Wednesday, 31 August 2011

Women's Tennis: Holding out for a Hero(ine).

It's barely been 3 days of the start of the final Grand Slam of the year, but the goings-on in the Ladies' singles draw make for some seriously unhealthy reading ( much like the daily musings of a certain Ms.Mirza; after you've spent the better part of the last few years injured or married or injured again; durable is probably not the best word to describe yourself). This might just have been the only Slam in history where the defending champs from the last two Slams haven't lasted 2 days - let alone a week; and with Kim Clijsters not defending her crown, we have none of the current Slam holders in the 2nd round. Adding to the chaos is the fact the Caroline Wozniacki seems more interested in following the illustrious footsteps of Dinara Safina. Which is why, when Serena at the age of 30, barely back from a year's absence, is considered to be the favorite for the crown, it isn't a surprise at all. Seriously, the only question I dare ask is how much worse is it going to get for the Ladies' game.

If you have your reservations, then ask yourself; when was the last time you truly saw a great Ladies' Singles match - one which was evenly contested and had more winners than errors. The last I go back to is Venus Williams vs Kimiko Date at SW19 this year. Which is all the more remarkable considering that it took a 31 yr old and a 40 yr old to show them how it's done. The Ladies' seedings and draws don't paint a pretty picture - players like Roberta Vinci and Julia Goerges in the top 20! And a total of 6 grand slam winners - which is a decent number no doubt, but when you have luminaries like Ana Ivanovic amongst them...you get my drift. Contrast this to 10 years ago, when the top 20 were heavyweights in a much truer sense - I get that my contrast is flawed in that a lot of the women then hadn't won anything but went on to later; but, honestly, Henin/Clijsters/the Williamses in 2001 seemed far brighter prospects than Wozniacki/Zvonareva/Petkovic today.

I'm trying to explain the apparent decline in quality in tennis, and there are a few "contenders" that come to mind. The more I think about it, the more I feel that "sexing-up" Women's tennis has been one of the worst ideas in a long time. Most of the players today are glammed-up-pretty faces, who seem more concerned about "Who're you wearing today" than their actual game. And it's not just Sharapova I'm talking about. Lets have a test, then. Tell me the first thing that pops into your head when I say...Daniela Hantuchova..."The best pair of legs in tennis"? Or, Nicole Vaidisova ...."someone who looked amazing on court - and it's not her game I'm talking about - who cares that she reached a few semis here and there"....Simona Halep? Ok, I had to get that or those out of the way.
But, though the glamming-up might make sense from a purely "selling tickets" point of view, but how can it be good for the players? I mean, what credibility do you have left when the only thing people can remember about you is some little black dress you wore on court? And if it's the "skin-show" that people pay to see, what does that say about the game and the level it is played at? I get that the game is , and has been, very error-ridden - and the winner is more often the person making the fewer errors, but, personally, the glamour doesn't take away the attention from those error, it highlights them.

Another thing which has always bothered me is the great lack of determination - both, to get to the top and also, to stay there. The careers of a lot of players today follow a very familiar trend: Get noticed early - be dubbed the "next big thing" , win a few games and a minor title on the side, rise up the rankings, lose to Serena in the semis/finals, slide down the rankings, vanish into obscurity.Waves upon waves of Russian "sensations" have threatened to blow us away but the resulting impact has been hardly more than a pebble. Which is probably why we've had some of the most undeserving world no.1s the past few years. Ana Ivanovic started it all, Wozniacki looks slightly better, but not by much - but the one that takes the cake is Dinara Safina. It takes a lot for someone to make Marat look the cooler head in the family. Whether it's a lack of determination or just simply burnout from too much exposure I don't know, but that might be why players like Li Na, Schiavone and Stosur have "peaked" so late in their careers.

One area the Women's game has always trumped the Men is where a lot of the top Singles' players were also equally proficient at doubles. This resulted in a lot more net-play, drop shots and volleys - which made the game a lot more pleasing to the eye. Of today's lot, hardly any of the top players are known for a doubles game, which makes baseline play the only way to go about things. True, the Williams sisters got the power game into Women's tennis, but Venus is terrific at the net and no one can say that Serena wins by her power alone, without having any other skill to back it up.

Which brings me back to Serena. When the Sisters came onto the scene, I hated them with a fury that I reserve only for the likes of annoying, butt-scratching Spaniards. I felt, and I'm not completely wrong here, they outmuscled rather than outplayed poor little Hingis out of the game. I felt that power over skill wasn't the way to go. Anyone who could knock them off their perches would get my support. Growing up has changed this, however. I still don't have to like them on the court, but there is a level of respect that I have for the both of them. You know Serena's right when she says "she's the rightful No.1". Serena's pushing 30, and at an age where most others retire - even on the Men's side, she's still the favourite going into most tournaments - irrespective of what the rest of the field is. She's close to a lock for the USO title, unless there's a big surprise, and might just dominate the scene for a few years more, provided she's fit.


