Retribution

I still cry when I recall the events of March 14 1996. The World Cup was the biggest event I could imagine and West Indies had been robbed of their chance to win it! You may ask why WI and why not India? Nothing matched the charisma of WI and the enjoyment they brought to the millions of viewers. The mid 90s however had been the beginning of the fall for WI. They had lost the Test series at home to Australia and were well beaten in the tri-series in Australia in 95-96. Come the World Cup though, all I wanted was Brian Lara to turn up and fire. Curtly Ambrose and Courtney Walsh were there too. How could they not perform?? Really, how? In their opening match, West Indies beat Zimbabwe fairly comfortably but came up short against India. The dropped catch by Courtney Browne cost them dear as Sachin Tendulkar made 70 to set up India's chase in Gwalior. And yeah, Brian Lara was incorrectly ruled out caught behind to add to my woes. Worse was to come. WI refused to tour Sri Lanka for security reasons and were docked two points. I still can't believe this happened. Sri Lanka got four points without playing Aus and WI. Next came the moment I almost had a heart attack. WI were complacent beyond belief in Pune and went down by 73 runs to Kenya. Yeah, you read it right - Kenya!!! Was this the end of the road. Well, everybody thought so. Not me! Certainly not. I had watched the team with so much enthusiasm and affection that I could not even bring myself to believe they would not qualify for the quarter-finals. In Jaipur, they hauled themselves up and beat Australia with Richie Richardson scoring 93 and Lara 60. Job done?? Hardly. The next game was against South Africa on Mar 11th. South Africa, you must be kidding me. No team stood a chance against them. SA had won five out of five in their group and were the epitome of consistency so far.

I had only moved to my new place on Mar 9th, the night of the humdinger between India and Pakistan in Bangalore. On March 11th, the third and fourth quarter-finals were played. For now, I could care less about the fourth (between Australia and NZ)in Madras. Would Lara, my favourite batsman (now you know my blog's name!) deliver? Would he? I prayed far more than I ever have for any bloody exam. And deliver he did. Lara played one of the most amazing ODI innings I have seen against a quality SA attack to push WI to 264. He had not hit a boundary for nearly 23 balls but opened up and smashed a century off just 83 balls (one behind the then Lloyd record. WI bowled and fielded with purpose. SA were bowled out for just 245 and I just could not believe my eyes. Losing to Kenya and then taking out Aus and SA. Stuff of dreams and surely, WI could go the distance?

Aus entered the semis against WI as firm favourites despite their loss in Jaipur. In the quarter-final against NZ, Aus had made a mockery of a tight chase of 287 with Mark Waugh scoring yet another century (his third of the tournament). How would WI deal with this batting line-up? The answer was emphatic. Curtly Ambrose, Mark Waugh's nemesis for years, produced a dream spell to remove him and Ricky Ponting. Ian Bishop bowled Mark Taylor and Steve Waugh to leave Australia rocking at 15/4!! Was it all over? I started dreaming of Lahore. Not just yet said Australia's crisis man Michael Bevan. Bevan had only recently stunned WI on New Year's day 96 at the SCG orchestrating a tense chase of 173 after Australia looked dead and buried at 38/6. In Mohali too, Bevan and Stuart Law set about the recovery process. Law, lucky to gain a reprieve for a close lbw call, made 72 and Bevan made 69 as Aus reached a competitive 207. But that should really not have been a tough target considering the batting might WI had.

Shivnarine Chanderpaul and Courtney Browne started fairly well until Browne hit a long hop from Shane Warne back to the bowler. In came Lara and set about playing some outstanding shots. He certainly was on a roll and made run scoring on a difficult pitch look ridiculously easy. With the score on 93 after Lara had produced a gem of a cover drive, Steve Waugh bowled a wonderful slower off-cutter to bowl Lara. Still Chanderpaul and Richardson stood firm and guided WI to within touching distance. At 165/2 in 41 overs, I sniffed Lahore. Chanders was out to a tired shot caught at mid on. Then came the horror show. The pressure got to WI as Jimmy Adams fell trying to sweep Warne. But what was Mr Venkataraghavan doing there? He gave a terrible caught behind decision to end Ottis Gibson's innings and a debatable lbw call against Ian Bishop who was a more than useful lower order batsman. In between, Keith Arthurton slashed at a wide one from Damien Fleming to end a miserable tournament. Richardson swept Warne mightily only this time for the other umpire BC Cooray to stop it with his head (bloody head!!). A certain boundary averted! The WI captain meanwhile played his hook shots superbly and kept WI in the game. With nine runs needed off the last over (a tie was enough to take WI through courtesy their win in Jaipur), Fleming stepped up to bowl it. Richardson swung the first ball for four to fine leg. He then ran a totally unnecessary run as Ambrose was run out by Healy. Next came the dreaded moment. Walsh walked out, had a word and went up to face Fleming. What was Walsh thinking as he had a swipe at the ball? I saw the stumps rattled and could not believe my eyes. I saw Richardson's face and started sobbing inconsolably. I cried all night only for dad to reassure me that WI would come back. But deep down, I knew it was hard, almost impossible for WI to resurrect themselves after this shocking loss. Alas, my friends (Deepak and Jayanth) have often told me that they believe Wi would never have slipped this far below had they gone on to lift the 96 WC. I think so too. The tears stopped the next day but the pain did not end. I was witness to 16 years of struggle and only the great memories of WI's achievements from the decades gone by kept me glued to the game...

