I had heard a lot about mtv roadies. The thing I used to hear the most was about who was voted out and the conspiracies that were hatched behind the back of others to vote the person out. It had become a ritual among my friends to discuss about it. Not having seen any episode or promo, I didn't know exactly what was it all about. My curiosity grew to no bounds and one day I decided that I had to see what all the stuff was. So as usual I sat down and got the episodes from the ever-reliable dc++ (this is the best thing that computer science has given the world and you guys should really believe me because I am a studying CSE at IIT Madras)
So on Sunday, I started watching the auditions that were held to select the roadies. The forms are filled, there are GDs (group discussion for the uninitiated) and based on the performance in these two, about 10-15 candidates are selected for PI (personal interviews). These auditions are held at 5-6 major cities across India (Bombay, Delhi, Chandigarh, Calcutta, Jaipur, ...). And the PIs are awesome. I tell you, the guys Raghu Ram and Nikhil Chinnappa are gods. They are masterminds and though they may not have a degree in psychology, they are the best psychologists I have seen. They can read and discover so much about you, just from a few sentences that you write on the form, that even you may not have known about yourself. And the way they conduct the interviews, man just great. Raghu acts as a terror and Nikhil as the calming factor most of the times, rarely do they switch places. They can tell you whether you are confident or under-confident or over-confident. They can show it to you and prove it to you. And I find that great. In just 5 minutes, you find your world turning on its head. All your theories about yourself go haywire and if you are clever enough you can learn a lot about yourself from them. I should say that when their work in the glam world is over, they should switch over to being psychiatrist, if not for themselves, atleast for the rest of the world. Hats off to both of you. I was speechless after seeing your interview sessions. Okay there were some which I didn't like at all, but majority of them - just amazing. Sometimes I feel its damn dangerous to sit in front of them for the fear that they may learn so much about the person and his thoughts that he will never be able to do anything after it.
To talk about the PI... They basically look for people who are truthful, strong, passionate, never-say die attitude... all the basic qualities of a roadie. They look for passion in the contestant's eyes and body language. They try to bring you out of your comfort spot and blast a series of question you would not like to answer ever. One of the simple questions is - what do you want to do in your life? What do you want to become in life? And nearly every damn guy answers - I want to become a very big person. The next question comes - and how do you think you are going to do that? The answer comes - dunno. Just very true of nearly 95% of the people I know. Raghu aptly put it on the show - saab aayenge aur bolenge banna hai, banna hai, banna hai... kya banna hai? pata nahi... karna hai, karna hai, karna hai... kya karna hai? socha nahi, time nahi hai... This statement is so powerful. And you should see the interviews to really understand them. They are, I would say performing a service to people here. Keep going both of you. Rannvijay, the host is the perfect foil. He is very calm and understanding. He knows when to say, ask what and how. Without him, the show would be incomplete. Its all the three of them who make this show a great success.
The 13 roadies who are selected have to travel to various places on bikes and they stay together. Every vote-out day one of them is voted-out by the rest (guy with majority vote-out votes leaves the show). They have tasks to perform and they are classified as money task or immunity task. A money task is one in which they win money to a roadie account and in the end that money goes to the person who survives till the end. The maximum the winning roadie can win is 5 lakh. Immunity tasks help you to get immunity to vote-outs. If you win the immunity task, you cannot be voted-out on the next vote-out. The game is nicely designed and it being a reality game adds more color to it.
Now the two major things that go on in the game show are - tasks and politics. Tasks help in winning money and immunity and politics helps in staying in the game and not being voted-out. The life is awesome and the people stay in 3-5 star hotels most of the time, they camp rarely. The part that is talked about the most is the politics and the back-stabbing and all, but the real reason this show was started was for the tasks. People get so blown away by the politics, that they forget that its the tasks that make the show or rather should make the show. The TRP of the show should have been tasks but with all the politics and all, they cease to be so. And the team that prepares the tasks must be a great bunch of minds, because I should say the tasks are just awesome. And they always continue to surprise me with newer tasks and the direction, the safety precautions, the hardwork they put into it. The team just doesn't prepare the tasks, but they themselves perform them to discover if the tasks are achievable. They experiment with it and then come to the conclusion as to what the complications of the task would be. And that is every bit as exciting as it sounds. And to see some of the roadies come here and just pass it as timepass pisses me off. I can't even bear to imagine what would the team feel when they would see the so-called roadies fail time and again even to put a decent effort. I feel that the roadies should care more about the tasks than about the link-ups and back-stabbings. One could say that they are just trying to survive in the conditions, but I feel that if one can do all that verbal talk to survive, one should back it up with substance and output.
I felt like talking about it after I finished roadies 5.0 finale. That one was the one which showed who a true roadie was. I want to comment on the injustice that I saw. It was awful. The finalists did nothing in the tasks, just played politics and here they were winning it. Just a shame. And Raghu was so pissed off with them. He came on the screen and blasted them off. I would say he underdid it. He should have disqualified them or done something to save the show. But alas he couldn't. His comment that I couldn't care less as to who among the two of you won was so correct that I wanted to double his salary. According to me the true roadies were Varun and Vikrant who did every thing for the spirit of the game. The 2 f**king bastards didn't even have a quarter of the spirit and passion that those guys had. Also the others like Simran and Aayaz who always gave their best. It is those who are the true roadies. I feel for them. The 2 finalists didn't have the balls to do anything. The show is great but these 2 have been the biggest disappointments. One of them got injured and did nothing in the task while on the other hand Aayaz with a scary accident was always in the tasks (and the accident itself was this one guys fault). The other was so shameless that he would come back from any task with a grin on his face even after not doing a percent of it. I am not naming them as putting their names would be a disgrace to me. I am so angry at present that even an agitated Raghu would feel like a sissy in front of me. I should say all the crews hard work went in vain. I just hope the 6th season churns all 13 good roadies. The 4.0 season was good. It was smooth and all the tasks had a group of worthy roadies to perform them. And for me, all of the mtv roadies in 4 days was so great, just amazing.
I would like to say that the show is great, the team (crew) is great, its just that the contestants who need to realize that show is about roadies and tasks and passion and giving your best. If you can do that, you have that, only then you should go for being one and not try to sit there and stir up conspiracies and spoil the spirit of the roadies.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Monday, July 7, 2008
God of Big Things
"The higher you soar the smaller you appear to those who cannot fly." - Friedrich Nietzsche
THE man called Joker was right. Pete Sampras is history. Greg Rusedski was right. Pete Sampras is done. The Canadian-born Briton was right. Pete Sampras is slow. Rusedski was on the mark. Pete Sampras is old, a father to be soon.
He was, after all, giving voice to a belief that he shared with a lot of other players on the tour, an opinion that many a critic has brought to print, has aired on television.
They were all right. As a Grand Slam champion, Pete Sampras is history.
Is this the same Pete Sampras who, last fortnight, at age 31 and in front of a passionate crowd at the National Tennis Center in New York beat one of the all-time greats of the game - Andre Agassi - in the US Open final and then climbed into the stands to share an intimate moment with his heavily pregnant wife Bridgette Wilson Sampras?
Of course, it is. Yet, Greg Rusedski and all the others who swore that such an event would never happen again in Sampras's career were all right.
They were right because they said what seemed logical from their point of view. They were right because, they judged within the ambit of their own knowledge and experience. They were right because, given their limitations, they could not have said anything different.
That the Rusedski point of view is pedestrian is besides the point. That he - and all the others who sought to write off the greatest tennis player that ever lived - knows nothing about surpassing genius is hardly relevant.
What is relevant is this: it takes a touch of greatness to peek into the soul of the sort of greatness symbolised by Sampras and see it for what it is, see it for what it is capable of, see it for its timeless quality and transcendental brilliance. Average men with average thought patterns like Rusedski's will never enjoy that privilege.
Then again, to hell with Rusdeski and his ilk. We are not here to bury them. We are here to praise one of the greatest athletes in the history of sport, to celebrate one of the greatest moments of his remarkable career, to marvel at a revival that is nothing short of the epic.
Who would have believed this was possible? Who - other than the great man himself - would have thought that an ageing legend who had lost to George No Name (Bastl) in the second round at Wimbledon last June and then sat slumped in his chair staring at the turf for a long, long time would win a fifth U.S.Open title 12 years after his first as a 19-year-old?
During the fourth and fifth sets of that match, Sampras pulled out a note written by his wife to inspire him and read it again and again. "My husband, 7 time Wimbledon champion Pete Sampras," began the note. It was a touching moment but it failed to save Sampras ignominy on that day.
