Archive for the ‘Opinion’ Category

An ODI That Questioned Technology

Posted: July 22, 2012 by Prasad Moyarath in Cricket, Opinion
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
0

Prasad Moyarath

If the crowd presence on the ground and the pre and post match analysis by the media are any indication of popularity, the first ODI between India and SriLanka has been indubitably cold shouldered by the cricket fans of both nations. Don’t forget, the revelation of Rahul Sharma’s drug usage during IPL had already triggered a controversy prior to the start of the series. A rustic start sans rain on a huge ground in SriLanka was not an unusual one for an Indian cricket connoisseur, but an Indian victory surprised many.

Another game that raised a debate about technology ©AFP

A huge ground with a shortened boundary and windy conditions excited many, but the dull rattling sound of the white cherry hitting the willow and the two paced wicket doused their excitement in no time. Sehwag struggling to get going and Dilshan dropping a straight forward chance offered by Sehwag, though unbelievable was accepted as symptoms of start of a fresh season.

Kohli and Sehwag made use of the fielding lapses of SriLankans and laid the foundation for a huge score. Kohli with his consistent performances in the recent past looks all set to be a new generation Ricky Ponting. Raina and Dhoni did well to maintain the momentum after the fall of Sehwag and Kohli. The SriLankan bowling attack looked toothless and Herath could not extract any turn. Kulasekara’s injury added to their woes.

The Sri Lankans had a start similar to the Indians. Irfan Pathan moved the ball in and out and looked like regaining his lost bowling form. Though his speed was in the late 120s, he seemed to bowl with his original bowling action unlike the high arm action with which he bowled, the last time he made a comeback. Umesh Yadav bowled a lot slower and raised a doubt whether he is becoming yet another Indian fast bowler who becomes a medium pacer after establishing in the squad. Ashwin extracted turn from the pitch which was missing when the SriLankans bowled. Yet another masterpiece from Sangakkara which proved that he is in top form. Perera proved his worth as an all-rounder. 16 wides from Indian bowlers led to their slow over rate, once again putting Dhoni in trouble.

While the cricketing nations debate over the introduction of new technologies into the game, this match exposed the limitation of the existing technology and the need to improve it. Sehwag was caught by Kulasekara with an acrobatic dive but the television cameras could not give a conclusive evidence of the catch and so allowed Sehwag to play a big innings. Another instance was the run out appeal against Sangakkara. Though his bat appeared to be on the line when the bails were dislodged, the cameras failed once again in giving a conclusive evidence which helped the batsman. It is time the ICC and the broadcasters sit together and find solutions for such problems. Using technology and giving the benefit of doubt to the batsman due to its limitations puts a question mark on the worth of it.

Had Dilshan caught Sehwag, had Kulasekara caught Sehwag cleanly, had Dhoni or Sehwag caught Sangakkara when he edged Umesh Yadav between the keeper and first slip in Umesh’s first over, this match provided a lot of possibilities to ponder. If what was seen in this match is any indication of what is going to happen in the coming matches, the batting of Kohli and Sangakkara and bowling of Irfan Pathan needs to be followed. Let us hope for an interesting ODI series in the coming days.

Cricket writers cannot use their power to settle personal scores

Posted: July 15, 2012 by The CouchExpert in Cricket, Opinion
Tags: , , , , , ,
3

Goutham Chakravarthi

Earlier today, Suresh Menon’s  article appeared in Wisden India with the heading ‘Tendulkar’s interests not same as India’s‘. This is not about my view on Tendulkar’s retirement or any retirement for that matter (of which I have already shared my view). This is more about the very headline of the article. While what much of the article around Suresh Menon’s well documented opinion of how Tendulkar’s career is now controlled by his commercial interests, I felt this time, it went from being just his opinion to a verdict or judgment of sorts – that he claims Tendulkar put his interests ahead of the India’s seemed not a mere inference of sequence of events or a likelihood. Menon was certain. He wrote, “clearly Tendulkar’s interests are no longer the same as the country’s, certainly not in one-day internationals.”

The sequence of events leading up to this article is fishy.

A sequence of events surrounding this article and coming from Wisden India now has got me thinking if there might have been an ulterior motive to him writing what he did. Read me out.