Until...Oct 2012. WI had their best chance in a format I hate. I have been a Test lover and still continue to enjoy the traditional form. But then, I watched the tournament with the hope that WI could spring a surprise or two. Was I being too demanding in asking for consistency across a tournament though? WI had the necessary luck in the group stages and the Super Eights. Now they were up against the old adversary Australia. On form, WI had no chance. Given the record in major tournaments, it was a no contest. But something told me WI had it in them this time. It was seriously retribution time. Time to erase the dark memories of Mohali 96. Richardson and Gibson in the staff and Bishop a part of the commentary team. Wouldn't they have wished for the same? It turned out to be a no contest all right! WI hammered Australia all round the park to amass 205 and bowled Australia out for just 131. Really, I felt the Gods had been kind this time. I remember being taken to a temple of a particular deity some time in 1995. The deity was supposed to be powerful enough to grant any wish instantly. While everyone prayed for academic and financial success, my mind had no other thought but a WI win. I am still ragged about making such a wish but would I have done different in retrospect? Certainly not!

There was one small hurdle (ok large) to clear though. The hosts Sri Lanka had crushed WI in the tournament earlier and in three previous meetings. WI stood a very small chance of upsetting the trend. And once their talisman Chris Gayle went, the odds were even more in favour of the Sri Lankans. In stepped Marlon Samuels. He had shown glimpses of his talent in 2002 in India but went off the boil for years. In the 2007 WC game against England, he was responsible for Brian Lara's run out in what turned out to be Lara's last match. I never forgave him for that. But in the last two years, Samuels is a changed man. He has demonstrated terrific consistency in all forms of the game and on the night of Oct 7, 2012, he was unstoppable. He smote the 'unhittable' Lasith Malinga for a number of sixes and dragged WI out of a hole. Once WI reached 138, I knew it was game on. Now for the bowling. WI had an attack that lacked discipline and intensity. On this night, however, they had oodles of everything an attack needs. They struck getting the dangerous Dilshan early and pressured Sangakkara into making an error. Soon, the Sri Lankan captain Jayawardene was to follow and I could not stop jumping around like a kid. Wi withstood a late fightback from the hosts and held their nerve. When the final catch was taken, tears flowed down my eyes. I could not believe what was happening. The very reason I love the game has been WI. The only batsman I will watch if I have a minute to live is Lara. What is there not to like about this team? The greatest entertainers the sport has seen and certainly, the most dominant at one point too. Memories of 96 flashed by my eyes and I could visualize Richardson thinking the same word too : Retribution!

A quality discussion, and analysing southpaws

When Albert Einstein was asked to explain his complex theory of relativity to laymen, he did so pithily - "When a man sits with a pretty girl for an hour, it seems like a minute. But let him sit on a hot stove for a minute and it's longer than any hour. That's relativity." As an analogy, when I was working at my previous firm, every day seemed like a year. The people were nice and I never really was the kind who worked hard but still I felt a lacuna in my life. I just wasn't doing something that came to me naturally. Since the move to Cricinfo on April 19 2010, I cannot help but feel that the void has been filled. Talking, discussing and watching cricket are about as amazing as sitting with the 'pretty girl'. The incredible journey has already touched two years and it is impossible to imagine that this has been the case. I have not been in too many jobs to compare and contrast but can safely attest that the workplace is among the finest one can hope to have. An immensely knowledgeable set of colleagues each with his/her own interests united by a common love- for sport. Meeting cricketing greats, listening to them talk about the game, exchange views on football & tennis, playing quizzes on the fly and getting the opportunity to read, interpret and indulge in cricket stats has given me the chance to live my biggest passion. My friends and family have been the greatest support during my trying times and have encouraged me throughout to excel. Just yesterday, i witnessed numerous 'likes' and comments on an audio clip that I recorded (co-incidentally on the two-year anniversary). Not only does this thrill me, it also gives me additional motivation to enjoy what I do and work on fulfilling my other dreams.

I started humbly by writing stuff on cricket and sports on this blog. Life has come a long way since that November afternoon in 2005 when I wrote my first piece on Brian Lara, my favourite batsman. I guess that explains the name of the blog. Writing was hugely enjoyable and provided me with a chance to get noticed and helped me land a job in Cricinfo. There has been something I have wanted to do for a while now and this analysis is a tribute to the blog and to my family and friends without whom the dream would have hardly been realised.

Part 1: Quality factor

For years, a debate that has raged on in cricket is about the quality of batsmen that a bowler has dismissed. Whenever discussions on fast bowlers start, there are many who wonder if Fred Trueman's demolition job of a hapless Indian team in the early 1950s is something worth considering. What about Australia's easy wins against a declining West Indies team or Sri Lanka's strolls against Bangladesh/Zimbabwe. Now, I have not been able to come up with a definitive list of quality of wickets taken by measuring the averages of each of the batsmen dismissed simply because of the enormity of the task. It is something, however, that I am more than likely to embark on soon. Still, the curiosity got the better of me and I decided to analyse the wickets quality by the batting position of the batsmen dismissed. Although night watchmen can create some confusion, they can be ignored in the overall picture.

