Opera: The enemy within

I am not a singer by trade and even otherwise would not call myself one.  But I do sing a fair bit in my free time and have taken time to read (or watch) the extensive amount of literature on proper vocal function available on the internet.  I have learnt that many of the principles taught by Western voice instructors are essentially based on bel canto and, to satisfy my curiosity, listened to the great opera singers and read up on them (though, emotionally, that kind of singing is not really for me).

A theme I have noticed in recent writing on opera is the multitude of rants by opera singers or followers of opera against the trend of some singers masquerading as opera singers when, apparently, they are not.   It goes like this:  somebody (say Jackie Evancho or Andrew De Leon) sings a classical aria (usually Nessun Dorma!) on a reality TV show and instantly get incredible airtime and the kind of youtube hits that only Psy can hope to best.   In short, they get popular ‘overnight’ while opera singers toil day in day out (singing without a mike, please note) with little recognition.  Said critics are at pains to point out that merely singing a classical aria with a so called operatic sound (and there’s no such thing as that, to be very precise) does not make one an opera singer.  I have some views about this, which I’d like to elaborate on.  Yeah, a rant of my own.

First off, I do agree with the limited point made by the critics (much to the consternation of Jackie’s millions of devotees, I presume).   The point is well taken that merely singing an aria with that supposedly serious and ‘big’, ‘mature’ tone does not make one an opera singer.  As I said before, opera singers have to sing without amplification and still project their voice in a hall.   With my limited knowledge of singing, I can still appreciate the difficulty of this.

Meantime, I’d like to point out two things.  (1) ‘We’ who sing rock/pop and such other light music also sing over instruments that are ‘amp-ed’ (usually in a very loud and intrusive way with near zero dynamic range if you’re in India) so unless you have a very helpful engineer, your voice would get drowned out unless you project your voice properly.  So I’d contest the lofty claim made by some opera followers that non-classical singers do not know how to sing.  There’s no doubt, though, that a non classical singer would likely find it very difficult to project voice as well as an opera singer without amplification.  (2) Projection of voice in classical singing is also about acoustics, not just volume.  When I once watched a mezzo soprano sing arias with piano and had a good seat, she was very clearly audible to me, every nuance of it.   But when I watched a performance of Beethoven’s Symphony no.9 in a hall with seats arranged in an incline, I found it harder to grasp the details of their singing.  When the acoustics of the venue are favourable, they aid the task of the opera singer.

This is not to take away from the difficulty of what they do and they are indeed the super-athletes of the singing world.  I have no reservations in echoing that claim made of their talents.   I can sympathise with their angst at seeing the technical excellence of their craft being devalued as opera somehow comes to stand for a ‘sound’ rather than a technique, a very demanding one, of singing.  But I’d like to probe into the source of this confusion.   How did the public get familiar enough with opera to hail somebody who sings an aria as a special talent?

To answer this question, I reflected on how I myself got familiar with the word ‘opera’ long before I really began to get any handle over what it really was.   To be precise, who were the first few names that I recognised as opera singers and why.   Why, Luciano Pavarotti, of course, and the famous football stadium concerts.

And this is important.   The person who popularised the notion of opera as a sound or style rather than vocal function was somebody from,er, the fraternity.  Not all alone, of course, they were three of a crowd.  The Three Tenors – Pavarotti, Carreras and Domingo.   Domingo is quoted thus, “I understand the complaints of the purists. But I do not want purists to go to the Three Tenors”.  So much, then, for respect for the core fanbase.

I will choose not to infer whether the whole thing was orchestrated in pursuit of commercial success and $$$ or a genuinely noble desire to spread the word about opera and take it to the masses.   But the point is, it is a dilution of what opera is essentially about.  Singing with amplification at Dodger stadium is not opera.  The catch, unfortunately, is that the singers indulging in this were tenors and three of the very best in the history of opera at that.   It immediately conferred tremendous legitimacy on ‘opera-genre’ singing and made the other, sweaty, hard working kind of opera relatively irrelevant, except of course to loyal opera followers.

And yet, while The Three Tenors business was criticised in some quarters at the time, I do not see nearly the same amount of scorn heaped on the singers who executed it as on little, innocent Jackie Evancho.   She is just a kid, most probably doing what somebody said she should.  The three gentlemen however knew all about opera and therefore knew what they were doing.

