Roland Garros 2009 augurs well for Rafa

Saucy Sardonix makes a guest appearance here apres longtemps....here we go :

Its cruel but it’s the truth. Federer’s win at Rolland Garros 2009 speaks volumes about Rafael Nadal.

Federer is no doubt a genius, god’s gift to tennis. His forehands are like laser guided missiles, his backhand is poetry, his groundstrokes are simultaneously the examples of brutal strength and soft touches. Federer was a natural serve and volley player who chose to massacre opponents from the baseline, used his ace hitting ability to pull out of the woods and changed the paradigms of placement angles. The form of Federer post Wimbledon 2003 made the Sampras summit of 14 slams look more like a mere road hump rather than the monumental achievement it is in reality.

Fate, however it seems, is not without a touch, an equilibrium. The 2005 French open announced a teenage sensation, 2006 confirmed it, 2007 labelled him a clay court wonder and 2008 revealed the truth- Rafael Nadal was the one man who stopped Federer from dominating world tennis. The following year he discovered his confidence on grass, toppled the champion’s unbeaten 5 year run at Wimbledon and then reduced him to tears in Australia. Suddenly, the transit from 13 to 14 slams looked impossible, French open seemed out of reach forever and a career grand slam was fast looking to be a chapter in Roger Federer’s dream.

What was most surprising was that the champion who had decimated rivals on all surfaces, made tennis seem the easiest sport in the world, added a new dimension to the word grace was made to look fragile and vulnerable. Rafa’s wins combined with health and injury problems for Federer gave new life to other players. Murray, Djokovic and many others derived inspiration from the Spaniard’s conquests. Federer was having a run of being beaten rather being unbeaten.
At Roland Garros 2009, Federer was reportedly practicing return of heavy topspin (Nadal’s most potent weapon) and strategies to counteract other known Nadal arsenal when news of Soderling’s conquest broke through. The champ promptly packed his bags and retired to his hotel. Such was the mental impact of Nadal’s exit on the swiss ace. It became obvious that Federer was confident against everyone except Rafael Nadal. The win at Roland Garros 2009 may be a backhanded compliment to Roger Federer as the phrase ‘in the absence of Rafa in the finals’ would eternally linger as a punctuation mark.

Perhaps in 2010 Federer may exorcise his demons once and for all by beating Rafa in Roland Garros, an encore to his triumph over the Majorcan in a clay court final this year. Then the world will undoubtedly be united in their ode to this genius from Oberwii as the greatest ever. Till then Rafael Nadal can be thanked for restoring interest and parity to the sport that was fast becoming Federer’s professional pastime.

"Them"

Kick them.
Beat them.
Whip them.
Burn them.
Kill them.
Maim them.
Rape them.
Simply exterminate them.
And then there will be calm and peace and quiet in this earth after the scum of the earth (read: dirty people) will be eradicated!.
When the end is extermination and vanquishing a race per se, would the means matter?
To you or me or them?

So then with this eventual goal egging one on, everything and anything is justifiable, laced with aggressive intolerance, virulent chauvinism of untold proportions, a warped sense/knowledge of history, irrational pride. (?)

Leading to rabid hatred, blind intolerance and illogical conservatism.

The venom is spreading slowly but surely.
The future is unsettlingly scary.
The future is now.
:(

PS : Soon to be heard : "And then they came for me" :(
But who is going to be left ? [or right] !

the summer sky, in dreams of living light and loveliness.....

and then the storm....

and the calm after the storm :)

Its 4 years today
since I have wished you.
And I never will be anyway...

Her smile, her warmth, her joy
reminded me of you...
so much so it was a struggle
to be normal and not be overwhelmed
by nostalgia and her generosity of spirit.
Sometimes in the winds of change,
we find our true direction.

Like I read this in an email signature of a friend some time back :
"So often it's a matter of trading in. Old lamps for new. Small dreams for big ones.
So often all it requires is the courage to accept the responsibility of knowing you are bigger than your smallness."

"There is no golden past. Yet we seek it ultimately.

We want to leave home, and then, one day, we wish to return.

But we can never go back to the same. Because, home has changed and in many ways, so have we."

Leaving Home. Indian Ocean

Call of Conscience

Lasantha Wickramatunga, a leading Sri Lankan journalist and Chief Editor of "The Sunday Leader", was shot dead by unidentified gunmen riding motorcycles, while he was on his way to work.

He wrote an editorial apparently with instructions to publish it after his death and here is the posthumous editorial.

Quite quite remarkable, inspiring, with a raw honesty and incisiveness you seldom come across in the media circles of late. I could almost feel the passion of the man himself even though I have read just one article of his, till date (before this editorial).

