Whatever it takes

The past 2 weeks have been good.
I filled my otherwise mind numbingly boring time at my cubicle with religiously hitting F5 every 5 minutes on AustralianOpen.com to get the latest scores, all the while wishing that Australia was closer in time to India so that I could catch the matches live.
But thanks to all the millions the sponsors pour in, the finals are always played out on weekends on primetime, garnering maximum viwership. (I have no problem seeing a commercial or two after 2 games or during changeover if I am getting the whole match!)

So, this weekend was much anticipated.
My favorites – Serena in the woman's draw and Federer in the men' - were both in the finals. Serena was to play the powerful Russian – Safina, the one with thunderous ground strokes and bright sunflower yellow shirts. Federer's opponent was to be one of the two lefties – Nadal or Verdasco. I like many others was expecting Verdasco to take at the most a set off Nadal. But I was also rooting for Verdasco to win because that would make it easier for Federer to win the finals. (And also because Verdasco is just so sexy!)

I should make my inclinations clear here.
I am a Federer fan – through and through.
I like everything about him – the way he plays the game, the suavity and grace he brings to it, the way he makes it look like a stroll in the park, the way he renders good players amateurs, the way he still has Mirka in his box instead of the next Brazilian lingerie model – I told you, I love everything about him. And it has been this way for the past many years. I enjoyed the years when Federer utterly dominated the circuit, when every year he would win all the grand slams, except French, like clockwork. I was not too alarmed last year when he won only 1 grand slam (and made it to the semi final of another and finals of 2 others, losing one in an epic final.) This I knew was a bad season only by his dizzying standards. The "monster" he had created had to be tamed sooner or later.

Though it was heart-breaking to see Federer lose to Nadal yet again in a slam final this time, it got me thinking. I wanted Roger to win this one especially because of many reasons.
It's always good to start the year with a slam; it gives you the platform to potentially complete a calendar grand slam. And this would have been Roger's record equaling 14th. After this he would no longer be chasing history, but scripting it, with considerably lesser pressures. It would also lessen the difference in points between the top 2 ranks, making regaining the No.1 spot feasible. But most importantly, a hard court win would give the needed phillip to try for another French. And it really is high time Roger set about correcting his terrible record against Nadal in slam finals!

I think there was very little to choose between the two players in the first four sets. Even with ridiculously low first serve percentages Federer managed to win 2 sets. But there was no question that Nadal was the fitter, stronger and faster of the two. There was also no doubt that his strategy of relentlessly targeting Federer's backhand was paying.
But to me what stood out was Federer's lack of a game plan to beat Nadal.
And Federer's mystifying refusal to use his backhand slices which were regularly drawing errors from the Nadal forehand more often.

It seemed as if Federer thought, "There is really nothing special I need to do to beat Nadal. Just serve well and play my regular game. My genius has got to over power him."
And this is not the first time I noticed this hint of obstinacy in Roger.

When he won the US open last year, after the whole world had finished writing his obituary, he said that he always knew there were no changes required in his game and what had worked the past years would still work in the years to come. But even I could see that there had to be some tweaks. (Loyal I may be in my admiration, but blind I am not!)
The back hand had to necessarily improve and become more offensive. The serve – both the first and second, though having more than enough pace and variety, would sometimes give way and there had to be a backup plan for such cases.
And it scared me a little that Roger refused to even acknowledge these.

But time and again we have seen that even a below-par Federer can beat the top players, the exception of course being Nadal.
After the uncharacteristically one sided loss to Nadal in the French and later a soul sapping loss in Wimbeldon, Federer seemed to lose half the battle with Nadal even before the matches began.

So, in a moment of tough-love, it struck me that it was time Roger got off his high horse and went about doing something definitive about beating Nadal. For the rest on the circuit his current game is enough, but for Nadal he needs something more. He needs a tactic to play the leftie kicking serves, he needs a way to control his backhand while returning those wicked heavy top spins. He needs to hit the Nadal-angles. And he definitely needs to keep Nadal only across the net and not let him vex his mind.

But if a severely bored techie can figure this out, a fluent in four languages champion can see it too! It will be interesting to see where Roger goes from here. The tears after the recent loss proved he is as hungry as before.

And it is said that the toughest of challenges often draw out the best from champions!

O wins!