And where does opera go from here?  They could take a tough view and disown the legacy of Pavarotti but perhaps the individual has (had) already become larger than his chosen field in this case and to disown him might be to disown opera.   Whole hearted acceptance of this might pave, well, an Autobahn to stardom for the Evanchos and opera might as well cease to exist.  And so, they choose not to talk about Three Tenors when the conversation is about Pavarotti and to condemn the Evanchos in the hope of educating readers about ‘real’ opera.  Ah, but when the greatest superstar of ‘real’ opera is not satisfied with the real thing, then what do you do?

The irony is that the masses still recognise that opera implies something difficult even if they may not process the technical reasons why.  Also, the answer given by those who dislike these exhortations by critics not to call it opera is uncannily similar to Domingo’s words, “At least a few more million people would have heard about opera because of him/her.  Be happy and quit being resentful.”    Dare I say it, but this is typical of the uncomfortable dilemmas Westerners (in particular, those attempting to stand for ideals of some sort) seem to face more and more often lately.   Perhaps, the time for “Do as I say” is over and more of “Do as I do” is the need of the hour.  I am thankful I got to acquire invaluable knowledge about singing from the right people rather than mountebanks masquerading as experts.   I hope that that will be possible in the distant future as well but that would depend on enlightened leadership making the right choices rather than picking a fall guy to blame.

P.S:  I am not a big believer in bashing a strawman and I did not. So I am going to link the articles that I referred to here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/susanne-mentzer/opera-voices_b_1834809.html

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/stevesilverman/100061641/katherine-jenkins-hasnt-got-the-voice-or-the-technique-to-sing-opera-so-why-does-she-pretend-that-she-can/

http://www.trcommons.org/2011/06/prodigy-or-why-i-don%E2%80%99t-like-jackie-evancho/

Murray comes of age, Nadal disappears – a mixed outlook for 2013

There’s still the year ending indoor court season to come, where big serving power players finally get a chance to bash the defenders and steal some limelight….IF indoor king  Roger Federer lets them.   Nevertheless, this is the time of the year that tennis generally looks to the year ahead and starts speculating.

The year began with hopes of an encore or better for Novak Djokovic at the slams and ended with the top four splitting the slams between them one each.   Which would suggest a more open men’s draw than in a long time, before you consider that, like 2011, the rest of the top 10 and 20 failed to make any of the Grand Slam finals.  In fact, Tommy Haas beating Federer at Halle, John Isner making the finals of Indian Wells and Berdych at Madrid were among the few highlights for the rest of the field.    It was a year full of contradictions, with some grinding, physical battles at Australian Open and Roland Garros but lots more net rushing and slices at Wimbledon for those who cared to notice.   More like ‘old’ tennis in a way, perhaps, with each slam bringing a different flavour rather than appearing homogenized.

The big news of course was that Andy Murray finally banished his Grand Slam voodoo.   It might be said that it was unfair to hold him prisoner to lofty expectations and as a young player, he was entitled to take some time to find his range.   But it was Murray’s struggle to convert on final appearances that sparked questions about his attitude.   Djokovic, for instance, converted on his first Grand Slam final as did Del Potro.   Murray’s career was beginning to resemble Tsonga’s and Berdych’s when he had been expected to achieve more.

But in a hard fought five set epic at Flushing Meadows, he banished these doubts for good and in the process vindicated his choice of coach.    80s legend Ivan Lendl may have been away from the game for a long time but he did have what it takes to overcome the toughest of opponents on the biggest stage.   Murray had all the shots, he just needed to know which ones to use under pressure.   Murray’s subdued reaction after winning his maiden slam title summed up the measure of influence Lendl has exerted over Murray.   It might make him more boring for audiences to watch, but could help him win more, and more, at the Slams.

I say this because the other big news of 2012 was Rafael Nadal’s prolonged hiatus due to injury.  He is not very optimistic about returning in time for Australian Open 2012 either, so this is his longest break from tennis.   In 2010, he silenced detractors emphatically with 3 Grand Slams on the trot and an improved, devastating serve but circa 2012, it once again appears as if those who cautioned against the physical demands of his playing style had a point.    Or maybe, he was always racing against time, playing with modified shoes to counter congenital problems.   If that is the case, his 11 slams with 7 of them on clay feels like an even more staggering achievement.

But at the moment, he is not going to be there for sometime and that is a crushing blow to the draw.   Nadal’s tremendous fighting spirit brought an element of theatre to what used to be tennis matches.   With Nadal, the point was simply never over till it was really over and players who got passed after a complacent approach or smash volley would have known this rather too well.   While the physical nature of the game today is ‘blamed’ on slow courts and heavy balls, we forget that before Nadal, tennis was not particularly different from what it used to be, with the distinction that Federer seemed to be playing in a different time and space.  It was when  he began to run down Federer winners and convert defensive positions to strike a few winners of his own that a different approach to the game began to emerge.   Djokovic certainly seems to have imbibed some of Nadal’s indomitable spirit and there were glimpses of a Nadal-like urge to retrieve impossible balls in his US Open quarterfinal against Del Potro (by both players, that is).  Perhaps, irrespective of if and when Nadal returns to the game, his legacy is here to stay.