First, let’s start with Wisden India itself. Bloomsbury announced late last year their foray into India through Wisden India. This year they have now become fully functional. With an ambition ‘to be a single consolidated voice of Cricket, and to be known as the ‘Home of Indian Cricket.”, they seemed serious (It is a competitive market with Wisden India facing stiff competition from ESPNCricinfo and Yahoo! Cricket) and they roped in big names including the likes of Dileep Premachandran as Editor-in-Chief and Suresh Menon as Editor Cricketers’ Almanack.

So when almost exactly a month ago, Wisden India awarded Tendulkar with the Wisden India Outstanding Achievement award it seemed a good way market itself in the process. It was also announced that Wisden India would hold five more such dinner events involving Sachin Tendulkar over a period of three years. It was apparent that Wisden India had invested themselves in brand Tendulkar.

So when Tendulkar pulled out of the one-day series against Sri Lanka citing he needed to spend more time with his family, predictably, media space was abuzz if he ought to be able to pick and choose the series he plays in. Following the pull out, Wisden India’s when Editor-in-Chief Dileep Premachandran decided to write that selectors ought to be the ones that decided who should be picked and who shouldn’t. Here’s where things got a little fishy. At least, to me.

Surprisingly, the article appeared in the UAE based The National and not in Wisden India. Of course Dileep Premachandran contributes to The National and also The Sunday Guardian. But an article on Tendulkar and selection didn’t warrant a feature on the site that aspires to be known as the ‘Home of Indian Cricket.’

Perhaps the investors on the Tendulkar brand for three years didn’t want to jeopardize by carrying a story that seemed to sort of accept that it may not have been a wise investment. Or that it might jeopardize relationship with the player himself. Whatever it was, it appeared as though the investors got their way.

But it didn’t escape the fact that the article did appear on UAE based The National. Did it mean Wisden India would refrain from carrying out any ant-Tendulkar stories for another three years?

No, apparently not. At least from this article earlier today. Whether it means Wisden India do not want to be seen to be favouring a certain player, or if it was a case of a decorated and high-profile writer wanting to show that he couldn’t care less for his employer or their investment and would get his own back  against the both of them are all possibilities.

In any case, opinions are points-of-view based on facts and inferences. Like Suresh Menon disagreeing with Sanjay Manjrekar’s opinion that Dravid was not talented for example. Or his example that Dravid and Boycott were examples of  constructive and destructive selfishness respectively. Infering from shrewd observation like how the investment industry is linked with Tendulkar is what alalysts like Suresh Menon or Mike Atherton are very good at.

But to be certain of Tendulkar’s interest not in line with his country’s seems beyond a mere opinion. More a judgement of character. And it cannot be pinned on a player just because it appears the whole cricketing commerce revolves around him. And it sits uneasily on me more to do with the sequence of events leading up to this article.

While we want our writers to be unbiased and critique for what is best for the game, we wouldn’t want them to influence us with views that may be intended just to prove a point. Cricket is struggling enough to fight corruption, maladministration, and player agents and con men influencing player selection.

We don’t want the small circle of our best and honest writers use their power to fight their personal battles.

Players like Federer make Wimbledon Special

Posted: July 9, 2012 by Niranjan Kuppan in Opinion, Tennis
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

 Niranjan K

Sport has a way with human emotions. It transcends geographical boundaries and let people enjoy and adore such great athletes with amazement. There are tournaments that are crown jewels in every sport and lift that particular sport by a few notches. Every football player who trades his wits in Europe wants to play in the Champions League. In Cricket, it’s about being part of a World Cup winning team. Wimbledon is one such event that catches the breath of the tennis world. You may be a winner of 3 other grand slams and World No 1 but you are not regarded as great until you walk out SW19 as Wimbledon Champion.

So what makes Wimbledon special? Is it the place, the royals, the whites or the strawberries? The same set of players who compete in Wimbledon battle week in week out for the rest of the year. But why do great Champions cry in the post match presentation only at Wimbledon? What makes such legends like Sampras and Federer even at 30 years of age and 6 titles already in the kitty, come back and win it like it was their first? Why this romance with the tournament which first started as a fundraiser?

