where his off-stump was, and left everything that was outside it. Almost all of Sachin's runs came off the leg side. People may call this defeatist mentality, but Sachin managed to frustrate the Australian bowlers and simultaneously get back the flow of runs. In the 2007 tour, he was seen teasing Brett Lee by hitting him over the slip cordon and scoring runs easily.

The grit and determination of V.V.S. Laxman, in the third test during India's tour to Australia in 1999 is also an innings to remember. Though Laxman's century was played in a lost cause, the sheer determination and cricketing shots displayed in the 167 runs that he scored is amazing. Australia didn't have it easily. Not to forget, the second test match of the India-Australia series in 2001. Where he and Rahul Dravid stitched together a record-breaking partnership and India went to score a victory over Australia after being asked to follow on, the third instance that such a thing happened in Test cricket's history.

I am not a very good cricket historian. So spotting anecdotes from cricket history is difficult for me. But, Maharashtra's famous cricket historian and writer Shireesh Kanekar has a thing or two for Test cricket. He says that while in one-day cricket (or T20 for that matter) how the runs are scored do not matter. But in Test cricket, it is very important for the batsman not to play rash shots. In Test cricket, bowlers always have a chance of coming back, not so in ODIs or T20s. It is actually appalling to see bowlers bowling flat trajectory balls or yorkers in T20s. In a test match, the bowler would have to bowl a mix of flighted deliveries, straight, flat and yorkers. Add to the fact that there would be a slip, a short-leg, silly mid-off and possibly a leg-slip, all waiting to pounce upon the nick that the bat might produce. A few runs given wouldn't matter if they could bring a wicket. In swinging conditions, bowlers would bowl with three slips and a point maintaining a line just around the off-stump. If the batsman manages to hit a few strokes through the off-side, it didn't matter, because the bowler could always try what he wanted.

On the other hand, for a batsman, it is essential to play strokes as correctly as possible. Test cricket can have a lot of scenarios in which batsmen would be required to change their batting style. There could be periods when attacking is possible, periods when wickets need to be conserved and periods where the run rate needs to be maintained. All these situations require a different skill set from the batsman. Not all batsman can be good Test players. Scoring runs in any possible manner isn't the name of the game in Test matches. Scoring them according to the situation is much more important. Sometimes conserving the wickets itself helps save a Test match. Remember England 2007? India couldn't win the third Test because they couldn't bowl England out in the second innings. Although India had the upper hand all through out the match.

Overall, I feel that a Test match is like our life. It goes through periods of highs and lows and we have to fight it out and overcome our adversaries to score a victory. There is no victory if the opposition is not vanquished. Remember Chennai 1999? Sachin Tendulkar, nursing an injured back played a brilliant knock of 136 to bring India close to the target. While India lost the test match by 12 runs, Sachin's knock was a display about how Test cricket should be played. About T20, my feeling is that it is like drugs, which give a temporary high, but then leave us with a vacuum.

So, let T20 remain for those who like to enjoy the temporary highs, but let Test cricket flourish for fans like us, who want a wholesome game.

P.S. Did anyone mention the empty stands during IPL-2? Well, it seems that T20 cricket can't attract enough crowds either

The Great Indian Cricket Tamasha

With India winning the T20 World Cup in South Africa, came to an end two weeks of good cricket. It was good because teams were able to beat the Aussies, who were unbeatable in the ODIs, we beat Pakistan twice, and are the current World Champions. The same Indian team which was isolated for all the criticism in the world five months ago, is now the darling of every Indian. If you adored the team six months ago, you were a good-for-nothing fellow. However, today if you do not adore the Indian team, you are not patriotic. The same fans who demolished Dhoni's under-construction house, burnt effigies of players and bayed for their blood are now running around to get a glimpse of them. The players now find a place in every nook and corner of the house and nobody gets tired drooling over them.

The media had endless hours of news time dedicated to how World Cup 2007 (50-over version) has spelled dooms-day for Indian cricket. The same media is now drooling over the Indian team, again devoting endless hours of news time to every minute detail about the players' off-field life during and after the T20 Cup. Details to the extent of where did a particular players kith and kin position themselves during the final game were presented elaborately with the anchors and news-reporters dramatizing the entire piece of news. And at the end of all this, we came to know a lot lot lot more about players like Joginder Sharma, RP Singh, etc. But what did we come to know? We were enlightened about what Joginder likes to eat, where did he play in his bachpan, etc. The unimaginative media-- both print and electronic-- hijacked Chak de India, the slogan meant for the hockey team and used it as if it was their own creation.

The sponsors, who were rethinking about their committement to cricket, are now back with their full financial might. Ready to pay unimaginable amounts to be associated with the Indian cricket team for a few seconds every day. Ask these sponsors to spend some money on research for the betterment of their company, and they will come back saying that they have not much funds to carry out research.

Finally, the BCCI. This governing body of cricket should be working for the welfare of the game and players. However, time and again it seems to be working for its own welfare. After the first round exit from the World Cup, it sought to discipline the players in an innovative way-- restrict their endorsements. They thought of scratching off the centralised contract system and pay the players on a per match basis, with bonus thrown in for every win. Now, after the team has won the T20 World Cup, it has announced centralised contracts for the team members with enhanced retainorship fees. A u-turn on its own position in less than six months.

The attitude of everybody-- fans, media and BCCI-- in this incident lacks professionalism. The fans do not professionally respect the players and the fact that they (the players) too can have a bad day in the office (exit from WC-2007). The fans get emotionally outraged-- if the team doesn't perform as per their expectations-- and get into a rioting mood. However, once the team wins a series or a major tournament, the same fans transform the devils into Gods.

The media too plays into the hands of fans' emotions. Instead of professionally reporting any cricketing event, they report it as if the tournament is an equivalent of World War 3. For e.g. WC-2007 used to be reported as War in the Windies. They report a single defeat as if Yudhishthir lost his kingdom to Duryodhan and every victory as if Arjun has killed Karna. Then there are those endless chat/debate shows, where even a player who has played just a single test match or ODI starts ranting on what the players feel, what should the BCCI be doing its job, how should Tendulkar play the hook shot, etc.

And finally the BCCI. Well, the less said about its professionalism, the better. I need not say anything as the over-enthusiastic media has already spent lot of air time and newsprint on this issue. But, after the T20 World Cup, nobody is bothered about the BCCI's method of functioning.

In the end, we all should understand that after all cricket is a game. Yes, I love it when India wins a match. I do not like to see India losing. But let us accept, this is a game, sometimes India will lose, sometimes it will win. However, we fans and media should not get to the extremes of adulation or rioting to prove our point. Congratulate the team on winning, support them when they lose. After all, the team is also made of humans. They have put in a lot of efforts to reach at that stage and are continuously putting in more efforts to remain there and progress to better stages.