Historically....

Hey guys

Back with another crossword.. this time on another of my favourite topics- History.. it's mostly based on Modern Indian and World history (mostly 20th century stuff and the World War 2).. so good luck and happy solving!

Across
4. Party founded by Rajagopalachari to oppose policies of Congress ----------- (9)
Swatantra 5. Supreme Commander of Allies during the D-day landings------------- (10)
Eisenhower 8. Area of Czechoslovakia permitted for annexation under the Munich pact-------- (11)
Sudetenland 12. One of India's youngest revolutionaries to be hanged- at just 18 years------------ (8, 4)
Khudiram Bose 14. Handed Indira Gandhi shock defeat in Rae Bareli in 1977 elections------------ (3, 6)
Raj Narain 15. This proposal immediately preceded the Quit India movement------------ (6)
Cripps 17. Involved in the 'Kakori Conspiracy'--------- (6)
Bismil 20. German chancellor succeeded by Hitler--------- (10)
Hindenburg 22. Hitler's mistress whom he married just before committing suicide in his bunker------------- (3, 5)
Eva Braun 23. CBS journalist and war correspondent who covered World War 2----------- (7, 6)
William Shirer 24. Author of the outstanding award-winning two-part biography of Adolf Hitler titled ''Hubris' and 'Nemesis'------------- (3, 7)
Ian Kershaw

Down
1. Governor General during the partition of Bengal------------- (6)
Curzon 2. India's defence minister under Nehru famous for lapse during Indo-China war----- (7, 5)
Krishna Menon 3. Led French forces against Germany in Nazi-occupied France in World War 2-------- (2, 6)
de Gaulle 4. British police officer shot by mistake by Bhagat Singh and Rajguru---------- (7)
Saunders 6. Israeli PM during the Munch Olympic massacre----------- (5, 4)
Golda Meir 7. Commanded Operation Bluestar in 1984----------------- (2, 4)
KS Brar 9. Town over which Pan American flight was bombed in 1988--------------- (9)
Lockerbie 10. Hanged at TIhar Jail after assassinating Indira Gandhi--------------- (7, 5)
Satwant SIngh 11. Port city in Norway where the Germans first landed during their 'blitzkreig' campaign-------------- (9)
Trondheim 13. 'The Desert Fox" - agreed to commit suicide after being found involved in campaign to eliminate Hitler-------------- (5, 6)
Erwin Rommel 16. Communist faction founded by Lenin------------- (9)
Bolshevik 18. Encryption machine used by Nazi Germany in World War 2
------------- (6) Enigma 19. Japanese invasion of China also known as the 'Rape of ?'------------- (7)
Nanking 21. Scene of World War two's greatest evacuation--------------- (7)
Dunkirk

All two-word answers have a space between the two names
have fun !

The bane of mammon

Curse me if you like. Or call me naive. I stick to my guns that money (material wealth) is the bane of existence. At least an indulgence or excessive importance given to the accumulation of money most definitely is. I have, for years now, noticed how Indian society in particular seems to judge people only by the amount of wealth he/she possesses and care very little for any other personality traits. First question when some random person meets you or your family member at some gathering: What's your son doing? where does he work? Depending on the answer, the next question follows. If the answer is A, B or C (software firms) as is most likely the case considering how stereotypical we Indians are on an average (no offense again), then the reply will be highly 'encouraging'. "Excellent madam, he will get an excellent pay and promotion soon. Will be an ideal candidate once it comes to the bride search blah blah blah". In the highly unlikely event of the parent mentioning a non IT job, the happiness vanishes and is followed by statements that question the choice of job or worse still, sneers in other groups about what a grave mistake the boy has made in not doing what pays well, or as i prefer to see it as (what everybody does anyway).

Nowhere is the love of money, the material wealth and greed for more of the same manifested than in Indian marriages. What is purely meant to be a logical extension of mutual love and admiration of a couple is far from that. The entire process of marriage is now a money-laundering business, and while deploring it is not my intention anyway, I would hardly be getting my point across if I do not expose the scum that lies beneath the well-refined exterior.