When I first started watching Wimbledon, it was a time when Pate Sampras took over the baton from Boris Becker. When Pistol Pete, with his cool demeanor and a vibrant smile, broke down in the post match presentation, I wondered why a sports person would cry for winning a tournament. But it took me 9 years to know the answer when Goran Ivanisevic’s near impossible journey from a wild card ended as the new Wimbledon champion.

Roger Federer’s mastery of tennis is artistic and complete.Photo: Kirsty Wigglesworth

When you look at someone like Sampras and Federer Wimbledon, you know that they are destined to be great champions there. Everything about them is Wimbledon. Quality. Class. Elegance. It was almost like a long decided arranged marriage, always meant to happen. But Ivanisevic’s was a love story of theatrical content. Before the final I was not thinking too much of Ivanisevic but by the third set in the final I was fully behind him and when he won even I had moist eyes. I didn’t know why but I realized that it must have been something special. His relentless pursuit to be a Wimbledon Champion showed why this is such a prestigious tournament.

One of the reasons that I love Wimbledon was the fact that it encourages serve and volley – or it is supposed to, at least. In other grand slams, you don’t really notice the beauty of moving around the court like here in the lawns of SW19. And it broke my heart when such a wonderful expert of serve and volley like Pat Rafter never won at Wimbledon. It also explains why someone like Ivan Lendl, a wonderful player otherwise, also never won the championships.

Lendl was a force from the baseline but never good at the net and that cost him two finals. It takes a great player to master the uneven and sometimes nasty bounce of the grass and no wonder Wimbledon champions were regarded as greats. It’s what separates the men from the boys. Today tennis has changed to a more baseline play than approaching the net. The Australian Open produces slug fest every year with long matches but if you look closely, you will realize that fewer players approach the net to cut down the risk. But is that good tennis? I don’t think so. To me, it’s a horrible site to see men playing double-handed backhand.

I will go any day to watch Federer and Sampras play against each other and create masterful angles with their single-handed backhands than a Djokovic – Nadal slug fest. Women’s tennis is even worse in this which explains why I like players like Navaratilova, Graff and Justine Henin. It’s a pity that Henin never won at Wimbledon despite that beautiful backhand which prompted John McEnroe to comment that it was on par with the men’s.

Now, as Federer masterfully captured a record equaling 7th Wimbledon gentleman’s Singles Championship and Serena Williams her 5th, we take stock of what’s in store for the future of tennis. Sure the future of tennis looks good with the likes of Djokovic, Nadal and Murray. Women’s tennis, though has become a mostly two set contests, still manage to produce good players and beautiful players to keep it going.

But are these players capable of being the great if not the greatest? When Boris retired Sampras rose and Federer took over after that ‘passing the torch’ 4th round match in 2001. But invariably we knew that it was passed from one great player to another. Now who is there to claim it from Federer? Is men’s tennis going to become like the women’s where a new world no. 1 emerges every few weeks just because there are no great players left?

Are we going to be satisfied with baseline slug fest experts winning Wimbledon when there are no artistic masters left? Who is going to use the tennis racquet as a paint brush? Whoever does will make this great game even greater! Even Roger Federer would not want history to remember him as the last great player of the game. But until then, enjoy that awe inspiring tennis that the legend produces for you may see too few and too far once he retires.

Roy Hodgson has plenty on his plate leading up to the world cup

Posted: June 27, 2012 by Niranjan Kuppan in Football, Opinion
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

Niranjan K

When it first started about a decade back, the England team was set to become the most decorated and successful teams of this generation. Golden generation, they were called. Certainly, with the likes of Terry, Ferdinand, Cole, Gerrard, Lampard, Owen and Rooney, there was an expectant. But tournament after tournament, they have failed to produce the best of their club form. Is it the lack of heart while representing England or are they just not good enough. I had dissected the problems of the so called golden generation in detail just after England so embarrassingly lost in the World Cup. So let’s not dig too deep into it again, shall we? England punched above their weight in Euro 2012 and let’s discuss how.

Roy Hodgson to me is the reason why England performed respectfully in the Euros. After a tumulus time at the helm in Anfield, he had a point to prove and did so with merit at West Bromwich Albion. Pop comes the chance to manage the national team, which surprised and shocked many.