About the role of a journalist and the media:

"Why then do we do it? I often wonder that. After all, I too am a husband, and the father of three wonderful children. I too have responsibilities and obligations that transcend my profession, be it the law or journalism. Is it worth the risk? Many people tell me it is not. Friends tell me to revert to the bar, and goodness knows it offers a better and safer livelihood. Others, including political leaders on both sides, have at various times sought to induce me to take to politics, going so far as to offer me ministries of my choice. Diplomats, recognising the risk journalists face in Sri Lanka, have offered me safe passage and the right of residence in their countries.
Whatever else I may have been stuck for, I have not been stuck for choice.
But there is a calling that is yet above high office, fame, lucre and security. It is the call of conscience. "

And the most inspiring part of it, which left me a bit moist-eyed and disturbed as well :

"People often ask me why I take such risks and tell me it is a matter of time before I am bumped off. Of course I know that: it is inevitable. But if we do not speak out now, there will be no one left to speak for those who cannot, whether they be ethnic minorities, the disadvantaged or the persecuted. An example that has inspired me throughout my career in journalism has been that of the German theologian, Martin Niem”ller. In his youth he was an anti-Semite and an admirer of Hitler. As Nazism took hold in Germany, however, he saw Nazism for what it was: it was not just the Jews Hitler sought to extirpate, it was just about anyone with an alternate point of view. Niem”ller spoke out, and for his trouble was incarcerated in the Sachsenhausen and Dachau concentration camps from 1937 to 1945, and very nearly executed. While incarcerated, Niem”ller wrote a poem that, from the first time I read it in my teenage years, stuck hauntingly in my mind:
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me."

At some level, parts of the essay ring true in the Indian context as well. Wonder what the supporters of Narendra Modi, Advani, Bal Thackeray and other members of our venerated political class feel about this.....

my [band] stand!

Stand stand stand - they say.
Take a stand!
Either this or that.

Pro life.
Anti life sentence.

Pro marriage.

Anti live in.

Pro abortion.
Anti birth.

Pro welfare state.
Anti gun rights.

Pro renewable energy.
Anti oil drilling.

Pro left.
Anti right.

Pro peace.
Anti national.

One extreme or the other ?

Which one to choose and take a stand- which shall not be attacked, criticised, ridiculed or derided?

Choose, baby, choose!

Choose, huh, yippee, I made my choice!

Pro choice?

Ughh, what kind of a choice is that?
You have squandered all your choices now!

So let me be.
Pro choice I am … after all, is n’t this the right choice, baby?

A – HA! :)

Mind over matter ? Tis' the Rafa Effect!

Here goes Saucy Sardonix :
Is it possible to win the French open and Wimbledon in the same year?
Yes.
Even if you are not Bjorn Borg?
Well, being Rafael Nadal is good enough!!!

2008 has been a sensational year for Rafael Nadal. Not because he managed to win the French open and Wimbledon the same year, but because he has managed to sow the seeds of self doubt in the mind of a certain Mr. Roger Federer. In my amateur assessment, Wimbledon 2008 was lost by Federer because of the mind job that Rafa had pulled on him.

Anyone who saw the Wimbledon final knew that Federer was very much at the top of his game, his strokes were flowing, the aces working and the volleys dropping but Rafa had managed to break him early with some sensational ground strokes and reduced Roger Federer to 2 sets to love down after 90 minutes of play. Federer the great champion, so used to crushing opponents with his graceful accuracy, was lost in an unchartered sea. He has never been able to recover from 2 sets to love down except on 3 insignificant occasions. More importantly he has never seen those sort of situations on his favourite piece of grassland.
Yes, much to credit, Federer did manage to scramble back a set in the tie breaker of the 3rd set and save match points in the 4th set to win it again in the tie breaker. However there is no tie breaker in the 5th set of a grand slam men's event. With Roger Federer fast losing all the break points he managed to create with difficulty, the belief that the Nadal serve could be broken was fading faster than the evening London light. Eventually at quarter past 9 in the setting London sun, Nadal did what he believed he could and broke the defending champion in the 15
th game of the 5th set. After a grueling 283 mins of classic lawn set, bereft of only the vintage and hitherto dying art of serve and volley, Nadal served out the match.

Ecstasy, disbelief, fatigue and relief were given vent to in the common outflow of tears the gladiator shed before monkeying up the stands to collapse into the arms of his supporting team.
Gracious as ever in defeat Federer acknowledged that his victor was better while Rafa won the modesty competition as well by saying that one Wimbledon win doesn't make him better than Federer whom he still acknowledged as the best player around. The wounded Roger Federer said he would come back for the silver he had surrendered to Nadal, but this was the year when Rafa would do his customary biting of the trophy.

