Speculation about the Swiss Legend

erer

Well, I was sort of speculating on how many Grand Slams would Federer probably end up with. Of course, he's currently re-writing the record books but certainly, a downturn comes for any great player. Currently, Federer holds 12 Grand Slams out of which 5 are Wimbledon titles. Now, his immediate target is to break Sampras's record of 14 Grand Slam tournaments.

Now, as far as the speculation is considered, current observations must be taken into account. The year 2007 was probably the worst one for Federer among the past four years (in 2007 he won 3 Grand Slams). But worst it is becaus he lost as many matches in 2007 as he lost in 2005 and 2006 taken together. It sure sounds like a doomsday prediction. But I still hope that he would keep the steam together for the next 2 to 3 years and if he wins an average of 2 Grand Slams each year he would end up with 18 Grand Slams. Now, if he plays for five to six years more, he would win another Grand Slam or so. That would probably take the tally to 20.

20-that's what I will settle for a prediction. He may win less and may win many more but he would nonetheless be considered the greatest player to pick up a tennis racquet.

The Maestro

Roger Federer is undoubtedly a maestro. He’s a pure genius. He can be compared to a wizard if tennis is magic. A leading newspaper had these eloquent words to say about the great Swiss master: “There’s plenty you could liken Roger Federer’s reign to: genius at work, poetry in motion, the rustle of smooth silk or the rolling hills.”

These words of praise are enough to show the extent of Federer’s play. His domination on world tennis for the fourth-year running is proof enough of that. He plays like silk and yet, his game is tougher than steel. Opponents are simply shattered before his outstanding volleys and symphony-ridden backhands. The forehand is like a blast of ice. And believe it or not—even when he’s playing like hell for four hours, you would be hard put to find a bead of sweat on his face. His grace is special—almost like a God-gift.

But why has he repeatedly failed to win the French Open?

French Open has conjured some of the greatest ironies in the world of tennis. Roland Garros (the venue for French Open) is like a Great Barrier Reef between the other three Grand Slams and the French Open itself. Iconic players like Pete Sampras haven’t been able to win over there while Andre Agassi, who is not the best player on other courts managed to achieve victory on the mecca of clay court tennis. Many players, who have played fantastically on clay haven’t been able to go beyond second round on any other surface. And champions on hard court and grass have failed miserably at Paris.

For the likes of Pete Sampras, it was usually said that his game wasn’t suited best for clay. Clay requires art, patience and toiling ground-strokes. Sampras had all these qualities but not in as much quantity as was necessary to triumph on that dusty surface. Agassi had them in greater amount and hence, he succeeded. But what about Federer?

His game is sublime, artistic, patient and also, his ground-strokes are calibrated to perfection. Since he conquered the entire world of tennis three years ago, he has played three times at the French Open. And on all occasions, he has lost to one man—Rafael Nadal—once in the semis and twice in the finals. Now, Rafael Nadal is considered to be bred in clay—Spaniards really have an affinity for this surface. He has played like a maestro himself on this tricky surface and has kept the crown for three consecutive years—defeating Federer quite comprehensively every time. But as I was blabbing about irony, it is equally fascinating that Nadal hasn’t managed to win any Grand Slams on any other surface and has lost a lot of times quite comprehensively to Federer. So—is Federer a weak player against Nadal? Certainly, this is not true.

What I feel about Federer’s repeated failures to clinch the French Open, even when he’s just a step away, is his inability to think straight while facing Nadal on clay. Taking nothing away from Nadal’s terrific play, I’m just saying that Federer gets into too much pressure while playing the Spaniard on his home turf. He tries to do everything in a measured way, trying to play perfect shots and that’s where he falls. Federer’s game is like poetry and poetry is a waste of time if restrained by the institution of trained methodologies and set of rules. A best poet is one who lets his pen move as his fingers want and allow the words to flow out like a perennial river, instead of selecting each lyric with careful planning.
However, in the case of Nadal (on clay), Federer crushes his poetic shots, free flowing backhands, rushing volleys with too much planning and crafted strategies. This leads to a choking of his eloquent game-play, which is already so disciplined that there is no further requirement of bonding it in chains.