His was a logical choice with Redknapp’s personality looming large over his credentials. With 40 days to go, there isn’t so much that he could do. But he ensured he prepared a team, though boring mostly, was hard to beat. They were prepared to look ugly to get the results they wanted. But a team with a large heart and thin on creativity could only go so much which, when exposed to a master in Andrea Pirlo, succumbed in the quarters. But I will go on a record and say that, they finished as the 5th best team in Europe because, even though they were dominated by Italy, they did not lose the match tamely. The one thing that inspired me was how England played as a team rather than a bunch of individuals which had been their cause for downfall in the past.

Rooney: Brilliant for Manchester United, but under achieving for England. Photo: http://www.moviespad.com

What they lacked in the end was creativity. Of the 5 goals that they scored, the creative part of 3 of them came from Steven Gerrard and 2 from Theo Walcott. For all his inspiration and leading from the front, I think Gerrard has one big problem in his game. He thinks that he had to do almost all the work in the field and at quite a few times ends up on the wrong foot. For example, in the game against Italy, he was constantly running behind Pirlo. If he let Scott Parker do that, then he would have had the time for some creativity. Although I love Gerrard, I think he needs to start trusting his players more.

Wayne Rooney has always been the curious case. Brilliant for Manchester United and below average for England. He had the perfect set up to explode when he finally made it to the starting lineup. But instead of inspiring his mates like how he does for United, he ended up waiting for the chances than grabbing them. What England also missed was a clinical striker of pure instinct like how Michael Owen used to be in his best days. Miss his boyish charm.

For all the respect that Hodgson has gotten from his first two months in charge, he would know that the real work starts from now. Yes, his compact strategy has helped England gain some sort of respectability but if this is how they are going to play, it won’t help them in the long run.

Hodgson has a lot of work to do if he has to make England a world beater. Picture: The Sun

Hodgson has to take the positives from the tournament and look for improvement especially when the injured players come back. He has to instill in those players, the same pride that the current squad seem to have in them in representing the three lions. The likes of Gerrard, Terry, Lampard, Barry and Parker in the twilight of their careers, he would do well to make players like Martin Kelly, Jack Wilshere, Alex Oxalade Chamberlain, Theo Walcott, Andy Carroll, Danny Welback and Daniel Sturridge as regulars. Face it, for all the excitement of the EPL, the emerging English talent has been thin.

They need a comprehensive youth development program to improve their long time prospects. It is in how Hodgson takes the team forward that determines his credentials. And with wealth of experience in coaching international teams, I think he can do that. All answers lie on the 15th of August when the 3 Lions take on the same Azzuries in a friendly.

My love affair with Wimbledon

Posted: June 22, 2012 by The CouchExpert in Opinion, Tennis
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
1

Srivathsa Munirathnam

My love affair with Wimbledon started in 1991 when my first tennis hero – Boris Becker lost in straight sets to his German compatriot Michael Stich in the final. Stich? Does anybody remember him? Did he play tennis? The answers to the above questions are yes and he played brilliant tennis to beat Becker. Those were the first impressions of a tournament I have loved watching till date. I still distinctly remember how devastated I was on seeing my hero lose when the whole world expected an easy win. To see the headline – ‘Stich bombs his way to Wimbledon glory’ – in the newspapers the next day broke my heart.

From then on I have followed Wimbled every year seeing Pete Sampras win 7 titles (I hated him for he was unbeatable and therefore invariably my idol Becker had no chance), the arrival of a new legend in Roger Federer, the almost magical triumph of Goran Ivanisevic in 2001 and many other unforgettable moments. So many memories are floating around my head as I write this but one moment which I will never forget has to be Greg Rusedski saving a match point against a fellow Brit with a second serve ace after his previous serve (which was a second serve too) hit the net cord and tantalisingly fell in. That image is still etched in my brain as Rusedski went on to win from the depths of defeat. Why did I choose that moment? Because till date I haven’t been able to get it off my mind. Yes it was not a big match, an unseeded was playing against a better player but it just stuck in my DNA. May be the sheer audacity of Rusedski to go for broke on match point just amazed me and it still does.