The overall batting average over the years has hovered around the 30 mark. It is unlikely to change much given the days of bowlers dominating are long gone. So, I have considered batting averages for each batting position and compared them to the overall average to provide a glimpse of the quality of the batsman (at each position). Of course, this can be extended to each team, individual players and each era. But then, the calculations involved are far more complicated. This, I believe, serves as a fairly good indicator of wicket quality.

In a nutshell, if a bowler picks up 200 wickets overall and has picked up 30 opening batsmen (No. 1 position), the quality for each of the 30 wickets is calculated using (37.12/30.16) where 37.12 is the batting average for openers and 30.16 is the overall average in Tests. Finally, after calculating the quality this way for the number of wickets the bowler has claimed at each position, the numbers are averaged to provide an overall quality measure.

Graph measuring wicket quality of bowlers (300-plus wickets)

When I finally calculated for all the bowlers with 300-plus wickets, there were a few surprises. Chaminda Vaas topped the list followed by Makhaya Ntini. Both were significantly more threatening with the new ball and less likely to run riot with a slightly older ball. Hence the high percentage of top-five batsmen dismissals for these players. Allan Donald and Glenn McGrath take the next two spots. Overall, there are nine bowlers who have a quality factor greater than 100. Needless to say, all are pace bowlers since they primarily get to bowl at the top-order batsmen. Spinners, however, are often the key on dusty tracks and enter the attack quite early. Kumble, Vettori and Muralitharan, by virtue of being the lead bowlers in weak bowling units, have picked up a significant number of top-order wickets. Shane Warne, who figures at the bottom of the list (92% quality) played for most part of his career alongside McGrath, who was outstanding against the top-order batsmen. Warne often came in with two or three wickets down and weaved his magic against the middle order. Although he figures at the bottom of the spinners' list, it is more so because of the nature of the Australian bowling attack in which there were excellent wicket-taking fast bowlers.

Graph of percentage of top-five wickets

Wasim Akram, arguably the finest left-arm fast bowler, figures rather low on the quality front. Akram played with Waqar Younis and both, together, formed one of the most potent combinations in Tests. Akram had remarkable variety and excelled with the old ball. His ability to generate late swing (reverse swing) made him lethal against the middle and lower order batsmen. His presence at the top of the list of tailender wicket-takers confirms this. Warne, with his variations, was also a crucial bowler for Australia when it came to cleaning up the opposition lower order. he tops the list of lower-order wicket-takers (8-11) followed by Lance Gibbs and Harbhajan Singh.

Graph of percentage of lower-order (8-11) wickets

I did another exercise to dispel a few doubts. Many have doubted Muralitharan's ability to perform outside Sri Lanka. While it is true that he has got a huge percentage of his wickets at home, he has been responsible for Sri Lanka's resurgence as a competitive Test team outside Asia. His top-order wickets percentage goes up to 49.67% in matches against top teams (excluding Bangladesh and Zimbabwe) and crosses 50 in matches against these teams outside Asia. This is enough to suggest that Muralitharan was more often than not Sri Lanka's go-to man against the top teams when the other bowlers struggled for impact. And outside Asia, on pitches less conducive to spin, he raised his game even further to give his team a chance.

Part 2: Southpaws rule?

Left-handers. Boon or bane? They certainly provide the variety that is essential to sport. Laver, Connors, McEnroe and now Nadal, have risen to the top of tennis with a playing style that puts off right handers. To begin with, they get to serve to the right-handers' backhand on the 'ad' court when under pressure. The reverse does not hold good though. Righties cant quite do the same to the their left-handed counterparts and end up feeding the powerful forehand. In Nadal's case, Djokovic seems to have an answer for everything but overall, Nadal has troubled everyone including Federer, who is arguably one of the finest players to grace the same. Then doesn't this lead us to the question whether being left-handed gives someone an advantage, perhaps an even unfair one?

Left to right-hander wickets ratio for bowlers

In cricket, left-handers are termed more graceful, languid and pleasing. Cricket aficionados rejoice when they watch a Gower drive or a Lara cut. Is the whole 'grace' thing hyped or is there substance behind some claims? In the beginning, i.e. 1877-1914, there were precious few left-handers. They constituted less than 12% of the total number of batsmen. However, as the decades rolled by, the percentage gradually rose from 13.68% in the period between the World Wars to around 16% around 1970. The next two decades saw a rise in the number but that was nothing compared to the proliferation of lefties post 2000. In the last 12 years (affording some overlap), nearly 26% of batsmen playing are lefties and it is needless to say that bowlers have had a difficult time in adapting.

Left-hander % across the years

Now, all this is not enough to say that being a leftie guarantees more success. By analysing the relationship between individual scores and batsman type, one can perhaps figure out if there is a benefit of being a left-hander. Lara, Hayden, Sobers, Jayasuriya, Gayle have all made triple-centuries which lends weight to the argument that being a left-hander might just assist a batsman to last longer and hence make bigger scores. Let's look at a few numbers though to substantiate the claim. Across all sets of scores considered, left-handers have a significant increase in their percentage when it comes to 300-plus scores. Between 0 and 299, the percentage contribution of left-handers has been almost always around the 25% mark. The only plausible explanation is that left-handers are more likely to negotiate the new ball successfully in the beginning of the innings and later on in the knock. Right-handers are more vulnerable to the new ball at later stages of their innings simply because most bowlers are able to adapt their styles better to bowl to righties. It might never have a perfect explanation but makes for an interesting stat.