Long years spent in the trenches of sportswriting provide a person with an armour of impassivity. While you readily describe an event with passion and hold a mirror to the emotions played out on a sports field, you seldom let the events shake you up. You feel, yet you don't feel. You are moved, yet you are not moved.
In my career, that afternoon at Wimbledon was an exception. I simply could not believe something like that could have happened to Sampras, that the lord and master of lawn tennis could be so humbled by a man who made the main draw as a lucky loser after being eliminated in the qualifying rounds. Later that evening, in the press mini bus that drove us back to Central London, an Italian journalist said to me: "I guess this is it. Pete will never come back here again. It's all over."
I flashed a wan smile and said to myself, "Maybe he is right." Yet, as the hauntingly poignant image of the great man sitting, shoulders slumped, on the No.2 court played itself out again and again in my mind, I was hoping against all hope that the great man would somehow author a miracle.
But, then, truth to tell, for all the elements of the unexpected contained in the dramatic events of the second week at Flushing Meadows, Grand Slam title No.14 for Pete Sampras was no miracle. It was just that the great man finally overcame the biggest slump of his career, and did so against all odds.
It would have been a miracle if a lesser man had done what Sampras did, go without a single title for more than two years and then beat players of the calibre of Tommy Haas, Andy Roddick and Andre Agassi to win the U.S.Open.
But Sampras needs no miracles to win. He just needs about 80 per cent of his game. Yes, 80 per cent. Not even 100 per cent.
Having watched him from the time he beat a resurgent John McEnroe in the semifinals and then Andre Agassi in the final to win his first Grand Slam title in New York in 1990, having watched him win seven Wimbledon titles and two Australian Open titles, one can say this much with conviction: Sampras at 80 per cent will beat Andre Agassi at 100 per cent in five sets on a fast court. And he only needs to be at 70 per cent to beat any of the other active players in the game!
And what happens when Sampras plays at 100 per cent? As Agassi, his greatest rival, said after losing the 1999 Wimbledon final in straight sets, Pete walks on water.
A majority of tennis critics and a vast majority of fans have a natural tendency to favour matches of intense drama. Five set epics stay in the mind longer. The Bjorn Borg-John McEnroe classic of 1980 at Wimbledon, the Goran Ivanisevic-Pat Rafter thriller last year... these are the kind of matches that appeal to many.
But, in my mind, there is no greater match than the one in which Sampras outclassed an inspired Agassi in the 1999 Wimbledon final. From the time he was challenged on serve (down 0-40) midway in the first set to the time that he eased on the pedal just that bit late in the third set, Sampras put on an exhibition of tennis that would have been impossible even to dream of, if it had not actually been enacted in front of our eyes.
As the great man probed the very limits of athletic and artistic excellence, you sat in awe, often pinching yourself, and still wondering if it was a dream from which you'd soon wake up.
"Can anyone really play tennis like this" asked a French tennis writer, eyes wide, in the press box.
Well, Pete Sampras can. Pete Sampras did. And it was precisely because of that it was hard to digest the events of the last two seasons when the great man huffed and puffed to defeats against mere mortals.
Looking back, for a couple of years, Sampras has had a problem. After winning a record 13 Grand Slam titles, after winning a record seven Wimbledon titles, after finishing No.1 for a record six years, there was no new peak to scale, no one to beat, nothing to prove, no challenge to meet.
What does a mountaineer do after conquering the Everest? Everything else begins to look meaningless, pedestrian, unworthy of great effort.
And what does a tennis champion do after becoming the winningest Grand Slam champion of all time, after spending more weeks at No.1 than anyone else in history, after having dominated the spiritual home of tennis - Wimbledon - like no other player?
Maybe simply ease his foot off the pedal, find the woman of his dreams to marry, chill out a bit and soak up life outside the cauldron of tennis.
Sampras did just that. But, then, not much later, he wasn't the Sampras we knew anymore on a tennis court. Tom Who, Dick What and Harry Who's That started stepping on the court believing they can beat the great man. And many of them did too as Sampras went without a title in 33 tournaments over 26 months.
In Grand Slam after Grand Slam, as he said that he still felt he had another major or two left in him - after losing to lesser men - few were willing to believe him. It looked like the great man was chasing rainbows.
But like Muhammad Ali in another era, through all the traumatic events in the twilight of his career, Sampras continued to believe in himself, sure in his mind that he can recreate the magic of the past at least one more time.
After making the quarterfinals in New York, beating Haas, Sampras was asked for his reaction to Rusedski's comments following their third round match. And the great man said, "The things which Greg says don't faze me. I know what I can do out there. I don't have to prove people wrong. That's not why I am playing. I am playing to challenge myself and see if I can do it again."
That, dear readers, is the one true sign of surpassing greatness - how successfully you can challenge yourself when all other challenges have been met and mastered.
Ernest Hemingway trying to write a book that is even better than The Old Man and the Sea, the painter Vincent Van Gogh trying to come up with a work of art that can surpass the Sunflowers... the self-surpassing process is the ultimate yardstick of greatness.
This is a business that is bloody tough for an athlete with a limited shelf life. For, by the time you have begun to challenge yourself - after having overcome every other challenge - your legs are weary, your motivation runs low and the sportsman's biggest enemy, Time, is ready to take its pound of flesh, so to say.
Then, suddenly, you are back in the trenches again, as Sampras was. In the strange business of life, just when you think you have nothing to prove, it turns out there is everything to prove, to yourself more than others.
And, at New York on that Sunday, the greatest tennis player that ever lived did prove a point - to himself. He proved that he can challenge himself and come out on top. Surely, it was his greatest victory. For, on that day, Pete Sampras beat Pete Sampras. And, to Pete Sampras now, that is the only player worth challenging, and beating !
THE man called Joker was right. Pete Sampras is history. Greg Rusedski was right. Pete Sampras is done. The Canadian-born Briton was right. Pete Sampras is slow. Rusedski was on the mark. Pete Sampras is old, a father to be soon.
He was, after all, giving voice to a belief that he shared with a lot of other players on the tour, an opinion that many a critic has brought to print, has aired on television.
They were all right. As a Grand Slam champion, Pete Sampras is history.
Is this the same Pete Sampras who, last fortnight, at age 31 and in front of a passionate crowd at the National Tennis Center in New York beat one of the all-time greats of the game - Andre Agassi - in the US Open final and then climbed into the stands to share an intimate moment with his heavily pregnant wife Bridgette Wilson Sampras?
Of course, it is. Yet, Greg Rusedski and all the others who swore that such an event would never happen again in Sampras's career were all right.
They were right because they said what seemed logical from their point of view. They were right because, they judged within the ambit of their own knowledge and experience. They were right because, given their limitations, they could not have said anything different.
That the Rusedski point of view is pedestrian is besides the point. That he - and all the others who sought to write off the greatest tennis player that ever lived - knows nothing about surpassing genius is hardly relevant.
What is relevant is this: it takes a touch of greatness to peek into the soul of the sort of greatness symbolised by Sampras and see it for what it is, see it for what it is capable of, see it for its timeless quality and transcendental brilliance. Average men with average thought patterns like Rusedski's will never enjoy that privilege.
Then again, to hell with Rusdeski and his ilk. We are not here to bury them. We are here to praise one of the greatest athletes in the history of sport, to celebrate one of the greatest moments of his remarkable career, to marvel at a revival that is nothing short of the epic.
Who would have believed this was possible? Who - other than the great man himself - would have thought that an ageing legend who had lost to George No Name (Bastl) in the second round at Wimbledon last June and then sat slumped in his chair staring at the turf for a long, long time would win a fifth U.S.Open title 12 years after his first as a 19-year-old?
During the fourth and fifth sets of that match, Sampras pulled out a note written by his wife to inspire him and read it again and again. "My husband, 7 time Wimbledon champion Pete Sampras," began the note. It was a touching moment but it failed to save Sampras ignominy on that day.
Long years spent in the trenches of sportswriting provide a person with an armour of impassivity. While you readily describe an event with passion and hold a mirror to the emotions played out on a sports field, you seldom let the events shake you up. You feel, yet you don't feel. You are moved, yet you are not moved.
In my career, that afternoon at Wimbledon was an exception. I simply could not believe something like that could have happened to Sampras, that the lord and master of lawn tennis could be so humbled by a man who made the main draw as a lucky loser after being eliminated in the qualifying rounds. Later that evening, in the press mini bus that drove us back to Central London, an Italian journalist said to me: "I guess this is it. Pete will never come back here again. It's all over."