There may have been Sanskrit sayings that spoke in glowing terms about knowledge as being the purest of all pursuits ("swadeshe poojyate raja, vidhwan sarvatra poojyate or "vidya dadati vinayam" etc). While I still concur and will continue to do so, the relevance of all this seems to be lost in a society which is increasingly filled with hypocrites. For them though, wealth suddenly becomes important when it comes to marriage scenarios. In other times, they try to don the garb of individuals who denounced wealth and speak eloquently about how important morals are and how trivial money is. Where did the very same morals go when it is time for the marriage of their sons and daughters? This hypocrisy breeds contempt and jealousy but very little love. Why can't a person meet a prospective partner, spend time, get to know his/her nature, appreciate the finer aspects of the character that are products of both the genes and nurture? Instead, salaries and jobs are used as filters in a society that claims to be at the forefront in advances and rational thinking. If this is not the definition of hypocrisy, nothing else is. While I would be the last person to attack astrology or the other empirical sciences that play an important role in the entire matrimony process, I can't help but believe that the horoscope is being used as an alibi to mask the real underlying reason for rejection. People and society in general would be much better off if the prospective partners are allowed to spend time and make their own decision on whether they want to proceed further. This eliminates any ambiguity and leaves very little room for assumptions.

Money is important and much more than I can ever envisage. But like most materials, an over-indulgence is undoubtedly malevolent. We as a well-informed and educated generation would do better if we focus on what brings more lasting happiness than on something that is ephemeral. If money indeed was what mattered to my best friends, I would not have survived the last few years. Their help and encouragement during trying times has not just changed my approach towards material wealth, but has also created an awareness in me that I should enjoy and appreciate the innate qualities that make people wonderful human beings and not the facade that material wealth creates.

Epic crossword

Hey guys.. time for another crossword and this time on a favourite topic. I am not sure about you guys, but Indian mythology especially the Mahabharata has been a fascinating read each and every time i pick it up. The seemingly endless stories and interesting array of characters make it an exceptional epic. I have put together this crossword on Vyasa's great epic. Whether it happened or not is irrelevant, the fact remains that it will perhaps be the greatest work ever.

** Since most answers involve names, slight variants in spellings are ok. I shall provide the number of letters though.

Across

3. King whom Krishna reinistated after killing Kamsa (8)----- UGRASENA
5. Father of Drona (10)----- BHARADWAJA
11. Gifted with divine vision to narrate the war to Dhritarashtra (7)---- SANJAYA
13. Main narrator of the Vishnu Sahasranamam (7)---- BHISHMA
15. Nakul and Sahadeva's uncle. Killed by Yudhishtira (6)---- SHALYA
17. Arjuna's name when in disguise in Virata's kingdom (10)----- BRIHANNALA
19. Vishnu's guards who chose to be reborn in three births as Hiranyaksha- Hiranyakashpu, Ravana-Kumbhakarna and Shishupala-Dantavakra (4,6)---- JAYA VIJAYA
20. One of the four wives of Arjuna (Draupadi, Chitrangada and Subhadra the others)(6)--- ULOOPI
22. Designed the house of lac to eliminate the Pandavas (9)-- PUROCHANA
23. Only Kaurava who opposed the ill-treatment of Draupadi (7)--- VIKARNA
24. Charioteer who raises Karna (8)-- ADIRATHA
25. Yadava warrior who fought on the Pandava side (7)------ SATYAKI


