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!