I flashed a wan smile and said to myself, "Maybe he is right." Yet, as the hauntingly poignant image of the great man sitting, shoulders slumped, on the No.2 court played itself out again and again in my mind, I was hoping against all hope that the great man would somehow author a miracle.
But, then, truth to tell, for all the elements of the unexpected contained in the dramatic events of the second week at Flushing Meadows, Grand Slam title No.14 for Pete Sampras was no miracle. It was just that the great man finally overcame the biggest slump of his career, and did so against all odds.
It would have been a miracle if a lesser man had done what Sampras did, go without a single title for more than two years and then beat players of the calibre of Tommy Haas, Andy Roddick and Andre Agassi to win the U.S.Open.
But Sampras needs no miracles to win. He just needs about 80 per cent of his game. Yes, 80 per cent. Not even 100 per cent.
Having watched him from the time he beat a resurgent John McEnroe in the semifinals and then Andre Agassi in the final to win his first Grand Slam title in New York in 1990, having watched him win seven Wimbledon titles and two Australian Open titles, one can say this much with conviction: Sampras at 80 per cent will beat Andre Agassi at 100 per cent in five sets on a fast court. And he only needs to be at 70 per cent to beat any of the other active players in the game!
And what happens when Sampras plays at 100 per cent? As Agassi, his greatest rival, said after losing the 1999 Wimbledon final in straight sets, Pete walks on water.
A majority of tennis critics and a vast majority of fans have a natural tendency to favour matches of intense drama. Five set epics stay in the mind longer. The Bjorn Borg-John McEnroe classic of 1980 at Wimbledon, the Goran Ivanisevic-Pat Rafter thriller last year... these are the kind of matches that appeal to many.
But, in my mind, there is no greater match than the one in which Sampras outclassed an inspired Agassi in the 1999 Wimbledon final. From the time he was challenged on serve (down 0-40) midway in the first set to the time that he eased on the pedal just that bit late in the third set, Sampras put on an exhibition of tennis that would have been impossible even to dream of, if it had not actually been enacted in front of our eyes.
As the great man probed the very limits of athletic and artistic excellence, you sat in awe, often pinching yourself, and still wondering if it was a dream from which you'd soon wake up.
"Can anyone really play tennis like this" asked a French tennis writer, eyes wide, in the press box.
Well, Pete Sampras can. Pete Sampras did. And it was precisely because of that it was hard to digest the events of the last two seasons when the great man huffed and puffed to defeats against mere mortals.
Looking back, for a couple of years, Sampras has had a problem. After winning a record 13 Grand Slam titles, after winning a record seven Wimbledon titles, after finishing No.1 for a record six years, there was no new peak to scale, no one to beat, nothing to prove, no challenge to meet.
What does a mountaineer do after conquering the Everest? Everything else begins to look meaningless, pedestrian, unworthy of great effort.
And what does a tennis champion do after becoming the winningest Grand Slam champion of all time, after spending more weeks at No.1 than anyone else in history, after having dominated the spiritual home of tennis - Wimbledon - like no other player?
Maybe simply ease his foot off the pedal, find the woman of his dreams to marry, chill out a bit and soak up life outside the cauldron of tennis.
Sampras did just that. But, then, not much later, he wasn't the Sampras we knew anymore on a tennis court. Tom Who, Dick What and Harry Who's That started stepping on the court believing they can beat the great man. And many of them did too as Sampras went without a title in 33 tournaments over 26 months.
In Grand Slam after Grand Slam, as he said that he still felt he had another major or two left in him - after losing to lesser men - few were willing to believe him. It looked like the great man was chasing rainbows.
But like Muhammad Ali in another era, through all the traumatic events in the twilight of his career, Sampras continued to believe in himself, sure in his mind that he can recreate the magic of the past at least one more time.
After making the quarterfinals in New York, beating Haas, Sampras was asked for his reaction to Rusedski's comments following their third round match. And the great man said, "The things which Greg says don't faze me. I know what I can do out there. I don't have to prove people wrong. That's not why I am playing. I am playing to challenge myself and see if I can do it again."
That, dear readers, is the one true sign of surpassing greatness - how successfully you can challenge yourself when all other challenges have been met and mastered.
Ernest Hemingway trying to write a book that is even better than The Old Man and the Sea, the painter Vincent Van Gogh trying to come up with a work of art that can surpass the Sunflowers... the self-surpassing process is the ultimate yardstick of greatness.
This is a business that is bloody tough for an athlete with a limited shelf life. For, by the time you have begun to challenge yourself - after having overcome every other challenge - your legs are weary, your motivation runs low and the sportsman's biggest enemy, Time, is ready to take its pound of flesh, so to say.
Then, suddenly, you are back in the trenches again, as Sampras was. In the strange business of life, just when you think you have nothing to prove, it turns out there is everything to prove, to yourself more than others.
And, at New York on that Sunday, the greatest tennis player that ever lived did prove a point - to himself. He proved that he can challenge himself and come out on top. Surely, it was his greatest victory. For, on that day, Pete Sampras beat Pete Sampras. And, to Pete Sampras now, that is the only player worth challenging, and beating !
Trashing Tendulkar isn't cricket
Many sportslovers have lost the capacity to look at the larger picture and understand events in a historical perspective, writes Nirmal Shekar
MANY a connoisseur of cricket may have come to believe, on Sunday, that the unthinkable has happened when Sachin Tendulkar was booed all the way back to the pavilion at the Wankhede Stadium in Mumbai by sections of the crowd. But, in truth, it was unimaginable only because we may have failed to scratch the surface of our fast-evolving cricketing culture, only because we have probably failed to see the fast-emerging darkness in the very soul of a once-great culture, which is dumbing down rather alarmingly.
Trashing Tendulkar for an uncharacteristic failure is much like attempting to dismantle the Taj because one of its walls has developed a minor crack over time. It is simply not done. And the shocking incident in Mumbai says more about where we — as a nation of cricket-obsessed people — are headed than about Tendulkar's own travails in the twilight of an unmatched career.
In the fullness of time, we will know whether the great man's nightmare-run with the bat is a temporary slump in form or, perhaps, the beginning of a much more serious career crisis. But, right now, this issue is less relevant than the fact that people who may have never had the good fortune to let their spirits soar to exalted levels with each Tendulkar symphony chose to greet his first innings departure with catcalls and booes to leave a scar on the not-so-pretty face of the game in India.
If the poignancy of that dark moment on Sunday afternoon went way beyond sport, then it was also a quick reminder that as sportslovers quite a few of us have now become ``here and now'' people in the worst possible connotation that term can take on.
For, if the ones that booed the little maestro had had the good sense to look beyond the man's momentary struggles at the crease to the grand monument he has left behind, his dismissal might have brought a sort of heaviness to their hearts and tied up their tongues in sheer disbelief.
Then again, for many sportslovers, that is precisely the problem today — they have lost the capacity to appreciate history, to look at the larger picture, to go beyond the most recent stimuli and understand events in a historical perspective.
Worshippers of instant celebrity
Many of us, thanks to the influences of the age in which we live, have become worshippers of instant celebrity. The non-stop dross coming at us from all directions has forced us to wilfully conclude that today's success is the greatest success ever achieved, that today's seat-edge thriller is the greatest game ever played, that today's superstar is the greatest megastar of all times.
When our sporting culture has suffered this sort of corruption, when its essential core has been eroded by these giant new waves, it is hardly surprising that a great icon such as Tendulkar should himself become a victim in his own backyard.
The point is, Tendulkar never promised any of us a masterly century in every innings that he might get to play. We were the ones who set that impossible goal for the little man. That he has failed to meet that unrealistic goal is no sheen off his greatness; it merely throws light on our own foolishness.
At no point in his remarkable career did Tendulkar tell us that he was immortal; we turned him into a sort of superhuman phenomenon — where none exists in the known world — because we were perhaps ashamed of our own all too human limitations and wanted someone not-quite-like-us to look up to.
Never in the last 16 years that he has been dominating our sporting consciousness has Tendulkar ever hinted that he was invincible; we turned him into an invincible champion because we felt the need to bolster our own sense of everyday reality with something supernatural.
Harsh reality
The harsh reality of the capricious business of sport is this: every champion that has ever drawn breath, every champion as yet unborn, can be sure of one thing — some day, he will fail. The world of sport is yet to toast a truly invincible athlete.