Right and left-hander % across various score ranges

All the tables are sorted and provided in the excel sheet below

All about stats

Quite a few articles have been written about stats. Some question their relevance while others exaggerate their significance. Whatever be the case, stats and numbers have played an integral role in attracting me to the game of cricket and my love for the game is sustained because of the magic of numbers. Here is a crossword I designed purely based on records, scores, performances from the past. Best of luck solving it. Be sure to have your numbers hat on. You'll need it big time! PS: Try and send the responses by email to madhusudhanramakrishnan@gmail.com so that comments on this page don't end up giving away the answers. Thanks.

Across

3. 93, 8032, 57.78, 26/30 --- (6)

5. 503, 606 and 117/0. what's the venue? -- (6)

6. Replaced by ? after 18 and 1 (675-run loss)--(9)

9. 26 wickets to give Aussies their only win in WI (1973) till Taylor's team in 1995-- (6)

10. 7/1 spell and 9/86.. wow! -- (7,5)

14. top scorer in 75, 127, 327, 276/5 (8)

16. 127 and 0 in this game 256 547 471 164 (9)

17. 136 in the legendary 346 (9)

18. 178, adds 106 with Walsh (yes am not kidding)!-- (6)

20. Poor captain who ran into Don's red hot streak 270, 212, 169 (5)

21. 182, 165 and 224- top scores in the three Tests of a series. Keeper of losing side? (6) last name only

23. 58/5 followed by 222 stand. where? -- (8)

24. Dravid & VVS(stand Adelaide 2003-04) - (Lara against SA, WC 2003) = glorious knock that will stand test of time.(7)

25. scores 285, 411 stand to rescue England (5,3) --

26. Aussie last-wicket pair snatch tie against SA... batsman was left on 43 off 32. If I remember right, had a one run short :) -- (5)

29. 7/46 and 7/44 helps defend 85 -- (9)

30. Don- 173 and the man in question (182) set up chase of 404 (6)

Down

1. 5 tons, 827 runs in series but lose 0-3... (7)

2. 8/92 and 6/57-- (7)

4. 356th?? , a record, who writes your scripts?-- (4, 5)

7. 905 at 113.25 -- (7)

8. 6/16 WI crumble to 53.. shock defeat.. but comeback to bowl opponents for 131 and 77 next Test :)-- (5)

11.Aus lead at Eden, Fleming against SL and ? scored the same against Aus (Durban)-- (7)

12.Nadkarni 21 maidens in a row.. but 137 dots in a row? -- (8)

13.as many wickets as 232/4 to 608/5 -- (8)

15.910. 32 and 27 all out. Poor losers. Name them. -- (4, 6, 4)

19.Run out for 260, ends stand of 446 -- (5)

22.8/3 soon 26/4 scores 100 of 198 -- (3,6)

27.twin 65's (gabba), 261 (nottingham), died at 42.... connect -- (7)

28.Handles the ball on 133, triggers collapse (5)

The hero one could aspire to be

I have always wondered if Matthew Syed thought of Rahul Dravid before he wrote Bounce. In his superb book, Syed goes on to assert that there is no such thing as genius/natural talent and that success is purely a result of practice and more practice. I wouldn't go so far as to agree completely with the author but he does have a point. Dravid was never among the most gifted batsmen of his generation. Nor was he charismatic- the bums on seats type of player. But then, he was normal, simple and in these traits lie the man's appeal. He worked hard on his technique, proceeded to hit thousands of balls in the nets, learned to sharpen his eyesight and reflexes through sheer effort. Did all this pay off? Yes, most certainly. Dravid could never improvise like a Tendulkar or Sehwag nor did he possess the ability to play three shots for one delivery. But he definitely had mastered the most crucial aspect of batting - that of knowing which shot to play for a particular ball. He had boundless patience and could seemingly stretch it further on demand. He could withstand the toughest conditions and bowling with a bloody mindedness that was scarcely believable.

Dravid had all the runs and centuries to prove that he was among the game's finest. But that is not what set him apart. He did make the game look like a challenge- especially Test cricket. I have often believed that Test cricket is analogous to life. A normal man cannot waft away the difficulties and trials in life but is instead forced to deal with them step by step. Dravid, similarly ensured that he would methodically deal with the challenges in Tests. He blunted the bowlers in the most difficult conditions with his unerring patience and determination. The cornerstones of Dravid's success were his self-belief and intense focus. There were occasions when he was beaten or dismissed playing a rash shot but then, he would be the first to admit his mistake and correct it. Test cricket has charmed audiences because of the variety of characters it has produced. Dravid was one whom the common man could relate to more than anybody else. He was modest, diligent, calm and well-mannered. Dravid took the sport seriously but never transgressed the line. He had an iron will to win but never let it affect his sportsmanspirit.