Meantime, Djokovic’s aura of invincibility has taken a knock this year with losses to each of the top three at the slams and also to Del Potro at the Olympics.   At SW19, Federer appeared to roll back the years as he won his seventh title at the venue and regained the no.1 spot.  But his lacklustre display against Murray at the Olympics and Berdych at the US Open brought to mind the low moments of 2010 and 2011.   Perhaps, the reliability of his serve is never going to be what it used to be in outdoor conditions.    But Federer is more respected than feared these days and expect more reversals to sub top four opponents in the years to come.

That is…is the field really open or is it all falling in place for Murray to build a streak of his own, just like Djoko’s in 2011?  On grass and hard court, Murray arguably faced fewer problems against sub-top 4 players and he also has the most reliable serve of the top four at the moment.   It could be his moment…or we might see Djoko reclaiming his turf.   As much as I love watching both of them, I have to say a grand Fed or Nadal comeback looks much more unlikely to me.  Djoko-Murray might be the next big rivalry.   Or, maybe there’s that dreaded ‘unknown quantity’ lurking in the shadows….somebody who might do a Boris Becker on the field.

Plenty of possibilities, some exciting like Murray’s rise and others more saddening like the feeling that the Fed-Nadal era is on its last laps.   I made a prediction for 2012 which failed disastrously.   I don’t mind repeating the mistake for 2013, but even if  I wanted to, I really cannot make a call on 2013.   Whatever happens, it’s NOT going to be more of the same in 2013.

 

Neethane en ponvasantham: a masterclass in dynamics

I have been going through a strange phase in life, where I am getting back in touch with things that I had enjoyed not so long ago but forgotten for sometime.  Simple things like playing carrom, watching business news channels (not very appetizing, I know), picking up Reader’s Digest, etc.  In the same time, two superstars whose achievements I have followed for a long time enjoyed a resurgence.  One was Roger Federer, who ended his longest grand slam drought this year at Wimbledon.  The other, of course, is the return of the king, Ilayaraja, with the Neethane En Ponvasantham soundtrack.

It seems Gautham Menon wanted to bring back melody in film music when he approached Ilayaraja.  I had a different reason to look forward to a Raja OST for a big banner film – dynamics.   I listen to lots of rock and jazz and like it when the music is dynamic instead of all the notes played the same way again and again.   And if there is one person in Indian film music who does use dynamics very well, it is Ilayaraja.

Of course, Ilayaraja has not been inactive by any means and has come up with superb tunes every once in a while even in the last decade or so.  But I hoped that the budget that a big banner release could afford him would result in better recording quality, something which has plagued memorable tracks like Enakku Piditha Paadal (Julie Ganapathy), which in turn would hopefully capture dynamic contrast in sharp detail.

And from the moment the Sunidhi Chauhan-rendered Muthal Murai crashed out of the blocks, I knew my hopes would not be dashed.  It was like Sangeetha Meham all over again, with some riders.   One, there is a simmering tension in this track which is more reminiscent of Ananda Raagam.  Two, the recording quality is way better (especially if listened to on a good set of speakers at a hefty volume instead of any old crappy earphones).   Three, it’s never going to feel like the first time I heard Sangeetha Meham which was pure musical discovery, no matter how good it is.   But the crisp, clear and full sound did complete justice to the fabulous playing of the musicians.   An aspect which I had discounted or not been aware of, but Ilayaraja’s ‘friends’ from Hungary really raised the bar and the crackling drum fills were worlds apart from the rendering on songs from his hey day in the 80s.

This aspect is most evident in the dramatic Sattru Mumbu but it also lends that vital verve to a more pleasant, lighthearted track like Kaatrai Konjam.   The reason I attach a lot of importance to dynamics is more subconscious than anything:  I just like to feel the music, feel the sticks crashing on the drum skins, feel the vocal cords straining and relaxing, feel the bow over the violin strings and so on.   Ilayaraja’s music always had all of this and with this super duper recording, the effect is enhanced.   I would not consider this soundtrack a masterpiece but it still feels like an oasis given the state of things in the film music scene.  Which brings me to….