But, then, in dealing with Tendulkar's failure — or any issue of this sort — it is very easy to find the answer we want; much, much more difficult to find the answer that matches the truth.
Of course, as passionate followers of the game, we are entitled to our own opinions. If some of us believe that the great man may not deserve a place in the team if he continues to fail, that's fair enough. Nobody owns a place in the Indian cricket team — not even Tendulkar.
But what is not fair — and will never be — is to stoop down to the sort of mindless pettiness that triggered the Mumbai booing on Sunday.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Final drama provides special ending
It will be called the greatest final ever. It was certainly the longest at 4 hours 48 minutes, and that is without the two rain delays.
On occasions, Nadal and Federer could only shake their heads and marvel at the quality of their opponent's shots. They were spectators, like the rest of us, to a masterclass in tennis. On other occasions, shots that would have beaten any other player were returned as winners.
Not only was the tennis of the highest quality, it was of the nerve-wracking variety as well: Federer went down two sets to love, he saved two Championship points, Nadal lost two tie-breakers, the fifth set was still going as it was getting darker, the players were tired. It was all too much.
When the dust settled, Nadal was the new champion, 6-4, 6-4, 6-7 (5-7), 6-7 (8-10), 9-7, and no one who saw this unforgettable match could say he didn’t deserve it.
All the talk had been about Federer breaking Bjorn Borg's record of five consecutive Wimbledon titles, it was the second seed who upstaged Borg, by becoming the first player to win back-to-back at the French Open and Wimbledon.
Yet it is to the men's singles final that we must return, and a final comment from the two protagonists. "In tennis, unfortunately there has to be winners and losers, there’s no draws," Federer said. "But I really had to push hard to come back. And I wasn't able to break him in the last three sets, but still I pushed him right to the edge. It's probably my hardest loss, by far. I mean, it's not much harder than this right now."
"I just say, 'Good tournament. Sorry'," is how Nadal relayed his thoughts to Federer after the match. "Because I know how tough is lose a final like this. This is tougher than last year, and last year I was very disappointing in the end. So he is a great champion, no? His attitude always is positive when he lose, when he win. Always accept the victories and the losses with the same humble for him."
On occasions, Nadal and Federer could only shake their heads and marvel at the quality of their opponent's shots. They were spectators, like the rest of us, to a masterclass in tennis. On other occasions, shots that would have beaten any other player were returned as winners.
Not only was the tennis of the highest quality, it was of the nerve-wracking variety as well: Federer went down two sets to love, he saved two Championship points, Nadal lost two tie-breakers, the fifth set was still going as it was getting darker, the players were tired. It was all too much.
When the dust settled, Nadal was the new champion, 6-4, 6-4, 6-7 (5-7), 6-7 (8-10), 9-7, and no one who saw this unforgettable match could say he didn’t deserve it.
All the talk had been about Federer breaking Bjorn Borg's record of five consecutive Wimbledon titles, it was the second seed who upstaged Borg, by becoming the first player to win back-to-back at the French Open and Wimbledon.
Wimbledon has a new king. Rafael Nadal dethroned Roger Federer after a five-year reign by winning the longest-ever Wimbledon men's final.
The consistently heartstopping 6-4, 6-4, 6-7 (5-7), 6-7 (8-10), 9-7 classic began at 2.35pm and thanks to a couple of breaks for rain (surely necessary for the spectators to catch their breath), it ended at 9.15pm with the 22-year-old from Mallorca dropping to the ground with his arms outstretched in celebration.
Watching the four hours and 48 minutes on-court action, from the vantage point of the royal box, was Centre Court legend Bjorn Borg. Nadal had matched the Swede's fantastic feat of winning the Grand Slams of Roland Garros and Wimbledon back-to-back and had also prevented Federer surpassing the five titles in a row he collected between 1976 and 1980.
Conditions for the latest duel between tennis's two finest players could not have been more demanding. The rain, which delayed the start for 27 minutes, eventually cleared but the chill, gusting wind which accompanied it persisted throughout the match, blowing winning shots off course and making life even more difficult for the two competitors. That they coped so well spoke volumes for their skill and adaptability.
With the five-time champion looking less than his authoritative best, it was Nadal who struck the first heavy blow, capitalising on successive Federer errors to break for a 2-1 lead.
From the start Nadal concentrated his battering-ram attack on the Federer backhand, aiming every serve and looping forehand in that direction and it kept the champion in an unaccustomed position - on the back foot. Federer prospered more when he switched to net-rushing but he could not block Nadal's inexorable advance towards the first set.
The Spaniard managed to fight off a break point to stay 3-1 ahead and he needed to avert two more as he served for the set, which he clinched on his third set point after 48 minutes, courtesy of another brace of ground stroke errors from Federer.
It was the first set Federer had dropped since the final of the French Open, when he was routed by the same Nadal.
Federer's counter-attack was immediate and it rushed him into a three-game lead which he extended to an apparently commanding 4-1 with his sixth and seventh aces, only for the irrepressible Nadal to bounce back with some thrilling, all-action stuff.
To Federer's visible anger, his serve was broken as a stretched volley flew out of play and Nadal pulled level at 4-4 as Federer squandered yet another break point.
Now Nadal was in full, thrilling flow, breaking Federer again to lead 5-4 with another huge forehand and celebrating with pumped fists. As he was serving for the second set, Nadal received a warning from umpire Pascal Maria of France for taking too long between serves.
Clearly unsettled by the timing of that censure, the Spaniard permitted Federer another break point on a wind-caused error, but in typical fashion dug deep and clinched the set when Federer once more mistimed a backhand into the netting. So, having swept five games, Nadal was in the driving set, two sets ahead.
Nadal's authority suffered a scare in the third game of the third set when he slipped in making a sudden change of direction and called in the trainer to check on his right knee. No time-out was requested by Nadal, though his speed around court appeared to be affected for a while.
Conditions for the latest duel between tennis's two finest players could not have been more demanding. The rain, which delayed the start for 27 minutes, eventually cleared but the chill, gusting wind which accompanied it persisted throughout the match, blowing winning shots off course and making life even more difficult for the two competitors. That they coped so well spoke volumes for their skill and adaptability.
With the five-time champion looking less than his authoritative best, it was Nadal who struck the first heavy blow, capitalising on successive Federer errors to break for a 2-1 lead.
From the start Nadal concentrated his battering-ram attack on the Federer backhand, aiming every serve and looping forehand in that direction and it kept the champion in an unaccustomed position - on the back foot. Federer prospered more when he switched to net-rushing but he could not block Nadal's inexorable advance towards the first set.
The Spaniard managed to fight off a break point to stay 3-1 ahead and he needed to avert two more as he served for the set, which he clinched on his third set point after 48 minutes, courtesy of another brace of ground stroke errors from Federer.
It was the first set Federer had dropped since the final of the French Open, when he was routed by the same Nadal.
Federer's counter-attack was immediate and it rushed him into a three-game lead which he extended to an apparently commanding 4-1 with his sixth and seventh aces, only for the irrepressible Nadal to bounce back with some thrilling, all-action stuff.
To Federer's visible anger, his serve was broken as a stretched volley flew out of play and Nadal pulled level at 4-4 as Federer squandered yet another break point.
Now Nadal was in full, thrilling flow, breaking Federer again to lead 5-4 with another huge forehand and celebrating with pumped fists. As he was serving for the second set, Nadal received a warning from umpire Pascal Maria of France for taking too long between serves.
Clearly unsettled by the timing of that censure, the Spaniard permitted Federer another break point on a wind-caused error, but in typical fashion dug deep and clinched the set when Federer once more mistimed a backhand into the netting. So, having swept five games, Nadal was in the driving set, two sets ahead.
Nadal's authority suffered a scare in the third game of the third set when he slipped in making a sudden change of direction and called in the trainer to check on his right knee. No time-out was requested by Nadal, though his speed around court appeared to be affected for a while.
He was at full stretch in the next game, fighting off two Federer break points and, as dark clouds began to mass over Centre Court, the champion went flat out to recover a set and get back into the match. But four more break points went begging as Nadal held for 3-3 before wasting three break points of his own which would have put him 4-3 ahead and perfectly positioned to win.
Instead, with Federer leading 5-4, the expected downpour set in and play was held up for one hour 20 minutes. On the resumption it was Federer who dominated when a tie-break was needed to resolve the set, hammering four aces to take it by seven points to five.