So, looking ahead means looking at the post-Williams era. Honestly, of the current crop of players doesn't inspire much, but a man can still dream, can't he?


Changes I would suggest - 1. More emphasis on the game, and not on everything else. 2.Stop the era of the pretty princesses and get down and dirty. 3. More doubles, better for the game. 4. Better scheduling, so that there are fewer injuries, and longer careers.


So, here's to a better Women's game and a better Women's champion! I really hope I'm surprised.

Monday, 29 August 2011

Arseholes no more?

Let me get this straight. 8-2 was terrific; an entertaining, open game, with the best drubbing of the "old enemy" that I've seen till date. But, somehow, and I might be the one of the very few to admit this, but it was nowhere near satisfying as it should've been. Nowhere close to a few of the other games; the 2-0 "streak-breaker" at home or even the 2-1 at home with Hargreaves' free-kick to seal it. Even rubbing the win in the faces of the two Pool fans and a Gooner didn't make it any more satisfying. Could it be, that I had just felt that rare of emotions for a truly despised opponent; pity? Something, which while a matter of some concern to me ( after all, I HAD taken numerous oaths to myself to hate "the enemy" till the day I drop dead, and some more), but something which I'm sure no Arsenal fan would like me to express, proud as a lot of the ones I know are.


My first memories of the Gunners have almost never been good. I started watching Football with any proper interest about a decade back, and considering the Scousers' continuing domestic failures ( the 2001 "feat" is still a Mickey-Mouse treble to me, and as any self-respecting United fan, I vehemently refuse to accept that it can ever stand for anything) and the fact that Chelski and Citeh hadn't acquired their respective sugar daddies, the Premiership then was pretty much a two horse race. And what a race it was! The earliest matches I saw hadUnited and Arsenal at the peak of the rivalry - tense, heated affairs with two titanic teams throwing everything they had at each other - the kitchen sink, maybe, but Pizza - most certainly. With two headstrong gaffers waging their own intense battle, the prospect of a United - Arsenal game was a mouth-watering treat. Considering the build-up to the game being so great, the games were no less.
Which is probably why saying I hated the Arsenal would be an understatement of extreme proportions. Of course, how could you harbour any other feeling for that a**hole Martin Keown jumping all over Ruud, or Ray Parlour, or the evolutionally retarded Patrick Vieira, or anyone associated with the club for that matter (I'm sure my Gooner friends will consider these descriptions very mellow, compared to their terms of choice for talking about United players). Every match was followed with that sole intention of taking the enemy down, no matter what. Every defeat was a very bitter experience - every victory all the more pleasing. No surprise then, that the streak-breaking game, where United and Gary Neville in particular did everything short of killing Reyes n co., evokes the fondest of memories.
That's exactly why it surprised me to no end when I felt as I did. All these years, I had been waiting for the downfall of Arsenal; the moment when I could finally stand over their cowering remnants and rub it in their faces - but when the moment arrived, I was curiously underwhelmed.


Much has been said about the reasons for Arsenal's dramatic downturn of fortunes, and I wouldn't like to bore the world by parroting every single one of them. Yes, I get that Wenger, the chairmen and the players have all played their parts in mucking things up, but one thing that has struck me the most about this latest Arsenal unit is the complete lack of anything Arsenal about it.


To me, the thing which most typified the Arsenal teams of past was the continued presence of the arseholes in them. Don't get me wrong - I don't mean to be derogatory this time. What I mean is that every team over the past 25 years had men (not boys - as has been constantly used for this current crop), men who stood up when it counted, who got down and dirty, who took the tackles hard but gave them back in equal measure. Men like the no nonsense backline of Afams, Lee Dixon, Winterburn and Bould; men like Martin Keown and Ray Parlour; men like Patrick Vieira - who couldn't care less about the bookings as long as he maintained status quo on the pitch. To me, they made Arsenal the club that it was. They allowed the managers to build a team around. They allowed the flair to shine through. Not to take anything away from Messers. Bergkamp, Overmars, Henry or Pires - but their legendary antics would've been a tad less gloried had it not been for the omnipresent back-up in mid-field and defence. And, how do I even forget David Seaman - who cares bout the WC "error"? He was Arsenal's rock and anyone who can carry out saves like the one against Sheffield in the FA Cup is a legend.