Now, Federer must try and free his mind while facing Nadal on clay. He should believe in his strengths. No other player is better than him even on this controversial surface. He’s not like Sampras, who never managed to reach the finals at Roland Garros. Only Nadal gets the better of him, mostly because of Federer’s faults. It is like a chain reaction that began when Federer lost the first time to the Spaniard. Each year, he is building more pressure upon his game in an effort to win. But efforts can strangle you at times.

Stop doing any effort—you’re already great, Roger! That’s my advice to the great Swiss. I know it sounds a little too arrogant but that’s how good Federer is. There’s no denying this fact.

The Difference between Harry Potter and the Lord of the Rings

Harry Potter series is now five movies old and despite being an adaptation of probably the best fiction series ever written, it has not been able to notch its place among the classic movies of all time. And compare it with another fiction movie series, released at pretty much the same time as Harry Potter—the Lord of the Rings trilogy that has carved a momentous place for itself in the history of world cinema. What made the difference?

Why the comparison?

People might ask this question first and for their clarification, I would say that I feel the two stories are very closely related to each other. Some of the characters of Harry Potter seem very much like those of Lord of the Rings Trilogy. A simple example is the character of Albus Dumbledore, who bears great resemblance to Gandalf Greyham—both in appearance as well as the role-play. Both are like counselors—the guiding force in a battle of good and evil. Both direct the protagonist—Harry Potter and Frodo Baggins—to fight against all odds and destroy the mighty Dark Lord. And coming to Dark Lord, it can be said that both Voldemort and Sauron are also closely related.

Now—both of these books are magnificent in their appeal and storyline. Lord of the Rings is a literary achievement and Harry Potter is a commercial milestone. Then, why is there so much difference between the movie adaptations based on these two great pieces of writing?

The simple reason, I feel, is the direction of the two movies, which is hugely different from each other. The direction of Harry Potter movies seems like a paid enterprise where each director comes in for different part of the series and does his job and then he’s off. There is no emotional bonding between the director and movie. A director is the heart and soul of any movie and until and unless, he’s not involved in every aspect of the movie, it would always be a topsy-turvy affair. For Lord of the Rings, Peter Jackson has given his all. He worked on the movie for more than seven years and developed it like it was his own creation—giving full tribute to the original author of the books as well.

I think the reason for Harry Potter’s failure is over-commercialization of the venture. Warner Bros. are creating the movie just for minting money from the name and fame of Harry Potter books. There is no genuine appeal going with the movies. Had they been stand alone movies without any book to buffer them—they would not have made more than average collections. What I want to say about appeal is evident from the size of the movies, which is a constant source of discussion—why do they make the Harry Potter movies so small? The longer the book, the shorter they are making the movie. It would do no harm to Harry Potter series if the movies were of three-hour duration. That would make the viewers feel more at home and understand the intricacies of the wizarding world better. Now, it is just like pop-corn entertainment. The movie just banks on its special effects, which were also found wanting in the recent installment—Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. The producers don’t seem to realize that they are sending to waste one of the greatest stories every written. They are not able to carry the movies to that next level. The climax scenes get overly trimmed, the more dramatic elements are removed and the characters are not allowed to grow beyond mediocre level.

Exactly opposite has been done in the Lord of the Rings where everything is inch-perfect—characters, costumes, special effects, climax scenes, charms and horrors. I hope the producers and directors realize that they are ruining a gold mine of true movie-making. They may be earning a lot of money but they are just loosing the chance of etching their name in the history of Hollywood and for that matter, the world cinema. There are still two more installments to come in this series and as far as the story is considered, they are almost stupefying and stunning. I hope they decide to put in some show after all the destruction. There is still time left.

A dialogue from the Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring comes to my mind. In that movie, Gandalf said to Frodo: “All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us.” I hope the Harry Potter producers and directors keep this in mind.