Dravid finished as the world's second-highest run-getter behind Tendulkar and the fourth-highest century scorer behind Tendulkar, Kallis and Ponting. However, it was never about numbers for the man. He chose to maintain a low profile and funnily enough, almost all his major achievements were also eclipsed or cast to the background by other incidents. His vital 180 in Kolkata, 2001, is almost forgotten in light of Laxman's immortal 281. Not that the man cared. He always put the team ahead of himself and this is reflected in his final decision to retire. Given his glorious career, he probably had the right to play on and choose a farewell at home. But then, that would never be Dravid-like. He always performed like it was his duty and never once did he consider himself better than the others around. One could find an analogy with the quiet worker in a company who is responsible for the strong foundation and success but never quite gets the credit he deserves. Dravid was the pivot around which the rest of the team revolved. He performed when it mattered the most and when the chips were down. He did have a few chinks- just two centuries against Australia and South Africa being the most notable. But then, a wall is not remembered for a few loose bricks but is instead respected for its overall stability. In the end, Dravid proved that he is a hero worth emulating both as a cricketer and human being. His individual innings may always take the backseat but his contribution to the team for 16 years can never be measured in terms of statistics. He always will be the hero one can and must aspire to be.

Know old Hindi songs/movies? Here you go..

The period between the 1940-1980 marked the golden era of Hindi film music. Some of the best lyricists, composers and singers played their part in making the music in that period immortal. Here is a crossword based on the movies, the songs, the singers and what not. So, play on- u can listen to the music too while you solve this.. only don't google :)

Across

2. Music director for the classic 'Kuhu Kuhu bole Koyaliya' sung by Rafi and Lata from Suvarna Sundari - clue is it is originally a Telugu and then Tamil Movie in which Ghantasala and P Susheela sing. (11, 3)

-- Adinarayana Rao 6. Singer of Bole re Papihara (4,6)

--- Vani Jairam 8. Voice for Rishi Kapoor in Bobby (10, 5)

--- Shailendra Singh 10. O Duniya ke Rakhwale - enough said - name of movie (5,5)

--Baiju Bawra 11. Singer of 'Na Jao sayyan' from Guru dutt's 'Sahib Biwi aur Gulaam' (5,4)

-- Geeta Dutt 12. Hum Dono - Jaidev - ? (Lyricist -first name only)- (5)

--- Sahil Ludhianvi 14. Music director for the immortal song Kabhi Kabhie (7)

--- Khayyam 15. AVM Productions' movie with songs 'aaja sanam madhur chandni' 'yeh raat bheegi bheegi' and 'rasik balma' - (5,5)

-- Chori Chori 17. Music director for the classic movie Anarkali featuring the song Yeh Zindagi usiki hai (10)- last name only

-- C Ramachandra 18. Male singer of the song picturised on Sunil Dutt/Nutan where he teaches her to sing and corrects her pronunciation (6)

-- Mukesh 19. 'chingari koi bhadke' 'raina beeit jaaye' 'yeh kya hua' 'kuch to log kahenge'- director of the movie with these classic songs (6,7)

-- Shakti Samanta 20. Director of the movie with the songs Suhana Safar saat and Aaja re pardesi (5,3)

-- Bimal Roy 21. The trinity- rafi, naushad and - (7- first name only)

-- Shakeel Badayuni 22. Kamal Amrohi's classic movie with the songs Chalte Chalte (Lata) and Inhi Logon Ne (7)

-- Pakeezah Down

1. Bhupinder & Lata's 'Beeti na bitai raina' is from this movie (8)

-- Parichay 3. One of Hindi cinema's greatest music directors who went through a career without a single song with Lata (2,6)

-- O P Nayyar 4. Lata sang this legendary singer's 'soja rajkumari' in her album Shraddhanjali as a tribute (2, 6)-

-- K L Saigal 5. Singer of song 'Zindagi kaisi hai paheli' from Anand (5,3)

-- Manna Dey 7. Movie based on Indo-China war (song Zara si aahat- Lata & Madan Mohan combo)- (8)

-- Haqeeqat 8. Timeless classic which Talat Mahmood almost never sang (because SD Burman found him smoking outside recording room) Name the movie (7)

-- Sujatha 9. Movie where Kishore sings for both the male and female voices- Aakhe seedi lagi (4,6)

-- Half Ticket 12. Song picturised on Farokh sheikh and Deepti Naval is in this movie (5,5)-sung by the ghazal king Jagjit Singh

-- Saath Saath 13. Movie which has a famous song with Dev Anand and Nutan on bicycles (6,5)

-- Paying Guest 16. Movie for which Laxmikant Pyarelal won their first Filmfare award for a great song Chahoonga main tujhe by Rafi (5)

-- Dosti 20. Ketaki Gulab Juhi sung by Bhimsen Joshi and Manna Dey (1956 movie)- (6,5)

-- Basant Bahar

Dissecting a unique trivalry

Tennis is a game I have been following for about 21 years now. From the time I remember, men's tennis has hardly been more exciting. What makes it tick? Is it the quality of the players or is it the pace of the game? The answer, I firmly believe, lies in the tripartite struggle for supremacy among Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic. Rivalries have been a part of the game and characterised it for ages. It was Laver-Newcombe in the 1960s, Borg-Connors/Borg-McEnroe and later McEnroe-Connors in the 1970s and early 80s, the outstanding serve and volley exponents Becker and Edberg in the late 1980s who were constantly challenged by the athletic Ivan Lendl and the American greats Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi who played and lived in contrasting styles for much of the 90s. But there never has been a 'trivalry' of the kind that has emerged in recent years following the rise of Djokovic. The Serb, who for years played in the shadow of Federer and Nadal and nursed fitness issues, has raised his game to a formidable level that can consistently challenge and even topple the two greats. But then, providence (three players fighting it out at one time) alone can't quite be a reason for people to love and crave for more contests. The contrast in styles, the variety in approaches, the mental match-ups and above all the personalities contribute to making each match a spectacle. I have waited a while to write this one and analyse this extraordinary 'trivalry'. There can be no better occasion to do so right after one of the finest matches played in my memory between Djokovic and Nadal with the Serb prevailing for the third time in three finals. Rings a bell?? Read on....

