But Cricket isn't a sport, it's a way of life!
Oh me, oh my!...More reactions than I thought about my previous blog and from unexpected quarters. My cousin Anju used to be a big football fan (something which I never knew) but says she's grown out of it. That could be something to do with the fact that she's a doctor and has two kids - who's got time for sports with that going on? On the other hand, she did name her two sons after, arguably, two of the best sportsmen around. Her youngest is Sachin, clearly a reference to the best cricketer that India (and perhaps the world) has ever known, Sachin Tendulkar. Her eldest? His name is Akash so I don't need to say anymore on that...
I think there are a couple of things people like about sport - first, as Sandy B says when you watch people at the peak of their sporting prowess there are moments of pure physical poetry regardless of what sport it is. Watching Agassi or McEnroe playing one of those impossible shots with such grace is breathtaking. Federer is the same way. Ditto someone like Sachin Tendulkar or Virender Sehwag who sometimes play cricket shots that defy belief. I think it is because of this that people generally like watching the sports they play (or have played). You know that even on your best day playing that sport - even one of those days where everything is going your way - that you'll never even be able to think about playing in the way that some of these sportsmen do. It is such a cliche but the best games to watch are those where the commentator always says "well, no matter who wins, Cricket/Tennis/Football/Rugby[insert others here] is the winner today". In those cases, where both people/teams have played to the absolute maximum of their ability it really is a joy to watch, regardless of who wins. In fact, scotch that...if your side wins then it's even better because you know that they beat a team/player at their peak. The difference is you just don't mind losing in situations like that.
The second reason is that, it allows us to be competitive vicariously.
There have also been a number of comments about Ganguly and my bias toward him. Well, I have blogged on this subject before so don't intend to say anymore except this. He embodies what is interesting about sport - sure he is no Dravid but the enjoyment watching him play is different from watching Dravid - it is lovely to watch technically correct sportsmen who have little personality but it is much more entertaining to watch flawed people who are just like you and me, who show irrational human behaviour and then see them conquer themselvees despite it. It's why people love to watch John Daly play golf almost as much (if not more) than Tiger...it's why we love McEnroe (who, by the way, was in his day arrogant, cocky, brash and almost universally hated but now is recognised for the entertaining flawed special talent that he always was) over Lendl. I am not arguing that Ganguly is past his peak but I think he is still at least as good, if not better, than his replacements Kaif and Raina - plus he always playing against England and spanked them rotten.
Anyway, enough on that subject - I have a soft spot for Ganguly and that's all there is. His contribution to Indian cricket is well documented and frankly I loved that he waved his shirt around in a moronic fashion (simply copying Flintoff when he was in India) on the balcony at Lord's - probably the most stuffy of English institutions.
I think there are a couple of things people like about sport - first, as Sandy B says when you watch people at the peak of their sporting prowess there are moments of pure physical poetry regardless of what sport it is. Watching Agassi or McEnroe playing one of those impossible shots with such grace is breathtaking. Federer is the same way. Ditto someone like Sachin Tendulkar or Virender Sehwag who sometimes play cricket shots that defy belief. I think it is because of this that people generally like watching the sports they play (or have played). You know that even on your best day playing that sport - even one of those days where everything is going your way - that you'll never even be able to think about playing in the way that some of these sportsmen do. It is such a cliche but the best games to watch are those where the commentator always says "well, no matter who wins, Cricket/Tennis/Football/Rugby[insert others here] is the winner today". In those cases, where both people/teams have played to the absolute maximum of their ability it really is a joy to watch, regardless of who wins. In fact, scotch that...if your side wins then it's even better because you know that they beat a team/player at their peak. The difference is you just don't mind losing in situations like that.
The second reason is that, it allows us to be competitive vicariously.
There have also been a number of comments about Ganguly and my bias toward him. Well, I have blogged on this subject before so don't intend to say anymore except this. He embodies what is interesting about sport - sure he is no Dravid but the enjoyment watching him play is different from watching Dravid - it is lovely to watch technically correct sportsmen who have little personality but it is much more entertaining to watch flawed people who are just like you and me, who show irrational human behaviour and then see them conquer themselvees despite it. It's why people love to watch John Daly play golf almost as much (if not more) than Tiger...it's why we love McEnroe (who, by the way, was in his day arrogant, cocky, brash and almost universally hated but now is recognised for the entertaining flawed special talent that he always was) over Lendl. I am not arguing that Ganguly is past his peak but I think he is still at least as good, if not better, than his replacements Kaif and Raina - plus he always playing against England and spanked them rotten.
Anyway, enough on that subject - I have a soft spot for Ganguly and that's all there is. His contribution to Indian cricket is well documented and frankly I loved that he waved his shirt around in a moronic fashion (simply copying Flintoff when he was in India) on the balcony at Lord's - probably the most stuffy of English institutions.
posted by Akash at 7:57 PM
12 Comments:
Akash is spot on. It does help a bit if you have played one of these sports, as your ineterest is heightened for the reasons given.