The fourth set did not contain a single break point for either man and when the second tie-break of the match arrived it was a sensation, with Nadal first leading by five points to two and then reaching, and missing, two Championship points before Federer levelled at two sets all when a Nadal backhand error left him the winner by 10 points to eight.
Another downpour drove the players off court for half an hour with the score at 2-2 in the final set and when they returned the light was fading. But the spirit of both finalists burned bright as they hammered the ball at each other just as eagerly as they had done when this marathon first began.
At 3-4 Nadal saved a break point which would have left Federer serving for the title. At 6-6 Federer saved a couple of break points. Finally, in the gloom, the Spaniard broke to lead 8-7 when Federer struck a forehand too long.
So Nadal served for the match again, getting to his third Championship point only for Federer to hit an incredible backhand service return. Deuce once again, but Nadal moved to his fourth match point with a big serve and, with the crowd going wild, Federer finally cracked, dumping a forehand in the net.
It was late, very late, but not too late for the coronation of a new king to begin.Instead, with Federer leading 5-4, the expected downpour set in and play was held up for one hour 20 minutes. On the resumption it was Federer who dominated when a tie-break was needed to resolve the set, hammering four aces to take it by seven points to five.
The fourth set did not contain a single break point for either man and when the second tie-break of the match arrived it was a sensation, with Nadal first leading by five points to two and then reaching, and missing, two Championship points before Federer levelled at two sets all when a Nadal backhand error left him the winner by 10 points to eight.
Another downpour drove the players off court for half an hour with the score at 2-2 in the final set and when they returned the light was fading. But the spirit of both finalists burned bright as they hammered the ball at each other just as eagerly as they had done when this marathon first began.
At 3-4 Nadal saved a break point which would have left Federer serving for the title. At 6-6 Federer saved a couple of break points. Finally, in the gloom, the Spaniard broke to lead 8-7 when Federer struck a forehand too long.
So Nadal served for the match again, getting to his third Championship point only for Federer to hit an incredible backhand service return. Deuce once again, but Nadal moved to his fourth match point with a big serve and, with the crowd going wild, Federer finally cracked, dumping a forehand in the net.
Yet it is to the men's singles final that we must return, and a final comment from the two protagonists. "In tennis, unfortunately there has to be winners and losers, there’s no draws," Federer said. "But I really had to push hard to come back. And I wasn't able to break him in the last three sets, but still I pushed him right to the edge. It's probably my hardest loss, by far. I mean, it's not much harder than this right now."
"I just say, 'Good tournament. Sorry'," is how Nadal relayed his thoughts to Federer after the match. "Because I know how tough is lose a final like this. This is tougher than last year, and last year I was very disappointing in the end. So he is a great champion, no? His attitude always is positive when he lose, when he win. Always accept the victories and the losses with the same humble for him."
Nadal eyes place in history
Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer agree: Nadal’s crushing win over the world No. 1 at Roland Garros four weeks ago is more or less irrelevant as far as Sunday’s men’s final is concerned. Different court, different surface – different tournament histories.
At least, that is what they both say in public.
If Nadal felt his 6-3, 7-6 (7-3), 6-4 semi-final defeat of unseeded German Rainer Schuettler was not quite up to the standard he displayed against Andy Murray in the quarters, he knows he will have to be at his absolute peak on Sunday if he is to secure a first Wimbledon title. He certainly has growing faith in his abilities on the green stuff – and not just because he won at Queen’s Club a few weeks ago.
“Having made three finals, I don't have to show anybody that I can play well here," Nadal said. "I get confidence from the clay court season and the US hard court season as well. I think I am a better player in general than last year. But for sure, winning or losing is an important difference. If I win on Sunday, my career is changing a little bit more, no?”
It would indeed, for Nadal is bidding to become the first man to do the Roland Garros-Wimbledon double since Bjorn Borg nearly three decades ago. Already on track to usurp the great Swede as the most successful clay court player of all time, Nadal is now bidding to pull off the trickiest feat in tennis: winning majors on clay and grass in the space of a month. If he manages it, his name might even start to enter more general discussions about all-time greats.
But, while Federer insists he knows what he has to do to succeed against Nadal on grass, the humble Spaniard was more circumspect when asked if he felt the same about the five-time champion.
“No, no. I’m only gonna try my best. Go on court, try to play my best tennis, try to get my rhythm, my intensity. If he plays better than me, he beats me, I’ll just congratulate him like every year.” But in no way should that be interpreted as a verbal capitulation.
“Last year I was very close. I hope on Sunday to be at the same level of performance – a little bit better – so I have my chances to win. For sure, if I win here probably it’s going to be one of the most important wins in my career, no? But I don't want to speak about a win. I only want to speak about how I have to play the final, I have to play my best tennis if I want chances to win this final. Later, if I am here on Sunday with the title, well, you can ask me what I feel.”
Nadal was also asked, if he did win on Sunday, whether he would consider himself confirmed as the best player in the world, regardless of the official rankings. “If I have the title on Sunday, on Monday I will continue be the No. 2,” he responded modestly, but the 22-year-old clearly has an eagle eye on the forthcoming US season already. “I’m gonna have more chances to be No.1 in the next months, that's true.”
As for those discussions about legends, the Majorcan again showed great respect for his rival. “I think for me [Federer] he’s the best of the history. I don’t know if he’s the best on grass because Sampras has seven, no? Federer has five – hopefully not six this year. So he has to win two more times to be at the same level as Sampras here on this surface. But in general I think he is the best,” Nadal concluded, putting the burden of expectation firmly onto his Swiss opponent.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Friday, June 6, 2008
150 Funniest Resume Mistakes, Bloopers and Blunders Ever
People write the strangest things on their resumes, sometimes downright hysterical. Why should only recruiting managers get to laugh at these? The Top 10 are at the bottom. Enjoy!
From Resume Hell:
- “Career break in 1999 to renovate my horse”
- “1990 - 1997: Stewardess - Royal Air Force”
- Hobbies: “enjoy cooking Chinese and Italians”
- “Service for old man to check they are still alive or not.”
- Cleaning skills: “bleaching, pot washing, window cleaning, mopping, e.t.c”
- “Job involved…counselling clientele on accidental insurance policies available”
- “2001 summer Voluntary work for taking care of the elderly and vegetable people”
- “I’m intrested to here more about that. I’m working today in a furniture factory as a drawer”
- “I am about to enrol on a Business and Finance Degree with the Open University. I feel that this qualification will prove detrimental to me for future success.”
- “Time is very valuable and it should be always used to achieve optimum results and I believe it should not be played around with”
- “I belive that weakness is the first level of strength, given the right attitude and driving force. My school advised me to fix my punctuality…”
From Careerbuilder.ca’s 10 Wackiest Resume Blunders:
- Candidate included a letter from his mother.
- Candidate stated the ability to persuade people sexually using her words.
- Candidate wrote résumé as a play - Act 1, Act 2, etc.
- Candidate included naked picture of himself.
From Amy Joyce on Resume Bloopers:
- “Skills: Strong Work Ethic, Attention to Detail, Team Player, Self Motivated, Attention to Detail”
- Woman who sent her résumé and cover letter without deleting someone else’s editing, including such comments as “I don’t think you want to say this about yourself here”
From Ask Annie’s article about resume blunders:
- “an applicant ghosted a headshot as the background to her resume”
- Other Interests: “Playing with my two dogs (They actually belong to my wife but I love the dogs more than my wife)”.
- “One applicant used colored paper and drew glitter designs around the border”
- Hobbies: “getting drunk everynight down by the water, playing my guitar and smoking pot”
- Why Interested in Position: “to keep my parole officer from putting back me in jail”
- A woman had attached a picture of herself in a mini mouse costume
- Hobbies: “Drugs and girls”.
- Under “job related skills” - for a web designer - “can function without additional oxygen at 24,000 feet”.
- My sister-in-law misspelled the word “proofreading” in her skill set.
- The objective on one recent resume I received stated that the applicant wished to pursue a challenging account executive position with our rival firm.
- Objective: “career on the Information Supper Highway”
- Experience: “Stalking, shipping & receiving”
- “I am great with the pubic.”
- A candidate listed her e-mail address as pornstardelight@*****.com
- The applicant listed her name as Alice in the resume but wrote Alyce on the onsite application.
- One candidate’s electronic resume included links to her homepage, where the pictures were of her in the nude.
- “…sent out my resume on the back side of a draft of a cover letter to another firm…”
- “My duties included cleaning the restrooms and seating the customers.”