The "arseholes" being strong-willed characters also meant that they were not just imposing as players, but that they produced some of the most inspirational leaders to play for the Gunners. The first word when thinking about Tony Adams, to any honest football fan, isn't alcoholic but fighter - against demons on and off the pitch. Vieira was no less of a great leader - and his clashes with Roy Keane made for some great moments. Henry was perhaps more of a "actions speak louder than words guy" but I may be wrong there. That for me has been the biggest contributor to their successes and ultimately, the lack thereof, that has contributed the most to their current problems. Honestly, there is such a lot of difference between the images of a bandaged Vieira playing on - and a hapless William Gallas crying after the B'ingam game, or for that matter Van Persie looking completely clueless versus United the other day.


Why, you might ask, do I bring myself to express this for the "rivals"? Because, honestly, through all the bickering, I realised that I respected Arsenal as a club. I respected the football they played. The "Invincible" season was a neutrals' delight and I can admit that considering last year's United team likely to emulate that was foolhardy at best. I respected Wenger and his policies, even though i don't like the man. But most of all, I'd rather have a team that has worked hard at building a footballing institution win the big titles than some oil-crazy,terrorist-funding,Qatari sheikh/Russian baron who's decked up his latest plaything with more gifts than it ever deserved and turned it's shrill fans into believing that they were always destined for greatness.


So, personally, I feel Arsenal are at the most important crossroads - the 8-2 thumping has,ultimately, proved good for the club. Atleast, it forced Wenger's hand into re-inforcing a sorry squad. (Can't imagine what would've happened had he decided to go about the season without buying). My two cents on the updated squad - there aren't any arseholes, sadly but Arteta and Mertesacker will give them much needed strengthening. More importantly, 3 of the 5 signings have been captains of their clubs/national teams - which to me is the most significant take-home point from the dealings. I read an article saying that this set of "panic-buys" completely undermined Arsene's transfer policy. Personally, I think this was what it should've been closer to all this time. Go for youth, yes, but when you know you have experienced players in the team as guides. United proved Alan Hansen wrong by "winning it with kids" - but that side also had Cantona, Bruce, Pallister, McClair and Schmeichel among others.

I know the chance of a Arsenal relegation is mouth-watering at times, esp. when I'm reminded of Keown n co., but if I'm being completely truthful, I'd rather have another United-Arsenal title tussle than some nouveau riche pretenders to the throne.

Wednesday, 3 August 2011

10 Songs : August - The Beatles Edition

So it's probably clear to anyone that's been around me this past month that I'm in the middle of my biggest wave of Beatlemania. This time, it's definitely not a passing one. For a band that will complete 50 years of the release of it's 1st single next year, some might say I'm getting into the mood far too early. Honestly, for the band that means so much to me, anytime works!

My first association with The Fab Four goes back a long time. First memories, when I was maybe 8, in the back of our first car - the Van, listening to the sweet sounds of "Love Me Do". I'm sure I'm wrong, but they're the 1st "phoren" band I remember listening to. Or, atleast, the one I'll claim is. Still, the early years were mostly restricted to a few old cassettes my Dad had taped, mostly songs from their early recordings. "She Loves You"/ "I wanna hold your hand"/"Ticket to ride". Light, upbeat, silly little love songs. I consider myself very very fortunate that musically, I had a "life" (with The Beatles, Abba and the Carpenters and even Boney M) before the "Boyband/Pop" wave hit in the late '90s and sadly, swept me along for a while.

Thankfully, it wasn't too long before I got my head out of that musical cesspool. Bryan Adams started it, Def Leppard helped and U2 finally got me out. When I came back to the Beatles, they had changed. A lot. Discovering the later albums was like discovering a whole new band. One that had shed all pretenses. One that was making music the way it always wanted to. At 14or 15, I wasn't distinctly aware of the drugs talking, but I didn't care. I had found my band. And I was going to stick to it.

This "sticking to it" consisted of following the band in various capacities, having periods of only listening to them and nothing else, moving on to "better" things, but I still kept coming back. The journey was complete when I finished my collection. With this, I got a a taste of everything, from the brilliant "Rubber Soul" to the absurd "Yellow Submarine". Everytime, I got a whole another experience. A whole new meaning to a lot of songs. Tripping with them is a highly recommended experience. You don't need drugs. Just close your eyes and let yourself go. As Messers. Lennon and McCartney write

"Turn off your mind, relax and float down stream,
It is not dying, it is not dying

Lay down all thought, surrender to the void,
Is it shining? Is it shining?"