A news report on the NEP soundtrack mentioned a whopping 1 lakh advance copies sold and the audience’s enthusiastic reception of the soundtrack.  I quote, “After several years, people were really thrilled to listen to some soulful music away from electronic instruments”.

Hmmm, I am a bit circumspect about all this.  I sense a mania for real instruments, real feeling and more ‘real’ things lately.   The way critics raved about Fiona Apple’s The Idler Wheel is a case in point.  Oh yes, it was a beast of an album, a masterpiece to me (and many others).   But why the disenchantment with the synth stuff?

After raving about NEP, I was listening again to the Endhiran soundtrack. I feel A R Rahman captured the energy of the Indian/Jeans years again in this soundtrack and while it was out and out commercial, it was enjoyable at full blast on the speakers.  Not to be taken seriously, but entertaining.  Yeah….

So the reason I am cautious about this new wave of old school is around the time ARR had hit the bigtime, critics had written advance obituaries for the sake of the orchestra.   Composers claimed keyboards had advanced to the point where they could reproduce all kinds of instrumental sounds on it and wouldn’t need an orchestra anymore.   In less than two decades (and somewhat longer than that in the West), music seems to have come full circle.

It is an inflection point in the evolution of the music business.  The influence it exerted over mainstream culture has steadily, but vastly, diminished over the years.  I remember the Bombay/Dil Se years vividly.  I have never since seen music induce such emotions from a large section of the audience again.   When I watched the final part of the Nolan-Batman trilogy in theater, the audience got up and clapped at the end of the movie.  That kind of stuff… it’s gone.  Music is now just some stuff to play on the car stereo or restaurants for a lot of people.  It always was just that for lots of people, but up to the 90s it could capture the imagination of the youth, before they got jobs and got boring.  For better or worse, bands like Metallica and Linkin Park did.  The last band to do so was probably Slipknot.   I don’t like any of them, by the way, barring the early stuff of Metallica, but that’s not the point.

Searching for that level of engagement with the audience, musicians seem to be returning to old tricks in the hope of capturing an older demographic (maybe because they remember what old school music sounded like and it might whet their nostalgic yearning).   No problemo, but will it just be another passing cloud, like the synth obsession?  If so, what next after people get bored of instruments again?

Was it that we the listeners were not adventurous enough in embracing electronic sounds?  Or was it that too many musicians got a bit too enthusiastic and did not adequately humanize these electronic sounds (like Radiohead)?  Whatever it is, it is an interesting juncture in the journey of music.  For now, I will enjoy both worlds, happy that the old school is not dying out yet and happy also that it may take a bit more than just that to completely wipe out the new.

Of Zakaria, HSBC, Assange…and my disenchantment with contemporary democracy

Yeah, not about tennis this time!  In the meantime, plenty of things have happened that occupy more of my horizon than Rafael Nadal’s withdrawal from much of the hard court season.

As I have settled into full fledged adulthood over the last few years, moving from hot headed – not really, but – college kid to measured corporate professional, I have begun to understand more and more why people are more opinionated and outspoken in their youth than in their later years.  When they would actually be more experienced and be in a much better position to comment on events.  Because (a) definitions and ideals become more and more confused and blurred instead of crystallizing further and (b) it becomes harder and harder to really care.  I submit that people don’t always become more self centred and cynical, but democracy as it is today (not ought to be) ultimately leaves them with no choice.

I am going to talk about three different developments that particularly caught my attention.  It’s not as if these in particular have pushed me closer to questioning whether democracy truly exists; rather, they simply add to the pile.  I am aware that these are entirely my perceptions of situations and I will wait to be informed of further developments that might change those; in short, I shall keep an open mind.  But I am not holding my breath.

First, we had reputed journalist and Padma Bhushan awardee Fareed Zakaria duly reinstated by Time and CNN after he had earlier admitted to and apologized for reproducing text from an article he had not penned.   W..wait, I am not questioning the veracity of their decision.   They may well be justified in maintaining faith in his competence and ignoring it as an aberration; and at the end of their day, it’s their decision.

But I do have a question….would a rookie in the field really get quite such an easy pass?  Plagiarism is more or less the unforgivable for an author and if I could get back after a week or so of suspension, blimey, it might just be worth plagiarising Jeffrey Archer for fiction or Paul Krugman for economics.  I might just get away with it and even if I don’t, a mere apology would suffice whilst I have built up a great reputation.

