Check, mate!

It was an interesting experience to follow the chess world championship match that got over today at Moscow, with Vishy Anand of India being crowned the World Champion for the fifth time.

The professional chess is - well - difficult. First of all, I got lost (and amazed at) by extensive usage of chess-notation by the commentators. They seemed to remember the game move-by-move, just like a cricket scorer would remember statistics game-by-game. It was overwhelming, to say the least.

Here, at work, there was a large interest (because an Israeli was the challenger). At one of our weekly volleyball games, my friend teased me (Gelfand had just won a game to take lead in the 12-match series) about Israeli superiority. I simply had to offer a (Slav?) defense 'well, it's just a tactic to catch Boris unawares in the next match." And voila, Anand won the next game in mere 17 moves. "17 moves" was my subject in the follow-up email to my dear friend!

(I think) the tie-breaker games lived up to expectation. I was following game-2 (which Anand won). It was quite exciting to just see the moves and try my guess-work at what would be the next.

It was a complex situation: An Indian, Maharashtrian at that, working in Israel, following world championship match being played at Moscow between another Indian (Tamil) and an Israeli (originally born in Russia).

Yes, complex, but thoroughly enjoyable. Just as the tie-break games turned out to be.

India v/s Australia - a mismatch

Watching India v/s Australia lock horns at Qatar in the league stage of AFC-asia cup football was an ordeal. All the time I kept thinking that there was some problem with the transmission - all the Indian players seemed to be moving in slow motion. The ball was just sliding across, their passes were easily intercepted by vigilant Aussies.

Even in their wildest dreams, understandably, the players wouldn't have expected a win (given the disparity between the FIFA rankings, and going by history of football). Australia is rising fast on the football scene, and India is barely turning in sleep. We can talk forever about the physical strength, but as one of the commentators correctly pointed out: it doesn't necessarily take a physically strong side to put up a good show (pardon the cliche of David v/s Goliath etc). If the basics are right (passing, defending the set-pieces, etc etc) we could put up a far better show than last night. I guess by the time India got some rhythm going, they were already two goals behind. And as in any other sport, (more so for football - which is physically quite demanding) recovering deficit is very hard.

I am sure all this AFC 'stuff' is getting lost in the blaring music of IPL and upcoming world cup. Also, on the whole, Indians are more interested in watching football on TV (conveniently on lazy weekend evenings) and take pride in supporting Red Devils and who-not. In the land of cricket, I am sure football has been (and always will be?) a laggard. Unless it makes some headlines by winning some silverware internationally. Just like the Chak-De team did a few years back.

Until then, it's going to be a rough ride, pretty much reminding of the slo-mo torture of last night.

Similarity?

Don't they look so very same? Craig Bellamy and Peter Siddle..?

Hat-trick of 5?

Last year it was Federer making it five in a row at Wimbledon.

This year, it is Federer again, making it five in a row, but at the other end of the Atlantic.

I wonder, whether it will be Nadal's turn next year, again back at the other end of the Atlantic. In Paris!

Well, wonder is not the right verb. Hope is.

Flame

The burning issue of the day is that of the flame. And it's no ordinary flame, mind you. It's the spirit that started long before started to count the A.D. years; it's the spirit that keeps a marathon-runner running; and of course it's the spirit that keeps our bodies healthy! The spirit of sports; and the flame symbolizes it.

I have been tid-bits here and there, watching short news snippets on how certain people are opposing the behaviour of the nation that is supposed to conduct the games later this year. The political drama continues to amuse me. The logic (or rather the lack thereof) puzzles me as I read more words about it.

Or maybe, my simple logic gets lost in the complexities of the political order of this world: Tibet and The Beijing Olympics are altogether different objects. I do not have the competency (neither the passion/interest/knowledge) to make any comments about China-Tibet issue; so I'll pass on that. I'd rather focus on Sports and its great history. It's the Sports that keeps me going (and the fact that all sorts of sports are actively played and followed indicates that certainly I am not alone on that front). (and for some people it's politics that keeps them going!)

I am all for a great competitive games at Beijing. I want to see all events closely contested, new records created, and medals distributed to winners. The protests, if at all, should be made by the protesters in absentee! I am sure there are enough sports enthusiasts in this world who will follow the games.