Down

1. Responsible for luring Arjuna away from the Chakravyuha. This ultimately leads to Abhimanyu's death inside. (8)---- SUSHARMA
2. The only person other than Arjuna, Krishna and Abhimanyu who knew to enter the Chakravyuha (did not fight the war) (9)--- PRADYUMNA (KRISHNA'S SON)
4. Krishna's conch (11)---- PANCHAJANYA
6. Jarasandha's Kingdom (7)---- MAGADHA
7. Karna's guru who cursed him for lying that he is a Brahmin (11)---- PARASHURAMA
8. Village that was being terrorized by the demon Bakasura whom Bheema slew (9)--EKACHAKRA
9. 'Neigh of a horse' (11)-- ASHWATTHAMA
10. Jayadratha's wife and Duryodhana's sister (8)--- DUSSHALA
12. Arjuna's name (conqueror of the night (sleep))(9)-- GUDAKESHA
14. Arjuna-Abhimanyu-Parikshit-? (10)--- JANAMEJAYA
16. Joined the Pandava army from the Kaurava camp just before the war (7)-- YUYUTSU
18. Reborn as Shikhandi in order to kill Bhishma (4)-- AMBA
21. The origin of the name Partha (6)-- PRITHA (KUNTI'S ORIGINAL NAME)


And a bonus weirdo question to finish.. Name the Sri Lankan fast bowler whose name figures in the last part of the second line of the first verse of the Vishnu Sahasranamam. He dismissed Brian Lara caught and bowled for 8 in the Singer Cup final in 1995 which Sri Lanka won by 50 runs-------- Eric Upashantha (Shuklambharadharam Vishnum..... Sarva Vigna upashanthaye)
Till next time..cheers!

Contextually speaking..

Graham Gooch's 154: the greatest Test innings ever according to many

Nearly every sporting achievement is measured based on the context. What is the context after all and why is it so paramount? What does it involve and who decides the parameters? Greatness, after all separates the extraordinary from the ordinary, and can be bestowed only to the deserving. What makes a performance special and what makes the circumstances demanding? Majority of these context-related questions are typically raised in a conversation over a drink or two. While the discussions rarely end with a unanimous choice, they do provide a keen insight into the sports fan's mind.

Sample this discussion in a pub between two cricket buffs A and B. One may ask why cricket? Well...after all it is Test cricket and discussions on the topic hardly require a particular time or place..

A: Well, it's been a long time. How have you been? Am fairly sure you have been following all the action lately.

B: Yeah, it has been a while. Of course, I have been following all the matches. Who would miss the cricket after all?

After a couple of usual questions inquiring about trivial stuff such as career and the job, the topic inevitably shifts to the much more serious analysis of Test cricket..

A: Well, After taking a look at the stupid XI that the ICC put up, I wonder if the people who voted ever watched or read about cricket

B: You're not alone. It's a bloody disgrace not to have Sobers and Richards in a team. Sobers for me goes into any XI even ahead of Bradman..

A: I have to agree but it would be even more interesting to see a top 10 innings list. I would imagine it being populated by Tendulkar and Sehwag efforts considering what people exposed to. However, what would be your picks?

B: Read about many and watched quite a few too. But Laxman's 281 for me stands out. An outstanding bowling attack led by two of the greatest ever in Mcgrath and Warne. 274 runs behind and following on. Can it really get better? Add to it the impact he made on the match and series itself. Simply the best..

A: Interesting choice. But I would perhaps rate Gooch's 154 at Headingley slightly higher. Ok, England had a 25-run lead going into the second innings but no other player even crossed 20 while Gooch batted throughout the innings against Marshall, Ambrose, Patterson and Walsh. That beats the Autralian attack for me which at least had a couple of weaker bowlers in Kasprowicz and Mark Waugh.

B: Dude, you must be kidding me. Laxman started when India were 222 adrift and took them to a score of 608 i.e. 334 ahead and effectively sealed the Test. Look at the context and impact.

A: Righto. But he had Ganguly for support first. Ganguly made a crucial 48 which is easily forgotten and then Dravid, who made a brilliant 180 which is overshadowed by Laxman's effort. What did Gooch have anyway? He made 154 out of 252 and carried his bat through the innings. Add to it the fact that the pitch was fairly tough and that he was up against the finest pace attack going around. And yeah, helped England win a Test at home against West Indies after 22 goddamn years...