Federer turned pro in the late 1990s when Sampras was still in his pomp. Agassi as well had returned from a lay-off and slump to seriously challenge Sampras, who was able to stamp his authority on all Slams except the French where his serve and volley game was seriously hampered by the slowness of the surface. Federer had been junior Wimbledon Champion but no one quite expected him to challenge Sampras in their fourth-round clash in 2001. Sampras had won seven Wimbledon titles in eight years and had given a lesson in grass court tennis to Agassi and Rafter in the two previous finals. On that day, however, Federer played some of the most delightful shots and served and volleyed better than the great man on the other side. He stunned Sampras in five absorbing sets but went on to lose to Tim Henman in the next round. He made a shock exit in the first round in 2002 losing to Croatia's Mario Ancic but was getting better by the day. In 2003, he made his first major breakthrough when he won Wimbledon by beating the big-serving Mark Philippoussis. In 2004, he grabbed the number one ranking after winning three of the Slams with the highlight being the 6-0 7-6 6-0 demolition of former no.1 Lleyton Hewitt. The tennis world seemed to be Federer's to have but he was beaten in the semis of the Australian Open by Marat Safin in a glorious five-setter and then by the 18-year old Nadal in the semis in Roland Garros. However, he added the remaining two slams to his collection and repeated the three-slam year twice more in 2006 and 2007.

Nadal, however, was getting better exponentially. He built his game around a mind-boggling stamina and physique. He had the ability to make the best movers (read Michael Chang in the 90s) look pedestrian. Nadal was comfortably beaten in Wimbledon 2006 and was struggling for impact on the hard courts by virtue of possessing a clay court game centered around top-spin. His learning ability was remarkable and in the very next year, Nadal gave Federer a run for his money before losing in five tight sets in Wimbledon. The warning signals for the great Swiss were there. Nadal had dominated Federer on clay already beating him three times in three years in the finals in Paris and added a fourth scalp when he demolished him in straight sets in 2008. It was to get better soon as he pipped Federer on the lawns of Wimbledon 6-4 6-4 6-7 6-7 9-7 in a classic. His hold on Federer continued as he bested the man from Basel in five enthralling sets in Melbourne in 2009. Federer won his first French title in the same year as Nadal was shockingly handed a fourth-round loss by the Swede Robin Soderling. Nadal played Federer twice later in the French Open finals in 2011 and the Australian Open semis in 2012 and there was no respite. He had got into the Swiss' mind and had no intention of letting him go. Nadal had problems of his own though and ran into a brick wall named Djokovic in the final.

Djokovic always had the talent and was considered a huge talent. But his body and temperament deserted him at vital moments for almost four years. He lost his first final (US Open 2007) to Federer despite having the edge in the first two sets. He exacted some revenge in the 2008 Australian Open as he beat a slightly unfit Federer and then the surprise finalist Jo-Wilfred Tsonga to capture his first title. Between then and the start of 2011,Djokovic had to contend with the best form of Federer and Nadal and often failed to match up. His fitness was a huge question mark and he had to deal with it if he wanted to have any chance at all. In the US Open semis in 2010, he staved off two match points and upset Federer only to lose to Nadal in the final. 2011 was the 'annus mirabilis' as far as Djokovic was concerned. He embarked on a 41-match winning streak and won the Australian Open beating Andy Murray before his tremendous run was halted by Federer in a superb contest in the semis in Paris. This was only a minor blip for the now rejuvenated and well-oiled Djokovic as he beat Nadal in the finals of the next two Slams. Perhaps, Djokovic's biggest triumph came not in a final but in the semis in New York when he fought back from two sets down against Federer and edged the 16-time Grand Slam winner. At the end of the year, he was by far the best player in the world and Nadal was the first to admit that the Serb had a psychological hold over him after winning all six finals they clashed in. Nadal would surely know this for he had a similar hold on Federer over the years. Djokovic cemented his vice-like grip over the Mallorcan by coming up trumps in the longest Grand Slam final (5 hours and 53 min) in Melbourne after fighting back from a set down initially and a break down in the fifth.

Now that the players have been analysed, it is time to dissect the 'trivalry'. Three greats with different game plans and styles pitted against each other often enough in a year almost surely means one can learn from his mistakes and come back better the next time. But this does not always happen because the mind has been scarred after certain battles. A player's style gives him the edge over another but is a liability against the third. One's strength becomes a weakness against another player. A detailed examination of the playing styles is an interesting exercise and reveals the reasons behind the dominance of one player in the head-to-head record.