I would say there are times you can relate to what they're doing, and taht is also part of the allure, as well as times you simply can't, and have to admire. As i say, it all goes back to the school playgroun why women aren't too fussed.
I tell you what is exciting me. I have just seen Ronaldinho play at Chelsea last week, i will see Federer at Wimbledon in a few months, and i have a ticket to see Tiger play at the Amex World Golf Champs at The Grove in London. The golden threesome.....anyone i'm missing ??? don;t think so (Lara and Tendulkar are past their peak, and cricket is just not enough my bag, and Schumacher? well, it's not really a sport is it)
watching Federer on centre court would be akin to watching Marlon Brando on stage in Streetcar Named Desire - pure, unadulterated joy! I remember watching Macenroe in 1989 at Wimbledon (after standing in the queue overnight) and being blown away and thinking if only i went to Sweden when i was 13 blah blah ......
Monoj no doubt you could play, but i fear if you had gone to Sweden at 13, other distractions would have taken over....
Anyway, Federer is more talented than Mcenroe. Different era, different game, it' a harder more athlectic sport now. All the very very top players have hewitt like defence / scrambling ability, and need to have more than big weapon in attack. (why Federer and Nadal are top dogs)
Anyway, looking forwards to seeing Roger in June....
well Sandeep, i am not so sure. In terms of hand-eye coordination they are probably on par. In fact in Mcenroe's era i believe the game was more competitive with many more top class players - this kind of core pack of players one always knew would reach the semis and quarters in the slams - i am thinking of, of course Borg, Connoros, Gueralitis, Villas, Tanner - and then after Mcenroe overthrew Borg as number one , you then had Lendl, Connors, Wilander - later Becker, Edberg - even players such as Leconte, Mecir could prove deadly. Now, there just isn't that much of a challenge from other players - yes Nadal , but who else - i mean Roddick is crap really, Hewitt is a moron and in my view lucky to be in top 5 - yes he is a fighter - big deal - he is a one dimensional player with armoury that would dissipate if he were to play the likes of Borg, Connors etc etc (anyway i fucking hate Hewitt) Really, Federer (i thought Safin may have come through - but not to be)is the best and by long long way. I doubt if we will ever again see a tennis match that would come close to the standard reached at the Wimbledon 1980 final between Borg and Mcenroe - considered one of the ten best sporting moments in history!
well well, just read that Bjorn Borg is selling his five Wimbledon trophies and, believe it or not, the racket he used against Mcenroe in that stunning 1980 final - i would love to have that racket - alas the trophies and racket are said to sell for 200,000 GBP .
Well, i mean that athletically, it is much harder. I mean these guys are playing a much faster game now, no doubt. On hard courts it's simply breathtaking at times, in a way that the game 20 yrs ago was not.
Watching Federer, Nadal, Agassi, Safin, particularly against each other, they're playing tennis on the brink, angles you never used to see, a pace and consistency of depth you never used to see, you see?
My point was that alone really. The game at the top level is now changing. What do Federer and Nadal have in common ? They are both freakishly good defensive players, and offensively they have big big weapons. Borg, Mcenroe never needed the court coverage at the back that the modern great player needs.
As for competitiveness, yes maybe. The field may be deeper now (ie.the top 100), which is in fact what the professionjals say, but yes there are less recognised great players. Although was Kuertn not a minor clay court legend ?
Federer's style and scale of winning alone does suggest a lack of competition. There are only 2 players with a game 'big' enough to trouble him, in Safin and Nadal, although playing to his peak seems to take it out of Safin too much. As for the rest, yes i agree.
As for great matches, i too have fond memories of Borg Mcenroe, as it was the first non-footballing sporting memnory i have, as my parents sat me down firstly for the 79 final, and said, 'just watch this'.
However, while it deserves it's place, there have been many other great matches in recent years, yet people propogate the idea that the last truly great moment in tennis was in 1980. I think that's rubbish, and if you believe that, then that's a pretty dim view of the game.
Of course context is everything, and 2 of the era's greatest slugging it out at wimbledon in 1980 was a magical moment. But how much of that was due them both being 'characters' ?? Wheras in todays professional sport, characters are fewer, a common theme across sports.
In that regard, and i do believe there is a touch of rose-tinted spectacles going on with the 1980 final, i put to you the following
Sampras and Agassi were both better players than any since Borg and Mcenroe.
Federer vs Safin at the Aus Open sem 2005 was a better match than 1980.
When Sampras Agassi played at the US Open, this was amongst the highest quality tennis ever played, until Roger arrived. Examples being their US Open matches in 1995, 2001 and 2002 (the last being 6-7 7-6 7-6 7-6, not a single service break, extreme hitting, and a standing ovation)
The 3 Edberg Becker Wimbledon finals were good, but not great. More recently, the Rafter Agassi sereis of grand slam semi's were nearly all epic, and were better matches.
As for Federer vs Mcenroe talent wise, are you kidding me ?? Mceneore's hand eye was an obvious strength, he had those fast hands and sometimes short strokes, and could improvise shots, but Agaasi had the same hand eye thing going on. It;s not Fedeers hand eye co-ord that stands out, it's his variety and shotmaking.