I don’t have anything personal against Zakaria, whom I have never met.  What I see here, though, is just more of the kind of soft punches that are landed on, ermm, important people when they falter.   The United States of America, in particular, loves to preach to the rest of the world about meritocracies.  But meritocracies cannot survive if the same standards are not seen to be applied to all irrespective of position and when names and relationships matter far too much.   Heard of how top management in some struggling large companies make bigger and bigger bonuses?  See the pattern?

Next up was news that HSBC, along with other banks like Credit Suisse, is turning over data of employees of its Swiss unit to get a settlement in a tax evasion case that is being pursued by the US Justice Department.   These banks are alleged to have helped some customers conceal money from US’s revenue department.  So….as the Justice Dept tries to nab a bank for helping the cause of, ostensibly, the wealthy, the man on the street, for whom this battle is ostensibly being waged, pays the price.   Perhaps, some of these employees were involved in facilitating these transactions and perhaps, they should have blown the whistle.

But could this be too steep a price to pay for a crime that, if it did happen, would more likely have been driven by top management?  What’s the worst that could happen if there’s no settlement and these banks fail?  Should they be forgiven at the cost of the loss of privacy of some employees, on the other hand, who may have had nothing to do with the whole matter?

The last and most intriguing development is of the tussle between Ecuador and United Kingdom.   Ecuador has granted political asylum to Julian Assange whom United Kingdom is after, in order to extradite to Sweden.  Ecuador says they are not convinced UK would not extradite them to US, where he might be subjected to martial law, according to them.

This development is really the grand send up, that really distorts and messes up beliefs and definitions.  Who here is on the side of democracy?  I can no longer tell.  On the one hand, Assange is alleged to have some ugly skeletons in the closet for which he may pay a heavy price.  But we have yet to see what crime he would be tried for, should he land in American clutches.

Post the Lalit Modi v/s Cairns case, it would be foolhardy of me to spell out any details of which I do not possess first hand knowledge, even in the more anonymous environs of an internet blog.   But as an observer, all I can do is chuckle wryly.

I cannot examine each such case in its full depth and judge what would be the most appropriate course of action and it’s not for me to do so anyway.   But I do believe democracy is under siege, not at the hands of religious fanatics, terrorists or dictators as Uncle Sam warned us all these years, but at the hands of Western decadent capitalism.

I am afraid if the rank and file of leadership in industry and government worldwide continue to steadfastly take convenient, dishonest positions on important issues, the ideal notion of democracy will dissolve as its true nature changes beyond recognition.   Merely the right to speak up is of no use if what is true and what is right is not upheld.   While these cases, inaccurate examples though they might be, came to my mind because of their recency, it would not take much rummaging to come up with several incidents in the last few years where the vested interests of a powerful few have hammered the democratic values of all.

Yes, my right to speak up at least on a blog is useless and it is still the most I can do.   I have nothing more to do but to observe silently and chuckle…and feel unable to react as more and more disturbing developments somehow feel less and less surprising.   Yes, why indeed should I care?  I cannot stop some corporate fat cat getting away with terrible blunders, I cannot stop some employer abusing its slaves and I cannot put an end to Western hypocrisy at its malignant extremes.

I don’t have a kingdom but I do have a ‘pad’ – as they say in these parts – and perhaps my time is better expended safeguarding it.

Goodbye and good riddance to India’s Olympic hopes in tennis

I cannot bring myself, generally, to feel glad that a top notch sportsperson failed, more so when said sportspersons are Indian.    But as Leander Paes bowed out of the Mixed Doubles event, I could not help chuckling at the mighty fall of Indian tennis’s big egos.

Mahesh Bhupathi expressed regret that people would write off years and years of commitment to the Indian team after just one spat.  But it is indeed one grave mistake or miscalculation, real or perceived, that can make all the difference in the public eye.   Disagreements with the AITA are nothing new and not unwarranted either.  But it takes some remarkable suspension of logic to hope that people would continue to stand by the participants of a rather unsavoury verbal arm-wrestling bout.

When Leander Paes won the Australian Open mixed doubles title, I said that he was a doubles legend and deserved a lot more credit than he gets in this cricket-crazy country.   After the latest episode of Hesh v/s Lee, I can perhaps see why he doesn’t.  The Kapil-Sunny spat or the Dravid-Sachin cold war (more media made than real) have nothing on this never ending soap opera starring two of India’s most celebrated tennis champions.

Bhupathi harped on the fact that the combination AITA wanted to send to the Olympics had consistently failed to win a medal and a new combination should be tried out.  I have to agree; Bopanna and Vardhan or Devvarman and Vardhan were probably better bets.   Following Bhupathi’s logic, they couldn’t have done any worse than the pairs that India did eventually send to London 2012.

