Wednesday, January 23, 2008

The anti-Slam

This is funny. I especially like the idea of someone “successfully defending an anti-Grand Slam”. Maybe, just maybe, it'll be Federer one day (like in the year 2018).


  1. The whole anti-slam thing is certainly hilarious , however for me this year's Anti-Slam is Nadal being beaten by Tsonga or songa whatever his name is. This only makes you appreciate the level at which Federer is playing. I marvel at the man , not even the Australian cricket team comes close to this consistency.

    Anyway , I am extremely happy that the boorish pack of 'Wild Dogs' as mentioned by 'Peter Roebuck' was beaten in its own fortess by India. If rampant 'cheating' had not ensued in Sydney who knows India might just have toppled the 'Tamerlane ' of cricket from its lofty perch. Ricky ponting increasingly sounds like a bloodthirsty steepe warlord like 'Genghis Khan and Tamerlane , who have no respect for their opponents and believe in overall massacre of sporting values than being proper sportsmen. Contrast these boors with Federer and the point comes across.

  2. Contrast these boors with Federer and the point comes across.

    Shwet: true, true, though it's worth noting that Federer was quite a racket-smashing, cussing prima donna in his early days (it's only after becoming an Android that he's been so immaculately well-behaved).

    Btw, you might consider comparing the Australian team's behaviour with the foolish, vulgar jingoism of the average Indian "cricket fan" - whether on Rediff message boards or on the streets burning effigies - or that idiot Sidhu talking about taking off Bucknor's chaddies on NDTV (Undie TV?). Or Gavaskar shrilly appealing to the basest emotions of the mass audience by suggesting that the umpires should have accepted Tendulkar's word simply because he's the greatest cricketer of all time. Compared to all those characters, Ricky and his men are like Victorian-era gentility.

    And before you say it, no, this isn't a fanboy defence of the Australian team - my allegiance to them began dissolving after Steve Waugh retired and pretty much ended after Warnie left. But the general reaction in India to the events in Sydney sum up my disillusionment with cricket. The only thing that can make me get up to watch it at 5.30 AM now is Tendliya being 124 not out overnight.

  3. Also, how is Tsonga beating Nadal an anti-Slam? Tsonga has been playing superbly throughout this tournament - he's also taken out Murray, Gasquet and Youzhny, at least two of whom are more natural hard-court players than Nadal is. (Admittedly, all that might count for little if he has to face Federer in the final.)

  4. Ok Man! I am not defending 'Sidhu ' or even that stupid anchor Sonali Chander who believes in 'chewing' her words before speaking. NDTV is the more balanced among the many news channels , how Sidhu survives is beyond my understanding. However to be fair to NDTV 'Ajay Jadeja' is surprisingly balanced and more insightful than I would have imagined. I am happy that now you do not revere the aussies like you used to. About Federer , I have not really seen him playing before 2003 ,so I accept your point.

    Also my fascination for the Aussies ended with Steve Waugh as well. Now it pleases me no end when they are beaten by anybody.

  5. Ya, I don't find team sports too exciting as a rule and my support of cricket teams has always been driven by my loyalty to individual players. With Australia, it was first Mark Taylor and Michael Slater, later Steve Waugh and Warne (and Gilchrist to a lesser extent). With India, it was Tendulkar one else. Maybe Kumble. So you can see why the cricket-enthusiasm nearly ended in the past couple of years, though it'll be revived for a bit if Sachin really has found a second wind at the end of his career.