The Federer-Nadal rivalry was the first of the major match-ups. Federer was easily the more gifted and was capable of playing surreal tennis with an almost impossible ease. He glided across the court and bemused opponents with his languid motion. Till he came up against Nadal in 2005, no player had the answer to the Swiss genius' abilities. Nadal was a different cup of tea. He played a very different game centered around brute force and stamina. He could run all day and muscled the ball from virtually all corners of the court. His heavy top spinning forehand created a difficult angle and the prodigious bounce meant that Federer with his single-hand backhand could not never force the issue. Nadal read this early and made sure he would pound the Federer backhand with his spinning forehand. Short replies from Federer inevitably meant that Nadal would dictate the points. Also the natural left handers angle on the ad court gave Nadal an advantage serving wide to the Federer backhand from where the Swiss could never get into a winning position. Federer thus was at an obvious disadvantage whenever he faced a breakpoint or was on the verge of trying to convert one. The breakpoint conversion stats for the two players tell the story. Thirdly, Federer had to rely a lot on his serve to stay in points against Nadal. If Federer got into a rally, he never was quite sure about the shot placement and how to time his arrival to the net as he feared Nadal's pace across the court. Nadal's style may have given him the wins and the mental edge over Federer but it has fallen right into the hands of Djokovic.

The Nadal-Djokovic match-up is an interesting case. It is another example of how defeats leave lasting impressions. Nadal led Djokovic comfortably for the first four years before the Serb beat Nadal for the first time im a Slam in iImbledon 2011. Before the Wimbledon triumph, Djokovic had got the better of the Spaniard on the hard courts in Indian Wells and Miami and on the clay in Rome and Madrid. What did Djokovic have that the enormously gifted Federer did not? And what made Nadal look so helpless as he became the first man in the Open Era to lose three consecutive finals (seven finals so far against the Serb). Djokovic has a much improved double-handed backhand which is the best in the business. He can be aggressive with it hitting both cross court and down the line winners at will. He is able to target the Nadal forehand with his powerful backhand and run the left-hander off the court to set up the point. His forehand is also more powerful than Federer's as he hits it down the line flat with more venom. His cross court forehand torments Nadal's backhand and weak returns often mean the Spaniard can never gain control. Djokovic is also moving as well as anybody and has the best service return going around. He cancels Nadal's advantage from the ad court by virtue of being able to return powerfully with the two handed backhand unlike Federer who can mostly chip or slice when the ball goes away. With Djokovic matching his pace, Nadal struggles to come up with an alternative plan. His top spin serve and shots fall into the Serb's hands. Djokovic is able to impart more ball speed and strike better when the ball is high than when it is played flat like in matches against Federer.

The Federer-Djokovic contest is unique. Federer has the game to trouble Djokovic and beat him nearly every time. But age and reflexes are fast catching up on the Swiss. He has failed to close out matches from winning positions in two consecutive US Open semis but was able to pull off a remarkable win in Paris when he stopped the red-hot Djokovic in four sets. Federer serves suoerbly and disguises the angles well which means Djokovic cannot quite get a pattern in returning. Federer hits a single-handed backhand which is a liability against Nadal but not so against the Serb who also hits the ball flat. Federer mixes up his game and uses the slice more often than the other two to control the play. His low ball (slice) makes it much harder for Djokovic to hit winners. The Serb, however, has won three of his last four meeting in Grand Slams against Federer and is succeeding mostly not because of his playing style but because of his mental strength and newly-gained endurance.

The three players have given much to savour and promise much more in the near future. Men's tennis hardly needed a boost but has got its shot in the arm now. Andy Murray was brilliant in the Australian Open and is getting ever so close to that elusive title. When that happens, the state of the game can only get better. Lip smacking fare indeed. Bring it on guys!

The immortal hero

It all started very normally. I just got back from a nice session of table tennis and sat down at the table for dinner. Mom was tired and bored and suddenly, to her surprise, discovered that 'Thalapathi' was playing on TV. Without any further delay, mom turned the TV on and sat down to watch the movie for the umpteenth time. I was no different. The movie is special for a number of reasons. Mani Ratnam's uncanny ability to get any actor to produce a brilliant performance, the stunning screenplay and dialogues, Ilayaraja's heavenly music and background score and most of all the life-like depiction of perhaps the greatest friendship story in Hindu Mythology- that of Karna and Duryodhana (in this case Surya and Devraj).

Karna.. well, the very name evokes a sense of charm, a feeling of delight and I cannot help but applaud and respect the great hero. Beyond a shadow of doubt, he is the one character in the great epic who truly touches the soul. Abhimanyu may have impressed one and all with his display of valour but Karna's divine grace is augmented by his benevolence and loyalty. Born to Kunti when she was unmarried, Karna is discarded by the princess who fears that her reputation may be tarnished if she is found with a child before her marriage. Karna, born with the Kavacha (armour) and Kundala (ear rings), was the son of Surya, the sun God. With a heavy heart Kunti lets him go and he is rescued and brought up by Adiratha (a charioteer) and Radha. Henceforth, the great Kshatriya went on to be known as Radheya (son of Radha).