No, I am not being unrealistic.  I know very well that Vishnu Vardhan is not the doubles force that either Paes or Bhupathi was.  And that is why I have hoped, much like AITA perhaps, that they would keep personal differences aside and do what was in the best interests of Indian tennis.

It is often said that the Indian Govt is just not interested in promoting sporting excellence in the country and conveniently panders to the pervasive cricket mania than recognize unsung heroes – until they somehow win a medal against all odds or even then.   But the Lee-Hesh soap opera perhaps demonstrates that even if the Govt did deliver all that we expect them to on the sports front, it would not necessarily ensure a flurry of medals.

It is not even that Paes or Bhupathi may be insufferably selfish and egoistic performers.  Their success with, ironically, doubles players from other countries suggests otherwise, if anything.  It rather points to the country’s poor sense of priorities and inability to focus on the long-range perspective when attempting to resolve conflicts.

We are too quick to pacify hurt egos and too anxious not to offend sensibilities and far too reluctant to confront tough questions and chart out and implement a roadmap for success.   Success per se does not even figure very highly in our priorities; rather, the identity of success does.   It is apt that this country has, apparently, 31 crore Gods and Godesses because it has a similar number of superstars in different spheres of achievements and a disproportionately low magnitude of achievement in comparison to these numbers.    Everybody is his own God in his magic bubble and, as you well know, God only helps those who help themselves so it’s every God for himself in this immensely populated country.

Bhupathi is in a way bang on about his assessment of the failure of the Lee-Hesh combine; India has successfully written the epitaph for the most successful doubles pair it ever produced.   Voila!  Its chances of winning those bagfuls of tennis medals have disappeared until such time as a similarly talented bunch stokes hopes of success yet again.

Years later in the future, perhaps the media will reflect on the lost opportunity of the Lee-Hesh years and curse the Govt and AITA and lament the failure of our institutions to do what is necessary.  There may be a good deal of truth in that, but would it be the whole story?

 

Chip comes charging back to tennis?

 

The Australian Open 2012 final was received with much fanfare.  It had a battleground-esque ferocity and ruthlessness rarely seen in tennis, especially outside the Davis Cup (the Del Potro-Nadal match in the Davis Cup final last year was similar in terms of electrifying atmosphere).   At the same time, it got some people, mostly traditionalists worried about the direction of tennis.  If this was how much top players had to punish themselves physically to win a slam, tennis would see too many injuries, they reasoned.  I guess the sight of such supreme athletes as Djoko and Nadal feeling too tired to even remain standing during the presentation must have been scary.

Whatever….what seems to be unfolding, instead, is a renewed thrust on forward movement, on attacking the short ball.   If you think tennis has gotten even more brutal since that Australian Open final, you probably missed either or all of these moments:  (a) Federer chipping a return to take the net against Murray and smoothly drive volley his weak second shot (Wimbledon) (b) Tsonga bravely coming in behind a second serve in a crucial hold against Murray (Wimbledon)  (c)  Nadal going for a drop shot from the baseline against Djokovic! (French Open).

This last Nadal exhibit is especially interesting, as he has always preferred to play the percentages.  He reasoned after losing the Wimbleon 2007 final narrowly to Federer that he ought to wait longer in a rally for an opportunity to make a winner than to take a risk or attempt something uncharacteristic.    As he subsequently turned the tables on Federer on hard court and grass court, Federer too began to cut risk and play the percentages.   Working an opponent out of court became the magic mantra rather than strokemaking.

Instead, players are ‘going back’ to a more aggressive approach in terms of court position.   I put the words going back in quotes because I cannot remember when last Nadal hit a drop shot off the baseline.  It’s something I expect from Djoko or Federer but not Nadal, especially not at his fortress in Paris.    And it’s not just those three exhibits; both French Open and Wimbledon saw many passages of attacking tennis.   Players serve-volleyed, albeit intermittently, on clay…and I mean, clay court specialists like David Ferrer, not a Sampras going for serve volley because it was his best strategy.   At Wimbledon, the one handed backhand slice made a grand comeback and was frequently put to use.  Players took to the net more often and also flattened out the ball for outright winners from the baseline (instead of going for heavy topspin).

So…what happened to percentages?  To the new brand of brutal tennis that both Djokovic and Nadal claimed to love and hoped to repeat in many more encounters?  The players themselves would obviously be in the best position to give an answer. But my guess is that, simply, tennis has a set of well known formulae and strategies and there comes a point when (a) players know the current strategy too well and it starts to lose its effectiveness and (b) old, abandoned strategies catch players by surprise when resurrected and suddenly become the ‘new strategy’.