I may not be a betting person, but the fact that Obama won gives me an impeccable 100% win-loss record!

(See - I am betting on O)

For the past couple of weeks I have been watching/reading/thinking so much about the elections that Obama even came in my dreams.

It's a pity that like most of my dreams the details are hazy.

Much, maybe too much, has been written about the elections this time.

But you have to forgive the press for going into multiple 'raptures' as there were so many firsts. The first African-American to be president - with a Kenyan father and an itinerant mother, a young president - not even 50 - who speaks of hope and change and manages to move us.
When talking he seems to mean what he says and while listening the crowd seems to forget cynicism. A president (alright, a president-elect) who waxes lyrically about putting your hand on the "arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day".

A person who orchestrated the biggest grass root campaign, raising unheard of amounts over the net, but most importantly running what I consider a decent-beyond-blemish campaign.

All four of us were surfing channels the other day and I stopped at a news channel when I saw Obama speaking. It was the time when Palin was newly unveiled and Sarah-mania was slowly giving way to Sarah-bashing by way of vicious personal attacks.

A reporter presumably asked Obama about Palin's pregnant teenage daughter, Bristol.

Allowing the rare glimmer of anger to flash across his eyes for a nanosecond, Obama in a tone I haven't heard him use many times, said, "People's personal lives are off limits. People's children are especially off limits."

A tiny baby tear stung my eyes. After a quiet moment my father said, "Will they let this man become their President? I don't think so."

My father always maintained that America was too racist to vote for a black person to their highest office. They may say so in the opinion polls, they may declare it openly, but when alone in the voting booth, they will still put a tick across the white man’s name.

When only they are the purveyors of their actions, they will still choose the familiar over a change.

Though I thought that they had possibly transcended the race-issue, at least enough to hear the arguments someone is making, to see beyond skin, in my heart I was always doubtful that the American heartland (yeah, Palin's 'Real America') would ultimately sway McCain's way.

But sway they did not and voted Obama in with more than 50% of popular votes.

I often think back to see why this election meant so much to me.

Obama is not my President and though his policies might have an effect on me, it would be oblique.

Indian politics was something I followed, but not with any special passion.

Brand Obama - with his intelligence, promises and potential - was inpirational.

But I would like to think that it takes more than empty rhetoric to get my vote.

Maybe it was the year and half I spent in America that makes me feel closer to it. Maybe it was the many places I visited and people I spoke to that make me feel connected in a strange way to the outcome. Maybe it was just curiosity.

But whatever it was, I have always felt it was 'right' that Obama should get elected.

And I don't carry the race baggage that middle aged and old America carries.

I don't think that this is the mother of all affirmative actions which will magically right all the wrongs and erase race as an issue for all eternity. I don't feel the need to vote for Obama, hypothetically, just because he is black because somewhere there is a gnawing collective guilt that drones that after decades of slavery this is the least someone could do.

In the same way I don't think I will vote for a Mayawati just because she is a Dalit. While I understand the need for reservations and affirmative actions - in theory, I refuse to let what my long dead previous generations did make me feel guilty.

As a rough corollary, to sketch an Indian Obama, say if an IIT graduate who has a measure of the issues we are facing today and comes off as someone who can potentially deliver on what he says, I think many across the caste board would be willing to vote for him/her. This person being a Dalit or not will personally, and I think for at least most of the educated population, be a non-issue.

Maybe the reason why so many non-Americans across the globe claim a part of Obama's victory as their own is because he is our surrogate. A leader we haven't had and a change we hope to have.

Don't let me make you believe that I have become a certified lala land resident with my unabashed Obama praise! I worry too if he will deliver on all he promises. The fact that expectations from him are projected to be so high that they are punching ozone holes does not make his task any easier!

His supposed foreign policy and trade stances are already causing a flutter back home. Indo-US ties have historically been better when US has had Repulican governments. But I feel we need to give Obama atleast a couple of years to settle in and only then start rating his presidency.

Along the way I may not agree with everything Obama does or doesn't do, but I will always have confidence in his competence. I will always know that he would have paused to consider the implications of his actions.

The man after all has studied law in Harvard, authored 2 books (by himself, no ghosts), is a to-die-for husband and a perfect father.

And that by my definition is qualification enough to rule the world :-)