B: If you are looking at the quality of the attack, then Kim Hughes' effort in Melbourne is probably an even better one. He came in at 8 for 3 and soon 26 for 4 and faced Roberts, Holding, Croft and Garner. Simply superb 100 out of 198.

A: Yeah, the Hughes effort was exceptional. But we have to consider the fact that Lillee's burst at the end of the day which left West Indies at 10/4 was the turning point and what's more, he nailed Viv Richards.

B: Don't drag the bowlers in now. In that case, all Tests are won by bowlers. Harbhajan Singh had to win it for India and so did the England bowlers after Gooch's effort. Why, even Bob Willis' 8 for 43 is more responsible than Ian Botham's 149.

A: Nonsense. Botham gave England a chance in a game where they had no hope. Dilley and Old played a minor role, but Botham transformed the mood of the series.

B: Lara's 213 and 153? Surely, they figure right up there. Imagine the plight the West Indians were in. 51 all out in Trinidad and 34/4 in Jamaica chasing 256. He responds with the 213 and in Barbados, he steers them to a target of 308 from 78/3. Mcgrath, Gillespie, Warne and Macgill. These are two of the best knocks man.

A: Warne was not as potent man and was coming back from the surgery. That was the case in 1998 in Chennai too when Tendulkar took to him. And yeah, the attack had no Mcgrath and featured Gavin Robertson. How pathetic is that? What about Tendulkar's special in Chennai in 1999? Akram and Saqlain were brilliant and Tendulkar nearly took them home from a hopeless 82/5.

B: Mark the words nearly. He didn't help them cross the line that's all. You are remembered not for aiming at the target but for hitting it. Did not win it simple. Can't quite be up there because of that.

A: That's stupidity. So all top efforts in losses can't be on top you mean? Gavaskar's stunning 96 on a bloody hard Bangalore track where Tauseef and Qasim bowled nearly 90% of the overs. Tendulkar's 169 in Cape Town after India fell to 58/5. Lara's efforts in Sri Lanka. Come on, you must rethink.

B: No man. There is no need to rethink. The best knocks in history are always ones that result in wins. Greenidge's 214 made a mockery of England's target at Lord's, Gavaskar's 221 is an exception because it came so close to a win.

A: It was a draw. Don't contradict yourself. What about Bradman's 270 on a spiteful MCG pitch. 2-0 down in the series and turning it around completely.

B: Hold your horses man. Australia had made 200 and kept England down to 72. Bradman astutely sent the tail enders first and when the pitch got better, Fingleton joined him at 98 for 5 in a 346-run stand. It's not the score but the quality of support you have to look at here.

A: All said and done, the 270 turned the series around and he followed it up with 169 and 212 to win the series 3-2. Amazing really!

B: I'll make one exception though. Stan McCabe's 187 against Larwood and Voce is top class even though its a loss. Doing it against Bodyline. Stuff of legend man.

A: Contradicting yourself. Bradman was back in the next Test and made a duck and hundred leading Australia to a win. So perhaps, that is the better effort. Although Bradman himself says Stan was better.

B: Ponting's fourth innings classic at Old Trafford. He did it all alone for Australia.

A: If Mcgrath and Lee had not held out for four overs, Ponting's effort would have been in vain. What a thin line? Dravid's 233?

B: Agreed that India were up against it trailing by 556. But an Aussie attack without Mcgrath and Warne. Instead Brad Williams. It's a good knock not a great one. Dravid averaged just 15.5 in 1999 when both the greats were there. So you see, there is a difference. I think Steve Waugh's 200 was better.

A: He had Mark Waugh for support. I personally think the West Indian attack in that series was not as good as 1993 when Ambrose blew Australia away.

B: Gavaskar's 236 maybe?