- One applicant for a nursing position noted that she didn’t like dealing with blood or needles.
- Achievements: “Nominated for prom queen”
- I once received a resume with a head and shoulders picture in the top left of the first page. The picture was of a lion’s head, wearing a coat, shirt, and tie.
- a resume… was printed on the back of the person’s current employer’s letterhead.
- One resume that came across my desk stated how the individual had won a contest for building toothpick bridges in middle school.
- A resume… had several grease stains and a smudge of chocolate on it
- Hobbies: “Having a good time”
From Careerbuilder.com’s Top 12 Wackiest Resume Blunders:
- Candidate explained a gap in employment by saying it was because he was getting over the death of his cat for three months.
- Candidate’s hobbies included sitting on the levee at night watching alligators.
- Candidate explained an arrest by stating, “We stole a pig, but it was a really small pig.”
- Candidate included family medical history.
From Mainejobs.com’s Avoid These Resume Bloopers:
- “nine-page cover letter accompanied by a four-page résumé”
- “One applicant tried to make an impression by using four different fonts, three ink colors and a variety of highlighting options on her résumé”
From ResumePower.com’s Ten Classic Resume Bloopers:
- “Revolved customer problems and inquiries.”
- “Consistently tanked as top sales producer for new accounts.”
- “Planned new corporate facility at $3 million over budget.”
- “Seeking a party-time position with potential for advancement.”
From HotJobs’ Real-life Resume Blunders to Avoid:
- “I often use a laptap.”
- “Able to say the ABCs backward in under five seconds.”
- “I am a wedge with a sponge taped to it. My purpose is to wedge myself into someone’s door to absorb as much as possible.”
From Fortune Magazine via HumorMatters.com:
- “Finished eighth in my class of ten.”
- “Received a plague for Salesperson of the Year.”
- “Reason for leaving last job: maturity leave.”
- “Failed bar exam with relatively high grades.”
- “Am a perfectionist and rarely if if ever forget details.”
- “It’s best for employers that I not work with people.”
- “Let’s meet, so you can ‘ooh’ and ‘aah’ over my experience.”
- “I have an excellent track record, although I am not a horse.”
- “You will want me to be Head Honcho in no time.”
- “I have become completely paranoid, trusting completely no one and absolutely nothing.”
- “Personal interests: donating blood. Fourteen gallons so far.”
- “Marital status: often. Children: various.”
- “I am loyal to my employer at all costs..Please feel free to respond to my resume on my office voice mail.”
- “Instrumental in ruining entire operation for a Midwest chain store.”
From Resumania’s Archive:
- Job Duties: “Answer phones, file papers, respond to customer e-mails, take odors.”
- Interests: “Gossiping.”
- Favorite Activities: “Playing trivia games. I am a repository of worthless knowledge.”
- Skills: “I can type without looking at the keyboard.”
- Employer: ” Myself; received pay raise for high sales.”
- Objective: “I want to play a major part in watching a company advance.”
- Experience: “Chapter president, 1887-1992.”
- Experience: “Demonstrated ability in multi-tasting.”
- Experience: “I’m a hard worker, etc.”
- Languages: “Speak English and Spinach.”
- Reason for leaving: “I thought the world was coming to an end.”
- Additional skills: “I am a Notary Republic.”
- Objective: “So one of the main things for me is, as the movie ‘Jerry McGuire’ puts it, ‘Show me the money!’”
- Skills: “I have integrity so I will not steal office supplies and take them home.”
- Objective: “To hopefully associate with a millionaire one day.”
- Skills: “I have technical skills that will take your breath away.”
- Qualifications: “I have guts, drive, ambition and heart, which is probably more than a lot of the drones that you have working for you.”
- Objective: “I need money because I have bills to pay and I would like to have a life, go out partying, please my young wife with gifts, and have a menu entrée consisting of more than soup.”
- Qualifications: “Twin sister has accounting degree.”
- Experience: “Have not yet been abducted by aliens.”
- Skills: “Written communication = 3 years; verbal communication = 5 years.”
- Objective: “I would like to work for a company that is very lax when it comes to tardiness.”
- Education: “I possess a moderate educating but willing to learn more.”
- Education: “Have repeated courses repeatedly.”
- Salary requirements: “The higher the better.”
- Salary desired: “Starting over due to recent bankruptcies. Need large bonus when starting job.”
- Bad traits: “I am very bad about time and don’t mind admitting it. Having to arrive at a certain hour doesn’t make sense to me. What does make sense is that I do the job. Any company that insists upon rigid time schedules will find me a nightmare.”
- References: “Bill, Tom, Eric. But I don’t know their phone numbers.
- Work experience: “Two years as a blackjack and baccarat dealer. Strong emphasis on customer relations - a constant challenge considering how much money people lose and how angry they can get.”
- Personal: “I limit important relationships to people who want to do what I want them to do.”
- Objective: “Student today. Vice president tomarrow.”
- Accomplishments: “Brought in a balloon artist to entertain the team.”
- Application: Why should an employer hire you? “I bring doughnuts on Friday.”
- Achievements: “First runner-up for Miss Fort Worth, 1982.”
- Reason for leaving: “Pushed aside so the vice president’s girlfriend could steal my job.”
- Special skills: “I’ve got a Ph.D. in human feelings.”
- Reason for leaving last job: “Bounty hunting was outlawed in my state.”
- Experience: “Any interruption in employment is due to being unemployed.”
- Objective: “To become Overlord of the Galaxy!”
- Objective: “What I’m looking for in a job: #1) Money #2) Money #3) Money.”
- Hobbies: “Mushroom hunting.”
- Experience: “Child care provider: Organized activities; prepared lunches and snakes.”
- Objective: “My dream job would be as a professional baseball player, but since I can’t do that, I’ll settle on being an accountant.”
- Awards: “National record for eating 45 eggs in two minutes.”
- Heading on stationery: “I’d Break Mom’s Heart to Work For You!”
- “I am a ‘neat nut’ with a reputation for being hardnosed. I have no patience for sloppywork, carelessmistakes and theft of companytime.”
- Experience: “Provide Custer Service.”
- Experience: “I was brought in as a turnaround consultant to help turn the company around.”
- Strengths: “Ability to meet deadlines while maintaining composer.”
- Work experience: “Responsibilities included checking customers out.”
- Work experience: “Maintained files and reports, did data processing, cashed employees’ paychecks.”
- Educational background: “Highschool was a incredible experience.”
- Resume: “A great management team that has patents with its workers.”
- Cover letter: “Experienced in all faucets of accounting.”
- Objective: “I am anxious to use my exiting skills.”
- Personal: “I am loyal and know when to keep my big mouth shut.”
- Job duties: “Filing, billing, printing and coping.”
- Application: “Q: In what local areas do you prefer to work? A: Smoking.”
- Reason for leaving: “Terminated after saying, ‘It would be a blessing to be fired.’”
- Personal: “My family is willing to relocate. However not to New England (too cold) and not to Southern California (earthquakes). Indianapolis or Chicago would be fine. My youngest prefers Orlando’s proximity to Disney World.”
- Resume: “I have a lifetime’s worth of technical expertise (I wasn’t born - my mother simply chose ‘eject child’ from the special menu.”
- Resume: “Spent several years in the United States Navel Reserve.”
- Qualifications: “I have extensive experience with foreign accents.”
- “I am fully aware of the king of attention this position requires.”
- References: “Please do not contact my immediate supervisor at the company. My colleagues will give me a better reference.”
- “Worked in a consulting office where I carried out my own accountant.”
- Accomplishments: “My contributions on product launches were based on dreams that I had.”
- Career: “I have worked with restraints for the past two years.”
- Experience: “My father is a computer programmer, so I have 15 years of computer experience.”
- Education: “I have a bachelorette degree in computers.”