So, here's presenting 10 songs of John, Paul, George and Ringo. They're not the most well-known. Some of them might not even figure on my "all-time" Beatles lists. But they're 10 very significant songs. Songs, which, being a Beatles fanatic, I can recite backwards. But, more importantly, songs with which I'd like the rest of you to get to know my band better.

1. While My Guitar Gently Weeps. Album : The White Album.
Live Version 1( Concert for George) :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FC1EZcrZEIs
Live version 2 - Clapton and Harrison : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezd7fRvJgtc

Easily the best Beatles song of all time, for me. Considering the fact that George was significantly overshadowed by the Lennon-McCartney express, the rare moments where he got to demonstrate his exquisite talent are all the more enjoyable. One of the most memorable guitar riffs ever to start off and then, what a solo! Having Eric Clapton playing lead guitar made such a difference! Try, then, the live version, with Clapton and Harrison taking the song to a whole new level. Also, from the LOVE album, try the "stripped down" version, with just George singing and a simple guitar accompaniment. Heavenly!
Truly the ultimate tribute to George, especially evident at the "Concert for George", with Dhani Harrison playing acoustic guitar. As Olivia put it, " With Dhani on stage, it looked like George stayed young, and we all got old"


2. Across the Universe. Album : Let it Be.

The best song from the last album, and possibly THE best written song. This isn't them on a trip. This is Lennon-McCartney showing that, when it came to writing, they could "write an entire swimming-pool".
" Words are flowing out like endless rain into a paper cup
They slither while they pass, they slip away across the universe"
The "Jai Guru De Va" line added to the chorus adds so much to the song, written at the time they were heavily influenced by TM. A brilliant song all-round.


3. Norwegian Wood (This Bird has Flown). Album : Rubber Soul.

Reporter: I'd like to direct this question to Messrs. Lennon and McCartney. In a recent article, Time magazine put down pop music. And they referred to "Day Tripper" as being about a prostitute...
Paul: Oh yeah.
Reporter: ...and "Norwegian Wood" as being about a lesbian.
Paul: Oh yeah.
Reporter: I just wanted to know what your intent was when you wrote it, and what your feeling is about the Time magazine criticism of the music that is being written today.
Paul: We were just trying to write songs about prostitutes and lesbians, that's all


4. I am the Walrus. Album : Magical Mystery Tour.

This is, truly, tripping with the Beatles. Written when Lennon was on one of his acid trips, the fact that it's the drugs talking makes for a weird and wonderful song. Crazy lyrics, a great melody and an instantly recognizable line "Goo-goo-g-joob". Don't try to decipher the lyrics - you can't.


5. Dear Prudence. Album : The White Album.

This one, another from the White Album, again emphasizes the importance of the melody. The story goes that John Lennon wrote it for Prudence Farrow, Mia's sister, to get her "out of her shell" after she became a recluse - in the whole TM/Maharshi/drugs era. It's very simple and very beautiful lyrically.


6. Hey Bulldog. Album: Yellow Submarine soundtrack.

One of the lesser known tracks by the band, but supreme all the same. To me, it signifies everything the Beatles were about. A killer bass line by Paul to start, a nice Harrison solo, brilliant vocals by Lennon and utter chaos at the end, when Paul and John just let go. Barking, howling and maniacal laughter. Yeah!!!


7. A Day in the Life. Album : Sgt.Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.

The best song from "The best album of all time". An epic, influential piece. Lennon and McCartney wrote different parts of the song. The part about the accident was supposedly inspired by the death of a friend of John's. Paul provided the verses in the middle. Brilliant lyrics, a great melody as always and as Wiki puts it "the greatest/most famous final chord in music history"


8. We Can Work it Out. Single.

This one's another of my personal favourites. And I like this version a lot more than Stevie Wonder's cover. It reflects the dynamism in the song-writing and some of the group's internal struggles with a great contrast of Paul's optimism and realism with Lennon's dreams and philosophy. With "Day Tripper" this makes for a fantastic record.


9. Blackbird. Album : The White Album.

This one's a gem. Disguised as a soft, unassuming folk song, it becomes so much more. Lennon felt it reflected the African American struggle in the southern states. To me, it represents any struggle, to try and reach what you've always yearned for, and worked for. "You were only waiting for this moment to arise. Blackbird, fly!"


10. Penny Lane. Album : Magical Mystery Tour.

Another track from one of my favourite Beatles albums, this is a brilliant melody. No hidden, deep meanings here. Just a simple song. Always makes me smile. More so because "Penny Lane" is also Kate Hudson's eternal groupie in "Almost Famous".


There you have it. 10 songs from the greatest band of all time. Till next month, then...