A: Dead rubber. 3-0 down and although it was 0/2, I would rather think his 94-ball century in Delhi was better. Sobers' 254 man. Sadly not considered an official Test. Not often would Bradman call a knock the finest in Australia.

B: Yeah. Would have to agree. Lillee at his searing best and on a pair, the knock is right up there man. Fredericks 169 for its ferocity i suppose. And how about Miandad's century in Jamaica. Stunner!

A: Definitely one of his best knocks. The closest any team came to beating West Indies in the Caribbean. Richard's 109 in Delhi also great. Four down chasing nearly 280. Good effort although not a great attack.

B: So can we come to a conclusion man. Seems like we have evaluated the context and impact for many knocks now.

A: Laxman, Gooch, Hughes, Lara, Botham the top five in order for me i guess.

B: I'd put Gooch, Lara, Hughes, Laxman and perhaps Bradman..

A: Hmmm.. not quite the list according to me.

B: Nor is yours. Needs a relook..

A: Perhaps, next time, we can discuss in detail.

B: Wasn't this good enough.. Guess we rope in few more guys next time..Great fun it was though. Adios..

A: Yup. I just recalled. Forgot Gilly's 149 in Hobart. But not quite top tenner maybe.

A number voyage

After a spectacular 2000th Test where a few records and statistical highlights emerged, I thought of the importance of numbers and stats in analysing sports. A recent article set about questioning the role of numbers and the pursuit of statistical analysis of performances. While stats don't quit reveal the full picture, a careful and exact analysis can often bust a few myths and end arguments while fueling new ones.. Here's a small number based quiz to all fellow cricket stats enthusiasts..I sure am a huge fan of cricket stats and can't quite describe how amazing the feeling is when I dig into scorecards and databases to find answers to the most 'useless' of questions :)

All you need to do is to fill in the exact number there. Accuracy is important guys. Some are easy/well-known numbers and the rest...well, don't curse me!

1. Gavaskar's aggregate in his debut series: _ _ _

2. Bob Massie's match figures on Test debut: _ _ / _ _ _ (example 10/74)

3. Sir Garry Sobers Test average: _ _ . _ _ (example 35.25)

4. Highest Test partnership: _ _ _

5. The scores in the four innings in the first Tied Test:

WI 1st innings: _ _ _

Australia 1st innings: _ _ _

WI 2nd innings: _ _ _

Australia 2nd innings: _ _ _

6. Laker's figures in the two innings at Old Trafford 1956: _ _ / _ _ and _ / _ _

7. Wally Hammond's record Ashes series aggregate for England in 1928-29: _ _ _

8. Viv Richards' tally in the calendar year 1976: _ _ _ _

9. Test averages of Malcolm Marshall, Joel Garner and Curtly Ambrose: _ _ . _ _ & _ _ . _ _ & _ _ . _ _

10. Ambrose's figures when he bowled England out for 46 in Trinidad in 1994: _ / _ _

11. Score when Graham Dilley joined Ian Botham in THE TEST in Headingley 1981: _ _ _/_ (example 200/9)

12. Score when Dravid entered in Calcutta 2001 and score when the partnership ended (clue: partnership was 376 runs)

entry: _ _ _/_

exit: _ _ _/_

13. The number of wickets Dennis Lillee has in Tests and number of dismissals for Rodney Marsh (hint: both numbers are equal): _ _ _

14. The highest ever stand to end in a run out: _ _ _

15. Best bowling in an innings in a defeat : _/_ _

16. Total number of wickets taken by Terry Alderman in 12 Tests in England in 1981 and 1989
: _ _

17. West Indies' lowest score in Tests till they were bowled out for 51 in Trinidad in 1999: _ _

18. CLyde Walcott's run tally in the 1954-55 series against Australia which WI lose 3-0: _ _ _

19. The score at entry of Jack Fingleton and the partnership total with Bradman in the famous 1936-37 MCG Test where Bradman sent tail-enders to bat first on a tough pitch: _ _ / _ and _ _ _