To all who are by now thinking, I am behaving pro-China, I have another simple logical question to offer: When the Beijing was awarded to be the Host city for this year's Olympics, were there any protests? I don't think so. The Tibet issue is alive since I have been in existence; then why disrupt the games by making them political ammo now? It's a rather obvious case of opportunism.

I suggest the protesters to de-link the games from Tibet issue. Let the games go on peacefully, I say!

Victory

The Perth Test victory has been termed as one of the greatest ever for the nation. Many experts believe that it's an unbelievable feat achieved by the Indian team.

To me, the following strike the most [and if these match with the experts' opinions, I'd count it as a plus for me :-)]

• The victory belongs to the whole team. Each and every player of the team had his moments and made sure that he played a part. An exception may be Jaffer's performance, but let's discount that.
• Ponting's give-up against Sharma reminded me of that great over sent down by Flintoff! We have already started calling Sharma as India's McGrath (who can bat!). This kid is fast, and if he can manage his injuries well, he can be the next J Srinath!
  
• Kumble's jump-in-the-air celebration immediately brought out smiles, as a disappointed Symonds looked on.
• RP Singh's stint with the bat proved to be crucial. Singh-Laxman stand almost matches with the margin of the victory.
• Umpiring standards improved to a better level, and significantly, neither sides had any comment to make against Bowden or Rauf.
  

As it happens time and again, every victory is (only) cheered for and every defeat calls for serious analysis. Scarcely have I seen analysis of victories [maybe I need to read the Aussie defeat analyses :-)] in as much detail as for defeats.

Another thing to note is that (sadly?) there will always be pessimists breathing fire. Even in defeat or victory, they will present sadist arguments. I wonder, why they do not want to believe in victory when it has already been achieved!

I also do object to the argument of "isn't it enough of money and attention given to cricket? How about other sports now [that our cricketing heroes have lost again and again?]". It defies logic. Or may be my own logic is at fault: If a team is losing, isn't it prudent and important that we provide more attention to it? When a team is winning, then, I'd imagine that it's time to move on to other sport and conquer that! What say?

A terrible mix up

Terrible mix-ups are no rarity as far as Indian Cricket goes. We have quite a few senior (and hence slower?) players in our side who are poor at running between the wickets. This often leads to misunderstanding and mix ups resulting in run outs. In most of such incidents, the shot played is not too bad, the fielder's skills are not required to be exceptional; all it takes is a bad call and in a split-second one of the batsmen is on his way back.

I think something like this happened after Sydney Test was lost.

The shot was decent: We had good evidence to appeal against Steve Bucknor and Mark Benson. Even the umpires should understand that.

Fielders did not have the best of skills: Aussie attitude towards their catching calls, and determination to stay put at the wicket until and unless the finger went up was nothing exceptional. Approach of putting pressure on the umpire rather than the batsman was also a simple enough trick, which worked (an understatement?)

Yet, a bad call has cost us the wicket: I'd call it a terrible mix-up indeed.

The issue at hand, was not ban on Harbhajan Singh for a level 3 offense. If there was a deliberation that lasted eight hours as reported by the press, I think already enough protests would have been registered in front of the match referee. Then, if the inconclusive reply of events points that Harbhajan was at mistake, no harm in accepting the ban. We should really have put our energies on having better umpires standing in next Test. Now that we lost the case of Singh, we have woken up only to realize that Bucknor would be deciding on the appeals in Perth. The prospect of this double setback brought out the baby cries (I am reluctant to call our team a baby team, but can't help the expression!).

To accept the half-truth, if any, about Bhajji, and go for the big one, I think, would have been a better choice. Calling off the tour is not justified, neither is not protesting against the umpires. I agree we deserved a draw at SCG, but at the same time, I think it is proving to be a stronger motivation to perform better at Perth. And boy! We need good umpires there. We cannot have such mistakes committed consistently against only one team over four-five days.

And that's why, I call it a tactical mix-up. Hope we can recover from this wicket and build a stronger partnership.

On a side note, imagine this: Such horrible judgmental mistakes take place against the Aussies in England, when they are 1-0 down in a five match Ashes series. How would Ricky Ponting have reacted then?