THE COSMOS

Cosmos is undoubtedly such a popular and widely-read book that I need not say anything about it.

But such a chattering person I'm that I could not resist to put in a few words of my own about the truly fascinating book I've ever read.

When I picked up Cosmos and skimmed through its pages in a manner of scrutiny, I thought that it was a kind of scientific tome with ill-disguised jargons and horrendous terms. But since, I had nothing else to read I decided it to give it a shot.

And I'm still surprised at the ease with which Carl Sagan transferred me into an entirely new world with his deftly written lines and description. The book whirled me into a journey of the Cosmos, starting with the ancient history of science where great people like Erasthothenes paved the way for future generations to understand the complexity of the Universe. Erasthothenes was in fact the first person to measure the diameter of the Earth using sticks and their shadow on the ground. A great description of the ancient library of Alexandria filled me with awe and respect for those ancient men.

Scientists have been made the main focus of Sagan's work and detailed life histories of people like Kepler has been given in a flowing script that never lets you get away from the theme. It's like reading a suspense novel where you find yourself ticking with anticipation as to what more revelations Sagan is going to make. My favoruite part of the book started when Sagan starts to delve into possibilities of life on other planets and the theory of relativistic time travel. It all fits in like a jigsaw and I was forced to complete the book in two days because of its unrelenting pace.

Carl Sagan is a great writer--winner of Pulitzer Prize and author of several great books that I'm planning to accumulate. My next target is the Pale Blue Dot, which may be considered a sequel to Cosmos where Sagan talks about mankind's prospects on other planets. Even in Cosmos glimpses have been made about such prospects and they had been enough to fill my heart with emotion, ecstacy, wonder and above all, love for my own planet that has up till now been a unique place in the darkness of Cosmos.

I suggest that every one should read this authentic work at least once in his lifetime and experience the timidity of humans in the vast space of the Cosmos. A lot of egos can be settled and the vanity of our futile affairs (wars, economy and double-digit growth rate) on this planet would be laid bare by this legendary work.

The Greatest Game Ever Played

I can bet the title would have made the person think that I'm talking about Football. Nope.

I don't have any personal grievances against Football and I enjoy watching players like Wayne Rooney, Christiano Ronaldo, Thierry Henry but my love in sports lies elsewhere. Any guesses?

Well, it's Tennis and I strictly say Tennis--not Lawn Tennis because that is a part of Tennis itself. But yes, Tennis is the thing that attracts me most in sports. And if break tennis into smaller units I come to the name Roger Federer. He is the one man who tames the most of my attention and what player he is!!!

He is a living wizard and there is not a shot in the game that he can't play with the greatest finesse that any mortal can conjure up in a split-second of decision making. He poisons the game of the opponent, plays with his mind and uses his aces like a great gambler uses his cards. And the gamble has gone on quite successfully for more than three years during which Federer has stacked 12 Grand Slams and only the French Open evades his vice-like grip. Even on clay he's second only to Spain's Rafael Nadal and has lost on the last two occasions to this young talent in the finals.

Federer is a relentless customer and it can be said with arrogant belief that the moment Nadal will lose an ounce of his steam, Federer will clasp the French Open.

Introduction

Hi people, this is the first official entry into the blog named 'Chatter Box'.

My first thought or ambition in creating this blog was to build a place to discuss books and only books and so, I initially named the blog 'Books-the Greatest Joy' but when I pondered on this issue, it became apparent to me that if one talks about books, he is in fact talking about the entire world that we know. For books, according to my ideology, are the storehouse of all knowledge that mankind has unearthed. So, I thought that let's give this blog a more universal appeal and so I christened it the 'Chatter Box'. Here, books can be thought of as the main priority but there can be any amount of talks on any topic possible. Because, every word that I write over here is also learned from books in some form or another and thus, all our knowledge banks on the wealth of books that humanity has accumulated from the garden of God.

All this might sound a little philosophical but if thought carefully, it is really that deep.