The magnitude of Rafael Nadal's achievement is that he won the French and the Wimbledon within 6 weeks beating the same opponent, Federer, and proving to the world that it's the player and not the surface that matters. The Wimbledon final between Federer and Nadal was seen as an unspoken grudge match. It was widely expected that Federer would win and prove to the world that it was the surface and not the player that defeated him. To beard the lion in its own den, to beat a Roger Federer in full flow on the centre court of Wimbledon in the finals is why Rafael Nadal's victory is spoken so highly of. As with the EURO 2008 championships the Swiss remained good hosts and the Spaniards walked home with the silverware!

HAPLESS FEDERER?????????????????

Saucy Sardonix has been at it again!
Post 2003, his first Wimbledon crown, Roger Federer had myriad adjectives prefixed to his name. They ranged from phenomenon, invincible, master, indomitable and so on in that genre… But come Roland Garros 2008, Federer and the rest of the world watched and heard in disbelief how the word hapless prefixed his illustrious name! Rafael Nadal was a prodigious teenager when the maestros of the tennis world predicted him to be the man who would challenge Federer's domination of the pro men's tennis. His liking for the slow red clay was well known. Fittingly he picked up his 1st French open in 2004 and from then on proceeded to dominate the world of clay. His penchant for long rallies, powerful topspin forehand and lightning fast court coverage helped him cement his position as the No.1 player on clay. The French open final of 2007 was a set short of a classic. Nadal won in 4 sets and Federer made a match out of it. The 2007 Wimbledon final was widely regarded as a classic with Federer emerging the victor in 5 thrilling sets. What Nadal accomplished with that epic 5 setter was to send a strong but silent message that he was fast improving on surfaces other than clay.

2008 has been arguably one of the most miserable years for Federer. By his own lofty standards he has been a miserable failure. By the general standards of men's tennis he has been just another ordinary player. An illness hampered his defense of the Australian open and that defeat to Djokovic boosted the adrenaline of many others. He won the Estoril open thanks to a walkover and without a single win, on the tennis court in a final; in 2008 he stepped onto the red clay of Roland Garros. Rafa by contrast just came off an unbeaten clay court season and was the booker's favourite to be the lord and master of Paris for the 4th time running. On june 8th 2008 the Philippe Chatrier court hosted the now familiar duo of Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer for the 3rd time in a row. Over the next 108 minutes the aghast Parisian crowd witnessed the most comprehensive demolition of the swiss master in a grand slam final. Rafa winning a no contest in straight sets 6-1 6-3 6-0.

The magnitude of his loss made the ever sporting Federer apologize to the crowd for wining just 4 games after he showered compliments on Rafa's game. The statistics that were unearthed were mind numbing. It's the first time since 1999 that federer had dropped a set 6-0. He faced break points on all but 1 of his 11 service games. It was the shortest French open finals in 28 years. Yes. Roger Federer is inching closer to that elusive summit on which nests the mantle of 'all time great. But can he find a way to shake off the Majorcan master Rafa whose tizzy topspin helped him equal Borg's record of 28 consecutive wins on the red French rectangle?

Surely the easiest option for 'hapless clay court Federer' is to find the high from the "grass" on the London suburbs across the Chanel. Should Rafa win on the hallowed grass of Wimbledon this year then men's tennis is in for serious overhaul. The white attire and green lawns have generally been possessive with Roger Federer and he is yet to lose a match in 35 appearances here. But will there be a repeat of the classic 225 min epic of last year's men's final? Will the supreme swiss master retain his vice like grip over the London lawn? Are the makers going to scribe a new name on the cup this year for the first time since 2003? Will Roger Federer retrieve the temporarily detached prefix of 'supreme' to his name or will the world watch a crownless swiss king for the 3rd time this year? July 6th 2008 will answer these questions.

Dead Souls

1) One fine morning, a lady goes to her supervisor at a workplace and says, “I need 3 days leave. My grandfather passed away.” The Supervisor lifts her head, “Oh no! You are not going to fool me with these stories and get some days’ leave! I would like to speak to your mother. Right now.”
The lady pulls out her cell phone and dials the number and is about to mouth a hello into the phone when the supervisor snatches the cell phone from her hand uttering, “I know all the tricks you and your mother may play. All for some leave! Let me talk to her directly.”
The supervisor gets on the call and barks something like “So I heard your father passed away?” Which is presumably confirmed by the mother.
The call ends. And the supervisor tells the lady as to why she requires 3 days leave? what is she going to do in three days anyway ? The grandfather has anyway died!


2) A colleague of mine lost his father all of a sudden few weeks back and had to fly urgently out of town. He reportedly requested for 20 days leave and was granted the leave. 10 days or so pass by when his manager/supervisor walks up to me one evening and starts off about how this colleague has not yet turned up at work, has gone on leave for a long time, so much work pending, blah blah blah....... I keep quiet and stare at him not knowing what to respond. When he goes on and on, it gets me all charged up and I retort "Well, he has not gone for a vacation. His dad died all of a sudden!” Our conversation ended then and there but it left a disgusting taste in me...