JobMob Top 10
- Application: How large was the department you worked in with your last company? “A: 3 stories.” (Resumania)
- A resume listed a skill as “being bi-lingual in three languages” (Ask Annie’s)
- Background: “28 dog years of experience in sales (four human).” (Resumania)
- In the section that read “Emergency Contact Number” she wrote “911.” (Ask Annie’s)
- Candidate drew a picture of a car on the outside of the envelope and said it was the hiring manager’s gift. (Careerbuilder.com)
- Languages: “Fluent in English. Also I have been heard muttering Gibberish in my sleep.” (Resumania)
- “Directed $25 million anal shipping and receiving operations.” (ResumePower.com)
- On one of our applications, a girl wrote ” I’m 16, I’m pregnant and I can do anything.” At the same time she turned in her application, her boyfriend handed in his. On his: “Felony for breaking and entering.” (Ask Annie’s)
- “One candidate included clipart on their resume of two cartoons shaking hands.” (Ask Annie’s)
- Application: “On the line that asked what “sex” he was, he wrote “occassionally”.” (Ask Annie’s)
Sunday, June 1, 2008
RAJASTHAN ROYALS ARE THE ULTIMATE CHAMPIONS
It couldn't be the more perfect. And it had to be Shane Warne. The final over 8 runs. It went down the wire. The last ball. After conceding a dot ball at the crucial moment, they didn't lose hope. And God helps those who are brave. There was a wide and a single off the same ball. Then a couple of the second last ball was important. Single of the last ball was a formality. But the turning point was the boundary in Ntini's last ball that Warne hit. That really reduced the pressure. Not to forget Yusuf Pathan's half century. And the way he hammered Chennai's bowlers was just awesome. The first innings was okay. I got upset whenever Royals were hit but I felt 163 was chase-able. The Royals started badly. Missed Graeme Smith a lot and Ntini made full use of Royals missing his country man. Shane Watson and Yusuf Pathan then brought the chase on track and countinued Asnodkar's good work. Pathan's onslaught was just great. My man of the match - Yusuf Pathan. Man of the tournament - Shane Warne and Shane Watson (yeah, shared).
And even as the television airs advertisements before the presentation ceremony, I am speechless. The match was simply great. I was shivering with excitement (though it was due to the high air con in the office) the whole of second innings (I was swearing at the bowlers when they were being hit, during the first innings). Live update: Yusuf Pathan is the man of the match. And he is speechless too!!! The under-19 award, orange cap, purple cap awards are being announced. Wait for the man of the series award goes to Shane Watson... well I think without Warne he wouldn't have been able to do it. The losing team comes up to collect their prize. Dhoni was graceful in defeat (not like pakistani captains). Nice to listen him talk. The guy's got a cool head. The winning team collecting their medals. And now Shane comes up to talk. And he ROCKS. Speaks of Jaipur's misery and that they won it for them. For the whole of Rajasthan. Memories that he will take back to Australia? The people who supported him. The staff. The public who would playfully bang the bus wherever they went. The crowds. And I think he deserves it. He has been the best and it was he who got the Royals up on their feet and managed to bring out the best in his team. Hats off. When asked what do you think about Shane Warne, the young members of the team replied - Legend.
And now the office looks lonely. I had to take a half an hour foot journey to the office to watch the final and it hasn't gone unrewarded. Perfect way to end a colorful tournament (though I feel it should be shorter so that it doesn't harm the players). While Warne was batting the commentator mentioned that Warne had taken a good look at the trophy before the match. He had seen it from all angles. Seen it, Admired it and I feel it was his will to win it, lay hands on it that he could ultimately achieve it. While I decide whether to take the long journey back or spend the night here, I would like to ask Warne one thing - come back again, we'll be waiting for you.
And even as the television airs advertisements before the presentation ceremony, I am speechless. The match was simply great. I was shivering with excitement (though it was due to the high air con in the office) the whole of second innings (I was swearing at the bowlers when they were being hit, during the first innings). Live update: Yusuf Pathan is the man of the match. And he is speechless too!!! The under-19 award, orange cap, purple cap awards are being announced. Wait for the man of the series award goes to Shane Watson... well I think without Warne he wouldn't have been able to do it. The losing team comes up to collect their prize. Dhoni was graceful in defeat (not like pakistani captains). Nice to listen him talk. The guy's got a cool head. The winning team collecting their medals. And now Shane comes up to talk. And he ROCKS. Speaks of Jaipur's misery and that they won it for them. For the whole of Rajasthan. Memories that he will take back to Australia? The people who supported him. The staff. The public who would playfully bang the bus wherever they went. The crowds. And I think he deserves it. He has been the best and it was he who got the Royals up on their feet and managed to bring out the best in his team. Hats off. When asked what do you think about Shane Warne, the young members of the team replied - Legend.
And now the office looks lonely. I had to take a half an hour foot journey to the office to watch the final and it hasn't gone unrewarded. Perfect way to end a colorful tournament (though I feel it should be shorter so that it doesn't harm the players). While Warne was batting the commentator mentioned that Warne had taken a good look at the trophy before the match. He had seen it from all angles. Seen it, Admired it and I feel it was his will to win it, lay hands on it that he could ultimately achieve it. While I decide whether to take the long journey back or spend the night here, I would like to ask Warne one thing - come back again, we'll be waiting for you.
Monday, May 5, 2008
A royal fairytale
Boosted by the inspired, top-notch captaincy of Shane Warne, the Rajasthan side have been the romantic success story of the IPL
We often see gestures like it on the field, but only occasionally get to hear the tales behind them. Here is one. When Yusuf Pathan tempted Adam Gilchrist out of his crease and had him stranded in only the third over of Rajasthan Royals' match against the Deccan Chargers, no one was more animated than Shane Warne. While his team-mates were still celebrating, he turned towards the Rajasthan dugout and made a little gesture that said: "I told you so."
"We knew it was coming," said Jeremy Snape, who is part of Rajasthan's support staff as performance coach. It had been Warne's idea to throw in Pathan's offspin early against Gilchrist and he had been certain Pathan would get Gilchrist out. "It took us a long time to discuss the machinations of this strategy," Snape said. "When something like that happens, it's brilliant."
With Warne orchestrating the moves as captain-coach, such things have happened again and again with the Rajasthan Royals. Batsmen and bowlers are known to have golden streaks, but for nearly two weeks we have seen a captain in the zone. After a disastrous opening match, the most unfancied team of the competition has won five in row, and everything Warne has touched has turned to gold. The importance of luck in captaincy cannot be overstated, but to repeat a hoary phrase, fortune favours the brave. Warne has backed his instincts and gambled away.
In their second match, against Punjab, he had two legspinners - himself and the unheralded Dinesh Salunkhe, who came into the spotlight through a TV talent-hunt show and is yet to play a first-class match - bowling together after six overs, and they claimed three wickets in as many overs. Salunkhe got Mahela Jayawerdene stumped.
Chasing 217 against the Deccan Chargers, Warne promoted Yusuf Pathan to No. 3 and Pathan blasted a 21-ball half century.
Against the Royal Challengers, the customary deep fine-leg was done away with and a man was posted at the square-leg boundary instead. Rahul Dravid pulled the first ball he faced straight to him, and three more wickets fell to the short-ball trap.
In the next match, against Kolkata, Warne pulled out little-known Swapnil Asnodkar, a frail-looking opening batsman from Goa with a strike-rate of 41.23 in List A limited-overs cricket, and Asnodkar blazed away to 60 off 34 balls.
Against Chennai, Warne handed the new ball to Sohail Tanvir and told him to look for wickets: in the first over, Tanvir took two.
Outrageous luck or flashes of genius? A bit of both perhaps, but it is worth nothing that the outcomes wouldn't have been possible without either.
Before he came to Jaipur, Warne, who retired from one-day cricket in 2003, had played only a couple of Twenty20 games for Hampshire, who he led for couple of seasons, but it didn't take him to long to grasp the dynamics of the shortest format. "Twenty20 is all about surprises," he said. "It's about doing something that the opposition doesn't really expect." And with every match, Warne's propensity for the unexpected has merely grown.
More inspirational has been the way Warne and he support staff have moulded a team of bravehearts out of relative lightweights. Their only major current international player is Graeme Smith. The batting is thin on paper; and the franchise gambled on appointing Warne - whose antipathy towards professional coaches is only too well known - head of the coaching team. It could have all gone hopelessly wrong, as it did for the ICL, which appointed Brian Lara, another mercurial genius, captain of their Mumbai team. Lara hardly scored a run in the first season, and didn't play in the second tournament, and his team disintegrated around his obvious lack of interest.
But Warne evidently still has a fire raging within him. Denied the captaincy by a conservative Australian cricket board, which feared a public-relations disaster if he was given the job, Warne led Hampshire with passion. In Jaipur he has plunged himself into mentoring a young team with sense of a mission. Every Rajasthan player you meet speaks about Warne's ability to inspire and visualise, his positive thinking, and his human touch. Warne hasn't so much imposed himself on the team as he has lifted it. In every match Rajasthan have found a new hero.