Hand in hand, Nadal’s defeats at Halle and Wimbledon and Djokovic’s to Federer at Wimbledon might point to the resurgence of serve as a crucial weapon to win, especially on hard and grass court.   There have been indications of this in the last few months, as Isner reached the Indian Wells final and Raonic consistently stretched top ranked players.   For the last couple of years, the return of serve and baseline depth seemed to have become the most crucial weapons for a tennis player and serve, much less so.   The first mentioned attributes would still remain important to top players but the serve might just regain a bit of the balance.  For that matter, Nadal served really well throughout the clay court season, which was one of the reasons for his near-total domination of it.

Irrespective of whether the prospect of even more physical, brutal tennis had you invoking George Orwell or licking your lips in anticipation, MAYBE it won’t be the future direction of tennis after all.  Perhaps, serve, strokemaking and risk taking will increase in importance to reduce the need to play grinding tennis.   As usual, I am dead neutral about this.  If it’s Federer/Tsonga-like brilliance to watch out for, that would be great…and not so much if it means a Roddick-like ace battery.   I will stay tuned.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wimbledon 2012: An overwhelming display of warmth

Before I start, let me mention that I enjoyed Wimbledon 2011 far more than 2010.    Both finals produced first time winners and though the matches themselves were somewhat one sided, it was exciting to see the fancied favourites being upset.   Djokovic ran Nadal around Centre Court in ways I hadn’t seen before and Kvitova’s effortless yet powerful groundstrokes were magnificent to behold.

But the sound of the Wimbledon crowd’s applause and the reaction of the champions brought to the fore the difference between 2012 and 2011 more tellingly than any stats or effusive superlatives.    2011 was professional and polished, an entertaining and frequently spectacular exhibition of tennis.  2012 brought sportsperson and spectator closer than is usually the case.

Maybe I watched with rose tinted eyes….I don’t know, I wanted to see Djokovic upset Nadal and was thrilled when he did.  But I seem to remember that he celebrated this year’s Australian Open more emphatically than last year’s Wimbledon, even though it was his first triumph at SW19.   The generally reserved Kvitova too was controlled in her post match celebrations.

Serena on the other hand jumped for joy, to put it mildly.  She was winning it for the fifth time but she underlined in poignant words why this Wimbledon title mattered so much to her.   While, objectively, I have to admire Serena’s awesome tennis, I honestly cannot call myself a fan at all.  And yet, I could not help feeling moved to see her overwhelmed with emotion and to see even Venus fighting back her tears of joy.  No gnashed teeth or clenched teeth,  warm hugs was what we got from the Williams camp.   Serena accepted the trophy almost with gratitude.

In the meantime, Murray’s defeat at the hands of Federer left Centre Court and Henman Hill devastated.   I think I saw middle aged men choke with grief at the history that wasn’t made on Sunday.  This gloom was mitigated when Federer’s twin daughters stole the spotlight like isolated sunshine through cloudy British skies.   Federer was, well, Federer but hasn’t it been a long time since we saw him smile so brightly?  As he put it eloquently, it felt like the trophy had never left his hands.   And if there is one man who can beat Murray at Wimbledon and still win over the crowd, it’s Federer.   The crowd got over the catastrophe for at least the time being and whole heartedly rejoiced in the triumph of their favourite guest.  By the by, yes, Radwanska too was rewarded for her valiant resistance with generous approval from the Wimbledon crowd.

It’s that love and affection that was so infectious at this year’s Wimbledon.   Where, really, was it last year is a mystery.  I can hardly remember about 2010, so don’t ask!    For all my advocacy of contemporary tennis and contemporary champions – and it’s 100%  sincere, mind – I am wise to the trap of recency and see trends as they are rather than explain them away.    And a clear and present trend is of Wimbledon gradually joining the rest of the crowd and its exalted position in the minds of tennis followers fading just a bit.

Serena and Federer rose to the spotlight within a couple or more years of each other.  They clearly belong to a different generation from that of the Noles and the Vikas.  One that doesn’t just bask in quaint curiosity in all the tradition and convention of Wimbledon but truly adores all that it stands for.  Pete Sampras, King of Wimbledon in the 90s, was spot on when he said Federer probably loved Wimbledon as much as he himself did.   In the run up to Wimbledon, Serena and Fed bore the brunt of much criticism over their recent form.   Perhaps because of that,  they gratefully accepted the gift of a Wimbledon trophy at a time when they needed it so much, in spite of having won it more times than players win slams overall in their career.