20. The deficit Australia overcame against Sri Lanka in the 1992 Colombo Test (Aus won by 16 runs): _ _ _

That's it for now guys...be back with more later..have fun


1. 774
2. 16/137
3. 57.78
4. 624- jayawardene and sangakkara
5. 453, 505, 284, 232
6. 9/53 and 10/37
7. 905
8. 1710
9. 20.94 20.97 and 20.99
10. 6/24
11. 135/7
12. 232/4 and 608/5
13. 95
14. 446
15. 9/83
16. 83
17. 53
18. 827
19. 98/5 and 346
20. 291

DVD Reviews: Fire in Babylon and From the Ashes: Excellent recreation and terrific entertainment

Fire in Babylon: The story of the outstanding West Indies cricket team of the 1970s and 1980s



A video that I had been waiting to get my hands on did not disappoint. For someone who grew up listening to heroic achievements of West Indian greats, and idolised their top performers, this movie was a Godsend. I had read about West Indian history and followed their cricket for years, but the movie claimed to provide me with something that I had never quite seen- rare footage of classic match-action and interviews with the best players of a bygone era. The story itself is woven around the tale of how prevalent racism was in the early days of Caribbean cricket, and how important it was for the natives to reclaim their identity. Although it is not clear how many players shared these sentiments, it becomes quite easy to understand that most of them wished to make the cricket field a platform where they could perform and demonstrate to the 'masters' (whites) that they could compete and surpass the best around. The movie traces the roots of cricket in the Caribbean back to the early days of Headley and Constantine till the 1960 series against Australia when Frank Worrell was appointed captain and in effect became the first black captain to lead the West Indies. Cricket remains the only sport where players from all islands, so disparate in nature and way of life, come together and the first instance of this unity was seen under Worrell. Perhaps, more importantly, the West Indies became a far more competitive side intent on erasing the tag of 'Calypso entertainers' who mostly enjoyed the game and did not care much about victory.

The 1960-61 series in Australia was played to full houses and the quality was top-class. Worrell's team was given a ticker-tape farewell in Melbourne and this was the start of an era in which West Indies would go on to become a genuine competitor. However, the form tapered off in the early 1970s and in 1975-76, the West Indians were humiliated 5-1 in Australia. They were stunned by the wild crowds and aggressive fast bowling of Lillee and Thomson. Racist taunts added to the embarrassment. Following a 1-1 draw in the home series against India, Clive Lloyd, who was perilously close to losing his captaincy, embarked on a move that was to revolutionise the game. He chose to pack his side with four fast bowlers who would relentlessly pummel and pepper the opposition with hostile pace and bounce. Tony Greig's unfortunate grovel' remark touched a raw nerve, and West Indies, led by Viv Richards' batting and Michael Holding's blinding pace annihilated England. Packer's World Series Cricket came and went but had a positive effect on the West Indies team who seemed to discover the joy of playing together and winning. England stood no chance any more but the big challenge lay in winning in Australia, something no West Indian team had ever achieved previously. They duly went on to crush Australia unleashing a barrage of short-pitched bowling. The press tried to curtail the use of bouncers and devise tactics to nullify the threat posed by the Caribbean pace bowlers. It was, however, not hostile bowling alone, but a brilliant combination of aggressive bowling and batting which led the West Indies to the top of the world. The icing on the cake came when Lloyd' team won 5-0 in England, an unprecedented achievement. Despite the protests against the bowling, very few had answers to the quality of the West Indies. The film beautifully portrays the rise and provides a strong emphasis on the background of racism and torture that proved to be a motivation for most members of the great team, especially Richards.