I agree that winners should keep winning. But not at all costs. Unless they are challenged, and their position overturned, game would be monotonous and boring. Not to mention, the winners would get complacent too! Perhaps, that's why I have always supported the second ranker! [Take English Cricket and Football teams, Liverpool FC, Nadal/Djokovic, or Hamilton. And be assured, I'll revise the list may my teams win :-)]

Update:
Just as I pressed the Publish Post button, I stumbled upon this news. It's official! Steve Bucknor won't stand in Perth Test.

Crownless shall be the King

I am back again with stray thoughts on the hot topic of the fortnight: Cricket!

• On first two days, best parts of play, interestingly, came after lunch: during the first hour. India took five wickets on day one, and today, Laxman was all over the Aussies; creaming short ones, full ones, bouncers, and good length balls too!
• Day's best placard from Sydney read: "Steve Bucknor, we want you on our team!"
• Ian Chappel, at times, gets on your nerves. The reason has to be this: he talks Truth! And it's bitter many a times.
  
• There is only one player in the world who can flick an outside-the-off-stump-good-length-delivery to midwicket for a four. And I am glad, he is an Indian!
• Ricky Ponting showed his bat to the umpire while he was being adjudged leg-before. I wonder if he would have done that when he nicked Ganguly through to Dhoni's gloves.
• Dhoni deserved better and a referral to the Third Eye when he cleverly took off the bails of Symmonds. Fortune, as they say, doesn't favor the innovation all the time!
  
• Whatever criticism this slow approach of Dravid's has invited, one thing shines through: he is still there. Batting and battling. Soon he will re-gain is form and as the title of this post suggests, Crownless shall be the King!

... to be continued!

• Four years on, and SCG hasn't changed a bit for VVS. A very well deserved century for him. Hoping, he makes it bigger! This guy relished Aussie attack [ala Obelix v/s Romans ;)]
• Oh, and India, yet again, seem to have thrown away the advantage. Now with the bat though.
  

Catch #22

Inimitable wicket-keeper batsman Adam Gilchrist overtook another legendary 'keeper Ian Healy as the highest wicket-taker behind the wicket.

But it was not his catches that made the biggest impact in that match.

There were three instances when batsmen were dismissed off a no-ball. Two times Aussies paid some prices, and once the Indians. One of the commentators explained the real catch of the situation. The intriguing catch was this: it so seemed, that

to take a wicket, the bowler needed to bowl a no-ball. But then since it's a no-ball, he will not be getting any wicket!

Now, some catch it was. That catch-22!

Down, Down Under

A few thoughts about the thrashing mighty Australians handed us in Melbourne.

• It feels simply wonderful to get up way early in the morning in the December winter and watch Test cricket played on beautiful, big grounds of Australia. What adds to the excitement is the fluent running commentary by greats like Ian Chappel, and other regular crew (with Channel 9, it's even better, as we get Richie Benaud and Bill Lawry too!)
• Michael Slater admitted that Glenn "Pig" McGrath was a boringly accurate bowler, who would hardly make any mistakes. I was overjoyed as in one of my old articles I had mentioned how boringly perfect cricket Aussies play. Slater hoped Michael Clark would be a better bowler! (He already is, considering a lower number of wickets Glenn had captured before he turned equal number of Tests)
  
• On Day 1, Aussie crowd cheered almost every wicket we took. That was heartening. Unfortunately, the Aussies soon lost faith, thanks to our dismal performance thereafter. I guess, the order is more or less restored.
• Shocking was the failure of the Captain Ponting. He has had a poor year, and it was a wonderful opportunity to improve his stats for the year, which he missed out!
• Rahul Dravid's mind was not at the MCG, neither were his feet. The Wall disappointed, and disappointed big time. Hopefully, as every dog has, he will have his day. Sooner, the better.
• Yuvraj Singh wasted two opportunities. It again shows that for this young one, only home is sweet home. Away, he looked like an engineering student who prepared for Engineering Mechanics on the day when the exam schedule was for Compiler Design.
• All the 'boys' very were tired on day four itself. It simply shows how this game, easy to watch, can be so physically exhausting! The Aussies looked fresh from a conditioning camp. India's very slow scoring rate helped too. This can be a major factor going into the Sydney Test in three days. I hope the team watches their batting performance, and listens to the commentary. And hopefully implement the simple "ones-n-twos to tire the fielding team" tactics.
• Overall, we simply did not have any new ideas (barring exception of day one, maybe). There were no extra ordinary knocks or periods of play. Hardly, we looked to be playing to our strengths (is that termed batting?). We can forever blame the unpreparedness, hectic schedule, jet-lag, injuries etc. etc. But that's not the point. The point is how to pick up the composure and put up a brave fight.
• Probably, we need to sit back. Watch the South Africa-West Indies game for a lesson or two on how to play away from home, how to approach somewhat differently (Gayle's quickfire runs as opener, opened new doors for the Windies!).
• Like in engineering, we got to solve the problem. Mathematically, until and unless it can be proven that it's fundamentally not possible, everything can be achieved. It's probably matter of time (yeah, schedule!), but achievable. I see no reason why our team cannot achieve at least half of it; that is to put up a challenge, and maybe a draw or two?
  

