Federer still unbeatable!

Federer is still so fluid and devastating at his age. I think and say, to those who ask that he retire gracefully, why, when he is able to beat those 10 years his junior, effortlessly. He is playing the game in his personal capacity, and not taking anyone else's place on a team, like Sachin or Kapil did for years. He's around every year, and if you beat him, you can get past him, you deserve to win, because you are then the best, that year. 

Having said that, Federer's game has changed considerably in recent years, possibly due to influence of Stephan Edberg. He was quietly aggressive in the early 2000s, as much as the situation demanded then, became defensive and timid in the late 2000s, when he met Nadal and Roddick, and now has brought in a new aggression. He is not as amazing as he was before, but flashes of brilliance tend to amaze, time and again. He can't play long games, considering his age, so he tends to prefer shorter points. 

He may be a distant second in rankings, but that doesn't take away one bit from his infallibility with respect to all the other players. He may have some players who he hasn't been able to convincingly conquer, but overall, at this age too, he is unbeatable most times. 

And he is such an affable character, that you like him, even otherwise. And that adds to the aura that endears us to him. More power to him! 

Biking baby steps!

Cycling is not easy! Especially, if you haven't done it for years. Even if you are generally fit. Even if you have done it in the gym. 

My enthusiasm for cycling was to be satisfied. It always seemed the thing that was missing in my list of aspirations. 

I have cycled so much in life, I was an expert in city biking, in Bombay. And, this cliche, if you can bike in Bombay, you can do it anywhere in the world. I used to enjoy the breeze on my face, with music in my ears on an old tape walkman, ever ready to take off just like that. 

And now here I was, 20 years later, trying to feed my desire to get back on that bike again. And I've been fascinated by a folding bike because I could carry it along to various places. Though, I now realise, it is easier said than done. And I was not finding a foldable bike that had a wheel diameter of 26 inches. 

When I finally found one that met my specifications on Groupon at RM 599, I jumped at it. Well, not really. I still took a few weeks before I took the plunge. It was a Korean make Excider 26 inch. 

The bike arrived one Friday afternoon, a few days before I expected it. It didn't take long to assemble, but the gear required some adjustments. I did that over a weekend and brought it back home. 

No more excuses now. I took her on a trip one Sunday night, after much preparation, getting my Endomondo and S Health apps started, out on the road, changing gears often, and up a slope, when Oh! the pedal threading came off and I fell down, a minor injury on my knee. I walked back the way home, cycle in tow, with the broken pedal in my hand. 

I parked the bike and didn't look at it for a couple of weeks. A visit to Chow Kit over that weekend, and I saw cheaper bikes, though not foldable, and felt worse. 

I mustered up my will last evening and got the bike to Rodalink for repairs. The guy there is good at his work but bad at small talk. He managed to get the threading back in place, replaced the pedal and got it back in working condition. I had spent RM 100 more on the bike with not many miles to boast. 

Last night I decided to start again, no Endomondo or S Health apps, no changing gears, no slopes, just plain simple doodhwala-biking, on a flat stretch of road just outside our place. 

I had to come back to taking baby steps, rather than try something ambitious, so that my confidence is back in place. This time it worked, and though the result may not have been that romantic, it still counted as a positive. 

And it rekindled hope that things will slowly get better!  

The cricket world is an elaborate farce!

I'm convinced, more than even before, that the world of cricket is completely stage-managed. This ICC World Cup of 2011 has been a revelation!

Did you see the match between India and England which ended in a tie despite each team scoring 330 odd runs? Both teams could manage so many runs but fell short by one! And the match between England and Ireland, which also had about the same number of runs, and Ireland chased despite England being the Ashes-winning team they are! 

Both these matches were characterised by sudden and surprising turns, with bursts of high scoring, followed by fall of wickets, all resulting in uncertainty, all the time. This helps in making the game more interesting, resulting in more viewership, more kicks for the same money for the sponsors!

The India-England match, I understand, had the highest ever viewership as per statistics. And I presume that the tie would be because some influential quarters demanded a tie! 

The recent expose of Pakistani players being involved in spot fixing, earlier scams involving Indian players, the Cronje episode were only specific instances that had to be revealed, probably since the evidence was so out in the open and could not be concealed. And some could claim that they've acted on cleaning the game up. And result in more inclusion! I'm saying there is a more elaborate stage management at work here.

Why did Ireland win against England now? And why did Bangladesh shock India in the last World Cup? That is because we have to have more inclusion in the game, more teams have to emerge, more audiences have to be tapped; we have to plan for the future!

I have a theory that the World Cup has to have India in the finals to make economic sense. Else, who will buy the tickets and who will watch the ads during the breaks? And Sachin has to help India win a World Cup before he retires! So it helps if we can facilitate all of this.

I'm not asking for the game to be shut down, and the guilty to be punished. Thats been the traditional approach! Why should we be worried that there is no game left in cricket. We're disturbed only if we view this as a degradation of the game, a loss of purity. But this is no longer a game, but an enterprise.

And if so many are benefitted because of this enterprise, generating employment and work, why shut it down? As long as someone, somewhere is earning something, it's good. We are a free nation!

The only worry is that the common people should not waste their time on this, and while away their lives, earning nothing but excitement. But this is true for so many other such things, like reality shows and entertainment programs. Audiences have to go through this farce and emerge more mature. They have to recognise what they are investing in terms of mind and time in such pursuits, and see if it's all worth it!  

Whose business is it anyway!

Australian Open serves it up hot!

The Australian Open has been very interesting and eventful this year. The men's final is about to start. The men's tournament has been characterised by stun defeats, with a large margin. Look at the way Federer defeated his friend, Djokovich defeated Federer, Ferrer defeated Nadal, and Murray defeated Nadal, all in a very convincing manner. That makes the margin of defeat cumulatively very large. The winner would actually, theoritically, be way ahead of the others.

There is an emergence of a new breed of good players, so we're able to move away from the Federer-Nadal fixation. Federer and Nadal have both had their best chance this time in the Australian Open. Nadal could've won the fantastic four and Federer could've added to his tally. I don't think both of them would have a chance later. I think their time is about over.

Meanwhile in the women's segment, the final was the highlight. Kim Clijsters prevailed over Li Na, but only after a real contest. The match was more about who would hold on to their serve, rather than who would break the other's serve. It made me think whether, for women especially, the serve is actually a disadvantage. Their return of serve was much better than the serve itself.

There are two reasons for this, as I see it. The serve cannot be done with two hands, whereas the backhand return, why even the forehand return, Nadal would confirm, can be done with two hands. Thats more power and precision at your disposal. The second reason is that the serve is done from high above, and with lesser power of the women, actually goes slower than other shots.

A thought. If the rules permit, why can't the women serve like they play shots. Have to read up the rules of tennis to find out if that is feasible.