For cricket fans in this generation who have grown up wishing to know more about the era when the Caribbean Kings lorded over the cricketing world, the movie is perfect. The DVD is a must-own for a cricket aficionado. It is packed with extra features including interviews with batsmen who faced up to the bowling and an interview with David Frith, the former editor of Wisden, who does not quite approve of the nature of the bowling. Overall, but for a few glitches in the footage, and for the fact that there could have been some more emphasis on the 1960s team, the movie is a great one and one to add to the collection.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the Ashes: the story of Ian Botham masterminding England's remarkable comeback in the Ashes 1981



There are very few stories in sport that transcend eras and occupy a place in the list of immortal achievements. One such is the story of Ian Botham's outstanding performances in the Ashes series in 1981 when he, almost singlehandedly, took England to the promised land from a position where they stood no chance whatsoever.
The movie considers the political situation in England and talks about the unrest prevalent at that time. Innumerable strikes and violence were rife in England in the first few months of 1981 and there was very little that could be done to improve the mood of the nation. The focus shifts to the cricket where the picture was gloomy too. Botham, who had been offered captaincy at the young age of 24, struggled for impact against the powerful West Indies and his captaincy was hanging by a thread as England took on Australia in the series that mattered. Dropped catches and ordinary bowling led to a defeat in the first Test and in the second Test (Botham's last chance to redeem himself), Australia were denied victory by the rain. Botham's form, however, was in the doldrums as he was dismissed for a pair, lasting just three balls in the match. Onto the third Test and Botham was replaced as captain by the scholarly Mike Brearley, who was described by the opposition as someone who could not bat, bowl or field. But lead he could! Brearley seemed to strike a chord perfectly with his beleaguered team mates and when Botham and Willis were chosen to play, England had hope. Quickly, the hope disappeared when Australia racked up over 400 and shot England out for just 174 with only Botham scoring a half-century. Australia enforced the follow on and England were on the ropes at 105/5 when Botham walked in. The movie packs the sequence with excellent interviews. Gideon Haigh, Kim Hughes (the Australian captain), Rodney Marsh among others have painted a picture which seems to bring the series to life. Botham, joined by Graham Dilley at 135/7, decided to enjoy himself, and with nothing to lose, swung away merrily at the bowling. Soon, the situation turned grim for Australia, and they were left chasing 130 for a 2-0 win. Botham's extraordinary 149* was indeed the stuff of dreams, and Bob Willis, who until the start of the game, was hardly a certainty to play, lit up the stage with a superb display of 8/43 to bowl Australia out for 111. England had won after following on and the nation was on its feet.

In the next Test at Edgbaston, Botham was central to a heist as he picked up five wickets for one run to snuff out Australia's chase when they seemed well on course for an easy win. Australia never recovered and Botham cracked another hundred at Old Trafford to crush Australia 3-1. The movie is narrated superbly and the story has been presented interestingly. After hearing for years about the drama of July-August 1981 and Botham's greatness, it is time to see it for real. Another great DVD to add to the colelction!

Sudden yet Seamless: the enduring charm of tennis

Novak Djokovic's recent Wimbledon triumph is yet another addition to the long list of surprises that make tennis a marvellous game to follow. One could ask, what is unique about surprises in tennis? The appeal of the game lies in the fact that these unexpected results are just so logical and predictable that anything other than these periodic shocks may be construed as uncharacteristic. The talented Serbian is no stranger to Grand Slam finals having won the Australian Open in 2008 and making the US Open final in 2007 and 2010. However, his show in 2011 is nothing short of astounding. After a brilliant display in the Australian Open, he ran up a streak of 41 consecutive wins in 2011 before a defeat to Roger Federer in the semi-final at Roland Garros. Although people cannot be faulted for assuming that the end of the streak would restore the Federer-Nadal domination, there was something different about Djokovic's run. He had defeated Rafael Nadal four times in four ATP finals in a year, a feat even the great Federer could not achieve. Two of these wins came on clay, a surface where Nadal has been near-invincible. To anyone doubting that tennis is just as cerebral a sport as it is physical, the psychological advantage the Serb had over the Mallorcan was perfect evidence. The tennis quality on display in the second set was reminiscent of Pete Sampras' remarkable performance in the Wimbledon 1999 final when Andre Agassi was left high and dry. Nadal, the supreme athlete, was dumbfounded by the angles that Djokovic managed to find with uncanny regularity. It might have come as a shock to many who had seen Nadal hold a 10-2 record in Grand Slam finals till the Wimbledon final, but to me the result was something I was very used to- tennis had always managed to serve these up from time to time.