Over the roof

Just like those fantastic sixers that went out of the park, all the wealthy organizations (not to discount the state and central Governments here) have gone over the roof in announcing prizes after prizes to the victorious Indian cricket team.

In this perspective, this news story, is hardly unbelievable.

My favourite line by the Indian National Hockey Coach: "Sahara has announced a house each for the cricketers but hockey players were not even given a match box."

In any case, Cricket and Hockey are no matches for each other, are they?

Rohit Sharma

Much has been written (or is it really?) about India's famous victory at the Wanderers, Dhoni's excellence in leadership, Pathan and Sehwag's return, newly found confidence in defending relatively small totals, spirit of the Youth and what not.

Yet, one unsung hero remains. And he is none other than Rohit Sharma.

This new kid on the block did not get out in the entire tournament (or whatever matches he played in). Only once he got near to getting out (remember that six in the last over in the final?). Luck was with him as the fielder spilled the chance and helped the ball cross boundary, adding six invaluable runs to India's total. (And now, who can tell me the margin of victory?)

One cannot forget his brilliant effort in running Justin Kemp out in the virtual quarter-final against the hosts.

And what a sweet irony! Despite scoring consistently and when-it-mattered, this hero can't find a figure against "average" column in his stats-book!

Thriller!!!

Who says Ajit Agarkar is the worst overrated bowler who struggles with his economy rate when it matters? At any rate, today Mr Anderson of England was worse!

Who says The Little Master can't deliver when it matters the most? He does (though occasionally!).

And again, who says, India are poor chasers when it matters the most? (I mean I have said that many a times, but NOT today). It's pleasantly surprising how interesting the high-scoring matches involving India turn out when India manages to win!

Just like today's cracker that more importantly equalized the series to 3-all.

Whatever the critics say, it was a memorable victory indeed.

Now, all eyes on to Lord's...

Liverpool six - Derby County nil

What a fantastic day of football! Even without Stevie G and J Carragher, we we can produce this result!

This year, we are going to win something big!

Novak Djokovic

Last night I slept a little upset. It was quite late in the night and [still] Novak Djokovic was fighting it out with Radek Stepanek. Sometimes I hate surprise packages. That does not mean that I did not enjoy Stepanek's serve-and-volley, but deep in my mind I just wanted Djokovic to win. I have seen many a surprise packages who cause huge upsets, and in the next game bow out quite tamely.

At times I feel it must be really frustrating on part of the superior players. One bad day and you go out. The next day, things turn normal, and your surprise victor crashes out without impressing the scorers!

And that's why when I gave up watching this first round match, with the Serb 2 sets to 1 down, I was worried.

Today, the US Open website brought smile on my face as I saw the victorious Djokovic's snap on the front page. The match lasted 4 hours 44 minutes, and went to last-set-tiebreak. It must have been a hell of a match, but in the end, my player won. And that's why the smiles!

Shiv Chanderpaul

A wonderful article on batsmanship (the spell-checker tells me that this is not a valid word, never mind) of West Indian Shiv Chanderpaul: read it here.

I am sure the author too has patiently written it.

Henin

It was simply a treat (post dinner, of course) to watch Justin Henin beat Serena Williams last night.

Contrasting styles of Williams with a two-handed backhand and lightening-fast first serve against amply double-faulting, somewhat subdued (in power) forehand and single handed stylish backhand of Henin were so engrossing that perhaps the rain gods decided to hold their fury.

I have lost count how many times Henin's flowing left hand took my breath away. It was all a single sided affair, as I wanted Henin to cream Serena ruthlessly. That almost happened, if not for a rare mistake by Henin that handed Serena a break and the Hawk's inhuman accuracy confirmed that 0.001% width of the ball was on the line, and hence the second set was Serena's.