Salunkhe was the one in the game against Punjab. "Mahela [Jayawardene] and Yuvraj [Singh] were batting when Warne asked me to bowl," Salunkhe said. "I was afraid - Mahela is such a good player of spin. Warne marched up to me and said, 'Put your chest out, stand tall, be confident. I believe you can get him. Tell me you can do it.'
"In the world there can be only one Taj Mahal. Similarly, there can only be one Shane Warne."
Given Warne's position on professional coaches, Snape, who has a masters in sports psychology, was initially wary of taking up a role under him. Those apprehensions have since melted away and been replaced by admiration. "You can study psychology for as long as you want, but he has lived it," Snape says of Warne.
"Warnie would never use the p word, "psychology", but he lives it. He's a great motivator. He's very passionate, he thinks very clearly. One of my big points for the boys is to choose the strategy carefully with a cool head and then commit wholeheartedly to it. Warnie exemplifies that in the way he plays his cricket.
He's got careers outside, in journalism and poker. This is a six-week tournament that's very exciting for him. He's got a chance to leave a legacy. That comes down to the personality again. Stockbrokers in London earn millions - but they all want to feel part of something that's bigger than them. Want to feel like they've created something. We all feel like that at Rajasthan. There's no heritage, there's no black and white pictures on the wall. It's a start-up. For someone like Warnie, who's done so much in cricket, it's exciting to be able to say, 'We were part of that tournament. And these are the stars that came up from it.' And he's shared his knowledge, which is one of his great skills."
Rajasthan Royals are the most no-frills franchise in the IPL. They have no Bollywood starts in their entourage, but they do possess a well-knit support team. Apart from Snape, who contributes to planning and strategy, there is Darren Berry, the assistant coach, who, in Warne's words, brings "a structured approach to training".
Warne says that they have tried to be "the smartest, the cleverest team in the competition". Snape says they want to the clearest-thinking team. "Technically, the players aren't going to change over the six weeks, but it's the ones who are going to have the clearest decision-making under pressure who are going to do really well. That's the theme of our discussions. Of course, we'd like our plans to work, but that's when the real cricket starts - when your plan doesn't work and you've got to adapt."
Above all, Warne has been there to provide the bits of magic that only he can. The Royals' dressing room is still heady with the 16 runs he blasted off three balls from Andrew Symonds' final over against the Deccan Chargers, but it is the dismissal of Mahendra Singh Dhoni in the game against Chennai that will have made fans' eyes moist with nostalgia.
The first ball landed on leg and middle and spun past Dhoni's tentative bat. Dhoni barely managed to keep out the next one, which pitched on nearly the same spot and straightened. The third was floated just a bit more to draw the batsman forward, and held back just a bit to ensure that it landed short enough to spin and catch the edge. Even if Dhoni had missed it, he would have been stumped. It was a sublime working-over, a piece of art.
Warne's and Rajasthan's unexpected success is both uplifting and reassuring. It is a reaffirmation that old-fashioned cricket values and skills have their place in the game's newest, and to many crassest, form.
Long may Warne continue to reign.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
The Coach
Continuing on the Coach
Hi all,
It is very heartening to hear that everyone unanimously voted me for the position of the coach of our 3rd year teams (A, B, and if formed C). A note for the late comers who didnt get into any team - if you keep awake in the class and 'talk' rather than writing pain-mails and ask junta to 'talk' in class, it will help your cause. (There is no need for a support group in our class)
Without wasting any more time, I would like to kick off the preparations for the much awaited games. As our professors would do, I am providing certain links of interest which will help you in understanding the game (subject) better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire
http://maddox.xmission.com/
There is no need to get your hands dirty, just read up stuff and vomit (by the way, sorry for any inconvenience caused due to my stomach upset) during the match (exam). Do remember to google/wiki stuff up whenever in doubt before asking me (prof). Keep doing this until further instructions.
Cheers,
Suket
Hi all,
It is very heartening to hear that everyone unanimously voted me for the position of the coach of our 3rd year teams (A, B, and if formed C). A note for the late comers who didnt get into any team - if you keep awake in the class and 'talk' rather than writing pain-mails and ask junta to 'talk' in class, it will help your cause. (There is no need for a support group in our class)
Without wasting any more time, I would like to kick off the preparations for the much awaited games. As our professors would do, I am providing certain links of interest which will help you in understanding the game (subject) better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
http://maddox.xmission.com/
There is no need to get your hands dirty, just read up stuff and vomit (by the way, sorry for any inconvenience caused due to my stomach upset) during the match (exam). Do remember to google/wiki stuff up whenever in doubt before asking me (prof). Keep doing this until further instructions.
Cheers,
Suket
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
CSE Tournament
Here's my first post in this year... Hell, it took a lot time to come. But rest assured it will be as good as one would want a first to be. So without further ado presenting to you my reply to participation in the cricket tournament to be held (not sure whether it will be) by the prestigious CSE department of IIT Madras...
Hi,
With everyone intent on playing i think i will apply for the position of the coach of the team that takes to field. I dont promise the stars but will try to help out people by correcting their techniques, stance, follow through and whatever else you guys call it. No comparisons to be made between this and a film by name Chak de India because lets accept the fact that though the coach would be as good as the one in that (if not better) I would not have the same awesome and
pretty team...
Positives to take (if i am selected that is)
When you come to my fees... well let me tell you its not even one millionth of what SRK or Greg Chappell or any guy who coaches (rather is named as a coach of) an Indian team gets... a treat in an average restaurant would do. Another point would be that I wouldnt ask you for your thumbs and all, I'm not a freak who gets pleasure from others discomfort.
Resume:
After my glittering career which lasted 13 long years (standard 1 to standard 12) of gully cricket, I have decided to devote my energies into making life more miserable for other people. Didn't want to go into acting as Irrfan rightly put it - "hum actors ko kaam nahi dekar woh log naakh se gaane waalo or pahaad jaise logo ko chance dete hai". No to umpiring as it is a thankless, tiring job and very difficult (dont even want to think of umpiring an India-Australia clash). Commentating was a lucrative offer but to tell you the truth, with Harsha Bhogle, Tony Greig, Boycott, Ravi Shastri (all positive sense) and Navjot Sidhu (negative sense) I didn't have many opportunities. So here I am - coaching. This will be my first time and I would like to thank the (...Academy?) CS dept which has such tournaments that let people like me have a flavour of coaching. But to put things in perspective, and I wouldn't want to name 'which' teams, I was approached by 'atleast' 3 IPL teams for my services. You can consider it a matter of pride that being the team player that I am, I would rather coach you than make easy bucks out there.
Hope this fits the bill (though a treat wouldn't be filling mine, I am ready to compromise for the best interests of the team)
Thanking you for your time,
Suket.
Hi,
With everyone intent on playing i think i will apply for the position of the coach of the team that takes to field. I dont promise the stars but will try to help out people by correcting their techniques, stance, follow through and whatever else you guys call it. No comparisons to be made between this and a film by name Chak de India because lets accept the fact that though the coach would be as good as the one in that (if not better) I would not have the same awesome and
pretty team...
Positives to take (if i am selected that is)
When you come to my fees... well let me tell you its not even one millionth of what SRK or Greg Chappell or any guy who coaches (rather is named as a coach of) an Indian team gets... a treat in an average restaurant would do. Another point would be that I wouldnt ask you for your thumbs and all, I'm not a freak who gets pleasure from others discomfort.
Resume:
After my glittering career which lasted 13 long years (standard 1 to standard 12) of gully cricket, I have decided to devote my energies into making life more miserable for other people. Didn't want to go into acting as Irrfan rightly put it - "hum actors ko kaam nahi dekar woh log naakh se gaane waalo or pahaad jaise logo ko chance dete hai". No to umpiring as it is a thankless, tiring job and very difficult (dont even want to think of umpiring an India-Australia clash). Commentating was a lucrative offer but to tell you the truth, with Harsha Bhogle, Tony Greig, Boycott, Ravi Shastri (all positive sense) and Navjot Sidhu (negative sense) I didn't have many opportunities. So here I am - coaching. This will be my first time and I would like to thank the (...Academy?) CS dept which has such tournaments that let people like me have a flavour of coaching. But to put things in perspective, and I wouldn't want to name 'which' teams, I was approached by 'atleast' 3 IPL teams for my services. You can consider it a matter of pride that being the team player that I am, I would rather coach you than make easy bucks out there.
Hope this fits the bill (though a treat wouldn't be filling mine, I am ready to compromise for the best interests of the team)
Thanking you for your time,
Suket.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)