This was my 20th Wimbledon. Ever since I watched Agassi's heroics in 1992, I had witnessed a remarkable pattern of rise and dominance in men's tennis. Actually, the pattern goes back well into the 1970s. Bjorn Borg's domination of the lawns of Wimbledon was unprecedented in the open era, but after the brilliant display by the brash, yet highly gifted John McEnroe in the 1980 final, it seemed like Borg's time was about to run out. McEnroe defeated Borg in the 1981 final and also in the US open final in the same year, prompting Borg to retire at just 25 with 11 titles. The McEnroe show was not as complete, but the most unbelievable result came in 1985 when an unknown 17-year old German by name Boris Becker burst on the scene defeating Kevin Curren in the Wimbledon final. Becker defended his title in 1986, but was at the receiving end when Stefan Edberg won his first title in 1988 with an exceptional display of serve and volley tennis. Becker and Edberg won the Wimbledon titles in 1989 and 1990, but the signs were clear that their hold on the sport was coming to an end. Sampras, Agassi and Jim Courier were three very different players from the same country. While Sampras boasted an excellent serve and volley game, Agassi and Courier surprisingly possessed a strong baseline game, mostly a feature of clay-court specialists.

The 1993 Wimbledon is fresh in memory as it serves as a perfect example to illustrate the change of guard at the top of tennis. Becker met Sampras in one semi-final and Courier played Edberg in the other. Courier had won the Australian Open and made the finals of the French losing to Sergi Bruguera. Edberg, on the other hand, had a couple of lean years by his standards but was still expected to reach his fourth final. Another Becker-Edberg classic was on the cards, but in what followed, Sampras and Courier dethroned the greats, and ushered in a new era. Sampras went on to win Wimbledon and the US Open in 1993 and added to his Wimbledon count in the next three years. Becker and Edberg quietly faded away although the former won the Australian in 1995 and made the finals of Wimbledon in the same year, losing to Sampras. The giant Dutchman Richard Krajicek stunned the world by defeating Sampras in the quarter-final in Wimbledon 1996 but normal service resumed soon with Agassi also back to winning ways. Sampras won the next four Wimbledon titles, but never quite conquered clay. In Wimbledon 2001, 19-year old Roger Federer from Switzerland eliminated Sampras in a five-set thriller in the fourth round. His sublime groundstrokes and quicksilver footwork were soon to dominate the tour. Infact Federer's 237 consecutive weeks at No.1 is an aberration when the rankings are closely observed. Federer dominated the game between 2004 and 2007 winning 11 out of 16 possible titles. But then, just as people thought he would go on to win everything in sight for the next few years, out came Rafael Nadal, who till then had dominated Federer in clay-court exchanges but never on other surfaces. With his heavy top-spin game and extraordinary physical strength, he destroyed Federer in the French final in 2008, and soon after, triumphed in one of the finest matches in the Wimbledon final. Between 2008 and 2011, the pair won 10 out of 12 titles with Djokovic and Juan Martin Del Potro winning the other two. Djokovic's wins over Federer in the US open in 2010 and the Australian Open in 2011 were shocks, but served notice to the top two that it was no more a two-horse race. The results were sudden but the progress never in doubt. As in many previous cases, the ascent of Djokovic has again reinforced my view that tennis (especially men's tennis) has an everlasting charm that can be attributed as much to the unique pattern of rise and dominance of players as to the skills of those involved..