Becker owned Centre Court till Sampras came along. Picture: http://wimbledon.open-tennis.com/

There have been so many great memories and innumerable matches to pick – that’s the beauty of Wimbledon– it fascinates and thrills you like no other tournament. I grew up listening to Vijay Amritraj and, now, of late, Alan Wilkins. They are an irrestible combination and have certainly made watching the Championships more fun. I still remember how I would rush back from school to watch the start of every day’s action. My days would be spent in front of the TV watching the masters of grass battle it out. Ah! Those were the days when the tennis was of the highest quality (which is not to suggest that the quality has deteriorated now). I loved watching serve and volleyers – the likes of Edberg, Becker, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Rafter and many others.

The standard of tennis and the quality of players on show then were of a far superior standard to what we see now. Back in the ’90s there was no clear favorite at Wimbledon– a handful of players could win it. That’s because they all relied on a big serve and then a sound volley to finish off points quicker. Sadly there is not a single serve and volley exponent in the game today and that really puts me off when I see baseline rallies dominating the Championships. It is one thing that has made Wimbledon watching a bit of a chore, but you still get on with it as we do with a lot of things in life.

What makes Wimbledon special? Everything – from the green grass to the tradition, cream and strawberries, the Royal patronage, to the players impeccably dressed in whites. I could go on and on but this is a tournament which has no parallel. It is played in the English summer when the sun is out in full splendor and the tennis is of the highest standard. It is the only major played on grass.

My most favorite Wimbledon memory

This is a difficult one to choose for there are many great memories. But I will go for one of the most incredible sporting moments which made every one emotional and some to cry their hearts out.

It is the summer of 2001, and a certain Pete Sampras is gunning for his 8th title and there are a host of other contenders including the great British hope Tim Henman. Amongst all these contenders is a man named Goran Ivanisevic. He is a three-time finalist at this tournament but his ranking had plummeted to 125 which was not sufficient for him to earn an automatic place in the main draw at Wimbledon but, given his past record as a three-time runner-up, he was awarded a wildcard for entry into the singles draw.

Goran Ivanisevic’s 2001 triumph warmed many hearts across the world. Photo: The Guardian

Surely Ivanisevic didn’t have it in him to defeat the likes of Sampras and Co. His ranking had gone down and he was playing badly. Still it was a wonderful gesture from the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club to give him a wildcard. Nobody expected anyone other than Sampras to win it one more time. But 2001 was also the year when Roger Federer dethroned Pete Sampras in the fourth round which ended an era and heralded the beginning of a new one. With Sampras gone, the whole of Britain felt that it was the year of Henman. But the wildcard was making slow but steady progress through the draw. The aces were coming and in a rain interrupted semi-final Goran beat Henman to end the British dream. Coming into the final against Rafter – perhaps the best serve and volley player never to have won Wimbledon (add Mark Philippoussis and Tim Henman to that list) – Goran knew it was his final chance. His previous three finals had resulted in heart-break for the man from Croatia and here was a man who had another chance to realise his dream when he wouldn’t have expected it.

In an epic final Goran won and the whole world enjoyed his victory. He was a loveable rascal and it would’ve been a pity had he not won Wimbledon. He had the game and the tools to win but always came short against a superior opponent. But in 2001 he was not to be denied. Why is Ivanisevic’s victory so special? Because even as a true neutral that day it would’ve been impossible not to get emotionally swayed by a man who wanted the trophy so badly that he later remarked that he may have shot himself if he had lost for a fourth time. The drama, the tension and the accompanying anxiety following his progress to the title certainly didn’t make me any younger. But it was worth it and maybe it was just destined to happen after all those initial disappointments.

So what does 2012 hold out?

I expect another Djokovic v Nadal final. Don’t read too much into Nadal’s loss at Halle. He is a different beast when it comes to the majors. I also have a sneaking feeling that Tsonga might be one of the dark-horses. He has the game and the will to win. It is all a matter of getting it right on the big stage against a big player. He has done it before (last year v Federer). So it wouldn’t surprise me if he wins it this time. 

Wimbledon holds a special place in my heart. There is a certain beauty about Wimbledon which cannot be captured in words. You have to just experience it and hopefully one day my dream of watching a match on Centre Court comes true. Until then it is time for everyone to say ‘let the Championships begin.’

Older Entries
Newer Entries