Karna, who exhibited exceptional talent at archery, sought to hone his skills under the tutelage of the great Dronacharya who was the preceptor for the royals. Drona was handpicked by the great Bhishma to train the Pandavas and Kauravas in all aspects of warfare. Always partial to Arjuna, Drona even had the thumb of Ekalavya (a tribal boy who seemed capable of bettering Arjuna) cut to prevent anyone from surpassing his favourite student. Karna was also disregarded when he approached Drona as he was deemed to be of a lower birth. Little did the great guru know of Karna's true birth story. Undeterred, Karna practised regularly and was soon an archer nonpareil. When the time came for the princes to demonstrate their prowess and acquired skills, Karna walked into the arena and challenged Arjuna. Arjuna had just performed a dazzling array of feats and left the spectators awestruck with his seemingly divine ability to wield the bow. Karna, who had left disappointed when Drona refused to teach him, had sought the guidance of the great Parashurama instead. Parashurama, an incarnation of Vishnu, was a Kshatriya hater who had sworn vengeance on the clan as they were responsible for the death of his righteous father Jamadagni. Karna knew of this hatred and disguised himself as a Brahmin so as to learn from the great Acharya.

Indra, the father of Arjuna(again born through the boon granted by Durvasa just as Karna was born earlier), wanted to ensure that his son remained unbeatable. He, taking the form of a bee, stung Karna's lap on which Parashurama was sleeping. Karna bore the immense pain without any reaction but when the warm blood trickled across and touched the guru, he woke up and was shocked at what he saw. Quickly he questioned Karna about his true identity and cursed him to forget the knowledge of the greatest weapon (the Brahmastra). The great prince was also cursed when he inadvertently shot a cow. Despite these curses, Karna's skills as an archer remained unchallenged.

Karna was snubbed by all present in the arena but Duryodhana came to his rescue and anointed him the king of Anga. This was the beginning of a remarkable friendship that was to last for life. Karna stood by Duryodhana through thick and thin. Karna was denied once again when Draupadi refused to marry him because of his low birth. Karna never forgot this insult and spoke low of the princess when the Pandavas were on the losing side in the game of dice. Following their exile, the Pandavas returned asking for their share of the kingdom but were not welcomed by Duryodhana who had all but declared himself the sole heir to the throne. When talks failed and Krishna's efforts to reconcile the two groups fell in vain, war seemed imminent.

Bhishma, the omniscient grandsire, knew of Karna's birth. He never brought himself to tell Karna about it though. Kunti and Krishna spoke to the great warrior about his birth and asked him to get back to the Pandava camp where he wpuld be the rightful heir. Karna, the magnanimous and loyal one, refused. He never left Duryodhana's side for it was the latter who had come to his aid when he needed it the most. Taking advantage of Karna's legendary philanthropic nature, Indra once again disguised himself as a Brahmin and asked Karna for his Kavacha and Kundalas. Karna knew the reason why this was happening but did not refuse. He gave them away and the shamed Indra in return, bestowed on him his great weapon which he could use only once. Karna, who refused to fight the war till Bhishma fell (i.e. the tenth day) was stuck with guilt at the fall of the grandsire. Bhishma advised Karna to join the Pandavas too but to no avail.

Karna had promised Kunti that he would never kill any of her other sons and that she would always have five sons in the end. Either he or Arjuna was going to be killed. Karna ended up using Indira's weapon on Bheema's son Ghatotkacha who was proving to be destructive in the night (under Drona's leadership, the war continued after sunset). Ghatotkacha was Krishna's way of distracting Karna and his best idea to save Arjuna from the potent weapon in Karna's hands. Karna took over the Kaurava army at the fall of Drona and reinforced the idea of Dharmyayuddha (righteous war) which had gone missing after Bhishma's fall. He spared the lives of four Pandavas true to his word and also spared Arjuna at the end of the day citing his reverence to the rules of warfare (sunset had passed and it was against the rules to fight on).

On the 17th day of battle, Karna was terror incarnate and nobody looked like being able to stop him. Shalya (Karna's charioteer), who had been critical of Karna for a while, quickly started appreciating him. When he faced Arjuna, Karna tormented the son of Indra repeatedly and cut his bow string on multiple occasions only for Arjuna to replace them in a flash. Then in a critical moment, Karna all but beheaded Arjuna with a sharp arrow only for Krishna to save his favourite disciple by pressing the chariot down. The arrow knocked out Arjuna's crown instead and gave him a new lease of life. Alas the moment of truth had arrived. Karna's curses were beginning to take effect at the most vital juncture. He could not recall the knowledge of the divine astras and his wheel was lodged in the ground. When he got off to lift it, Arjuna waited as it was not worthy of a Kshatriya to engage and unarmed man in combat. However, goaded by Krishna and driven by revenge for his son's (Abhimanyu's) tragic death, Arjuna proceeded to kill the one and only Karna.

When Karna fell, a pall of gloom descended. It was as if the sun had set. The greatest of warriors and the finest of human beings was no more. His unwavering loyalty, unquestionable valour and above all his impeccable standing among kings make Karna unique in Indian mythology. He might have been a tragic hero who had no luck but his name will remain immortal for more than one reason. Karna represents bravery, devotion, magnanimity and is a paradigm of a perfect man. In Bhasa's 'Karnabharam', the playwright talks about the legendary hero's despondency before the war. Perhaps only Karna could have chosen the path he did despite knowing the riches that lay on the other side. Long live the name of the most glorious and inspirational of characters!