But there doies seem to be an almost fully formed consensus amongst tennis experts now, that Federer is the most talented player ever to have picked up a racket. The only comparison they make is with Rod Laver, who by all accounts had similar variety and style, and Sampras in terms of scale of achievement.
At the end of his career he will liklely have slam victories well into double figures, a conversion ratio much higher than JP, he will likley have won on all 4 surfaces, he will have the same grass courts wins as Borg, and the same hard court wins as Connors.
Most of this will have been achieved in a similar time to Mcenroe, i.e. not the long career of Sampras.
Not sure of there is much more to say.
Manu, I think that even McEnroe considers Federer to be his superior. Sandy's right that there have been more exciting and better quality matches since 1980 - I think that match just resonates so well cos (a) it was such a good game, (b) there is a certain amount of nostalgia to it, and (c) of course the tie break which made it so unique. But, for example, Sampras Agassi matches at the US open, while not necessarily having that tight a tie break, have been pretty amazing to watch and the standards just incredible.
Well. I agree with Sandeep and Bobby. Watching sportsmen at their peak is rather 'poetic'. Also, with a sense that playing a sport makes one appreciate it more, here's another one . Snooker, If you watch Ronnie' O Sullivan get a break of 147, thats more poetic than anyhthing else. The grace with which these snooker pros go about potting 36 balls in less than 7 minutes is jaw-dropping.
Well, this is true if some people consider snooker as a sport!! I know I do, reason: because its competetive and brings out the best in people.
Neeraj.
Well, I am not saying that Federer is inferior to JPM – just the opposite – but I have to rectify some inaccuracies:
To start with the 1979 Wimbledon final was between Borg and Tanner not Borg/Mcenroe - and if you were referring to the US open final then that was between Mcenroe and Gueraltis.
Regarding the 1980 W final, to properly assess its importance you have to look beyond the tennis and factor in the mental strength of both players (JPM in the forth tie-break set and Borg in 5th), the point where JPM saves match point the fourth with a net call by a ball that trickled along the net and the fell on the Borg side; the fact that it was Borg's fifth title in a row and the fact that everyone hated JPM - it contained everything and more a good competitive tennis match should have and that is why it was great – as for more exciting, Bobby you are surely not saying that the 1980 final was not exciting – in fact if we are talking simply about excitement then this debate is futile.
No one is saying there haven’t been great tennis matches since – in fact, in as much I recall watching the Sampras/Agassi US Open finals , with the long rallies, the amazing stamina etc etc, and thoroughly enjoying them, I much preferred matches where there were amazing comebacks, that had theatre and weren’t so predictable – I think of the 1984 US Open semi-final between Cash and Lendl and that phenomenal fourth set; the ultimate display of perfect, skillful, destructive tennis produced by JPM in the 1984 W final against Connors (such a clean sweep was not predictable at all), and yes I would include the Safin/Federer Aus Open semi- but that was also slightly hyped because of the fact that Federer was beaten.
Anyway it is all (clearly) subjective – but if like art or music, you would defer to the experts, commentators and enthusiasts to create some kind of order of merit (such as the polls about the best album, song etc ) then I submit in terms of great matches , the 1980 w final would be top; similarly for the most perfect display of tennis , the JMP destruction of Connors in 1984 W final would be top. Having said that I think Federer is indeed the best ever, it is just that he hasn’t reached his peak because he hasn’t needed to do – and when he does, when has the right competition I want to be there to see it!
As for snooker, I agree – Neeraj, I loved watching the Chinese guy thrash Steve Davis last year..did you see that?
To illustrate my point further, did anyone see Federer Nadal in the finals of Dubai last weekend?
Awesome match, very tight, high drama, special first set from Roger, cracking comeback from Nadal, methinks we have rivalry here, and Federer has some thinking to do.
Let the fun commence.
Though i didn't watch that specific match, I did managed to catch it on the news. The chinese dure 'Ding Juing Su'(if i remember well), beat steve davis 10-6 (again, if i remember well). It was good.
And yea, just watching some cricket (India v England 2nd test), 2nd inn for England and the score is 88/4, which means that India have good chances of getting a win from here if it doesn't rain tommoro. Anyways, I just saw an over by A Kumble (he reached a landmark of 50 wickets just yesterday); and it was a real good over. Flintoff got beaten on 4 different occasions (ball 1,3,5,6). Man, watching sports can be so much fun too.
I'd say that it was the best over i'd ever seen in a game of cricket.
Sorry, another rant about cricket.
Just saw the scoreboard for Australia v. South Africa. Guess what Australia made in 50 overs.
A whoooooooooping 434/4. Yes Four hundred thirty four. A WORLD record. Man, that team is crazy, a couple of matches ago, they got all out on 93, but they didnt have ponting then. In this match, ponting scored 164 off 105.
wooooooooow.
Sorry, these posts are a bit out of place, but the closest i could get to the topic!!
Post a Comment
<< Home