Both these unrelated incidents totally cheesed me off by this insensitive attitude of the Supervisor and the manager - at the workplace, which is in most cases like our second home given the amount of time we spend there. It definitely does not need extra intelligence to figure the sorrow, anguish, anger and frustration caused by the loss of a near and dear one. The least one can do is to be a good support for the person going through such a phase and ensure to be sensitive, kind and patient with him.
Does that call for much effort ?
The answer is quite simple: Yes. And we will go that extra yard if we care for the person from a humanitarian level.


*****


While I was in graduation college, a friend of mine lost her father to a heart attack in the morning. It jolted all of us who knew her and her family due to the suddenness with which it happened. We must have been around 18-19 years that time. I used to go to her place every day to be there with her, though honestly I was at a loss for words whenever I met her that time. Words are such poor comforters in times of death. I mean, what can you say to make the other person feel better, happy and cheerful ? Absolutely nothing.

So we would spend afternoons together at her place in a very quiet way, trying to read the newspapers, staring at the walls, listening to the visitors and guests go on about her 'plight', taking her dog for walks etc.

On one such afternoon, she was in a particularly emotional mood when by way of consolation and for want of not knowing anything else to say, I said something like "I understand". She immediately replied, "No, you don't. You just do not realise what it is to lose a parent. So dont say that".



Does one always understand the depth of emotions only when he/she has been through a similar experience ?
What about the quality of empathy ? Which comes if we open up our minds and listen ? Does n’t all this constitute the emotional quotient of a person ?



*****


Dictionary.com describes 'empathy' as follows :

–noun 1. the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

2. the imaginative ascribing to an object, as a natural object or work of art, feelings or attitudes present in oneself: By means of empathy, a great painting becomes a mirror of the self.



*****

“We may have found a cure for most evils; but it has found no remedy for the worst of them all—the apathy of human beings.” - Helen Keller

*****

'If' and the process of writing

Shashi Tharoor wrote a scathing article on Rudyard Kipling's poem ‘If’ in last week’s Sunday Magazine edition of ‘The Hindu’. As he himself confesses, this is not the first time he has had “a few unkind things” to say on Rudyard Kipling.

Tharoor candidly acknowledges the poem as a favourite in his younger days. “…..he certainly had a way with words, and the words in this poem were not only inspirational, they were rhythmically recitable — and they rhymed pretty well too.”

Tharoor further goes on to introduce the historical context when the poem was written by Kipling. And concludes “So what many see as an inspirational poem full of stirring aphorisms for young people to live by is in fact little more than an apologia for an imperialist misdeed.” “It is time to retire this poem from our curriculums. It is time to relegate Kipling to the darkest recesses of our history, where he and his ilk belong.”

But it makes me wonder whether such a step is warranted in the first place…..

Yes, despite having won the Nobel Prize for Literature way back in early 1900s, Kipling is now widely regarded as an imperialist and racist. The ‘white man’s burden’ will haunt him forever, I suppose! No doubts about that. But how about appreciating literature for literature’s sake?

The poem by itself does not talk about the historical context to an average reader and is quite an inspiring read by itself. It is merely a beautifully written poem consisting of words intricately woven together, taking a moral high ground. I suppose it is for this very reason it still finds a place in English textbooks and students recite it in poetry competitions. Lines of the poem are quoted to this day especially the (evergreen!) famous lines put up at the entrance of the Centre Court at Wimbledon :
“If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;”

Each writer writes on various topics of his/her interests – on a general as well as at a specific level. There is almost always a background which spurs the creative instincts of a writer and in my view, this holds true for most works of art- perhaps it can be extended to the process of creativity? Would n’t there be a tipping point when one starts doing something ? Or an incident which provides the initial spark (and/or general context) to write about a particular feeling in relation to that incident? Is n’t that how the process of writing flows ? And is n't this process of putting words on a piece of paper – be it a poem, novel, short story, play or any other form – quite internal to the writer who is, of course guided by his/her ideologies, beliefs, socio-economic and cultural backgrounds, among others, which then serves as a background for that piece of writing ?

PS : The poem “If” happens to be one of my favourite poems (I had posted it on this blog as well) and I feel a surge of inspiration flowing through my veins everytime I read it. I cannot however deny that I did not know the historical context (vaguely) or about Kipling’s imperialist leanings. Not given to any of the views attributed to Kipling, I merely choose to separate the historical context from stopping my enjoyment of what I feel is a good piece of literature.

PPS : In a modern day context, I honestly wonder if if I would react in a similar way to a beautiful piece of writing by say –for example - Osama Bin Laden or Prabhakaran, Bal Thackeray or even George Bush. And therein ends the similarity!