Apart from these two blips (and too many double faults by Henin) I don't recollect any moments when she was in any trouble.

I have very little doubt if not none in predicting this year's Ladies champion.

Allez Henin, Allez!

Oh!

What the world has come to!

Roger Federer just lost a set in a grand slam!!!

Managers' Dilemma?

One of the best explanations of Prisoner's Dilemma: (In the words of Douglas R Hofstadter, from Metamagical Themas)---

Life is filled with paradoxes and dilemmas. Sometimes it even feels as if the essence of living is the sensing---indeed, the savoring---of paradox. Although all paradoxes seem somehow related, some paradoxes seem somehow related, some paradoxes seem abstract and philosophical, while other touch on life very directly. A very lifelike paradox is the so-called "Prisoner's Dilemma", discovered in 1950 by Melvin Dresher and Merril Flood of the RAND Corporation.

Assume you possess copious quantities of some item (money, for example), and wish to obtain some amount of another item (perhaps stamps, groceries, diamonds). You arrange a mutually agreeable trade with the only dealer of that item known to you. You are both satisfied with the amounts you will be giving and getting. For some reason, though, your trade must take place in secret. Each one of you agrees to leave a bag at a designated place in the forest, and to pick up the other's bag at the other's designated place. Suppose it is clear to both of you that the two of you will never meet or have further dealings with each other again.

Clearly, there is something for each of you to fear: namely, that the other one will leave an empty bag. Obviously, if you both leave full bags, you will both be satisfied; but equally obviously, getting something for nothing is even more satisfying. So you are tempted to leave an empty bag. In fact, you can even reason it through quite rigourous this way: "If the dealer brings a full bag, I'll be better off having left an empty bag, because I'll have gotten all that I wanted and given away nothing. If the dealer brings an empty bag, I'll be better off having left any empty bag, because I'll not have been cheated. I'll have gained nothing but lost nothing either. Thus it seems that no matter what the dealer chooses to do, I am better off leaving an empty bag. So I'll leave an empty bag.

The dealer meanwhile, bring in more or less the same boat (though at the other end of it), thinks analogous thoughts and comes to the parallel conclusion that it is best to leave an empty bag. And so both of you, with your impeccable (or impeccable-seeming) logic, leave empty bags, and go away empty handed. How sad, for if you had both just cooperated, you could have each gained something you wanted to have.

Does logic prevent cooperation? This is the issue of the Prisoner's Dilemma.

Prisoner's Dilemma is one crucial concept towards the Game Theory.

Now, on to the Beautiful Game:

Last night's drub goalless draw between Manchester United (the new champions) and Chelsea (the defending champions) was probably inspired from this (logical?) non-cooperation principle. Both the managers rested their major players, perhaps in preparation of the FA Cup final at the new Wembley Stadium. In all these game theoretic tactics, to say the least, the fans were at a great loss, as the match ended with a lot of bookings and no goals on the scoresheet!

Perhaps you can sense how boring the game would have been just from the post match report!

Attitude differences

This is what two managers said after a tense UEFA champions league semifinal that saw Liverpool edging past Chelsea for a place in the final:

Rafael Benítez, Liverpool manager

We started really well but they have good players and it was difficult to control the game. Chelsea were fantastic in the second half, they played really well but we were working really hard around our box. We had some chances to finish the game but didn't take them. I think the players knew today how to beat Chelsea. They played with determination and passion and with our supporters behind them. Our supporters were superb and the atmosphere was amazing. I am really proud of them and my players.

[...]

José Mourinho, Chelsea manager

They had a good short period in the first half, but I saw one team in blue playing to win the game. We deserve to be in the final. Chelsea were the better team in the first leg, for 90 minutes in this leg and in extra time. In ten to 20 years nobody will remember that. A penalty shoot-out is part of the game and they were stronger at that part of the game. Chelsea showed more appetite in trying to win the game but at the end of the day they're in the final. Congratulations. I have to be proud of my players and share this difficult moment with them. I know Chelsea fans' hearts and every fan will be disappointed but supportive.

Chelsea manager's quotes do not surprise me at all. With all that history, this was quite expected. And probably the coach is the chief reason for my not liking Chelsea at all! (and probably the same reason applies to Liverpool in better sense).