For a long, long time, Wimbledon has unofficially occupied a lofty perch, a sort of first among equals of the four slams.  Fed and Serena’s reaction was a reflection of a time when that distinction clearly held good.  Does it anymore, or is it just another competitive and lucrative tournament like the other three?

I am not saying these distinctions should or shouldn’t hold, because I don’t know the answer and, besides, it’s just a game at the end of the day.   But the audience received familiar champions with a spontaneous display of warmth because  (and this is just my, possibly inaccurate, conjecture) (a) in their heart of hearts, they knew that there may just not be a next time and (b) they didn’t know when next two champions will care quite so much about winning Wimbledon again.

If you skipped this year’s Wimbledon, you missed something that goes a bit beyond sport…and something that we may just miss a little bit in the foreseeable future.  Oh wait, there’s the Olympics up next!

History was made…on Saturday. Were you around?

A topic that is often debated in sports is what is more desirable – quality or competition.   The presence of one doesn’t guarantee another.   Take cricket.  Australia absolutely annihilating India in the World Cup 2003 was a magnificent display of high quality sport – and yet hopelessly one sided.   On the other hand, Ireland v/s Bangladesh in the 2011 World Cup was a closely contested match but more of a low scoring dogfight.

French Open 2012, which concluded last week (today, in fact!), offered an insight into that question.  Today, Novak Djokovic missed his date with history.  He could have been the first man since Rod Laver to hold all four slams at the same time but couldn’t find enough momentum in a start-stop affair.  Instead, Rafael Nadal was officially crowned the greatest clay court player of all time with his 7th French Open title, going past Bjorn Borg.  Also a significant milestone, that.  But we have got so used to Nadal winning at Roland Garros year after year that we hardly noticed.

Meanwhile, Maria Sharapova achieved a rather important milestone on Saturday.  She beat Sara Errani to bag her maiden French Open title and with that, completed her career slam.   And yet, her feat has hardly evoked much enthusiasm, save amongst the legions of ‘Masha’ fans (of which there are many, no doubt).  As one news report put it, it may take more than Maria Sharapova to save women’s tennis.

There were upsets galore in women’s tennis while only Andy Murray from the top four failed to advance to the semi finals.  No.1 played No.2 for the third time running in a Grand Slam final to make it as symmetrical as could be.  Every French Open edition from 2008 onwards has thrown up a new women’s singles winner.   There have been only two winners of the men’s edition from 2005 onwards and one of them, Federer, has only won it once.

And yet, it was the men’s draw that grabbed all the headlines, all the attention.  Far from groaning in boredom at the prospect of Nole v/s Rafa all over again, tennis lovers were licking their lips in anticipation.  This was after all, no ordinary contest.  It was the clash of the titans.

And even rain interruptions couldn’t dampen the contest as Djokovic single handedly provided more resistance than all previous competition put together that Nadal had faced in the tournament.  It is fair to say we already have our minds on the next Roland Garros edition in 2013.  Will Nadal and Djokovic lock horns yet again and will Nole finally turn the tables on the King of Clay?

Meantime, Sharapova swept aside Errani, who she was a good deal taller than as well as lighter.   World no.1 Azarenka was not in contention.  Kim Clijtsers had skipped the tournament and Serena Williams had suffered a not entirely shocking first round upset.  In short, the whole thing was not as worthwhile as could be.

Make no mistake, it’s not a knock on Sharapova.  She recovered from shoulder surgery and endured rather embarrassing problems with her serve to win her fourth major.  One has to say that she has been remarkably focused on her tennis for one who earns a substantial income from off court activities.  By itself,  the story of her comeback is inspiring, the kind of stuff that makes international sport special.

But stack her up with other members of the coveted career slam club and the reason why  reception of this achievement has been rather lukewarm becomes clear.   Chris Evert, Martina Navratilova, Steffi Graf, Serena Williams, that’s the company she keeps.  And no, Venus Williams is not a member of the career slam club nor is Monica Seles.    Arantxa Sanchez Vicario, Martina Hingis, Jennifer Capriati, Justine Henin, Kim Clijtsers – the list of women who have won a bunch of slams but failed to complete the career slam is a long and illustrious one.   Oh…and Djokovic, for all his valiant efforts, is not in the corresponding men’s club either.

No, there’s no beating around the bush.   Sharapova is only a career slammer because the state of women’s tennis is what it is.  Surprises, upsets, volatility excite when they are caused by a packed field of top notch players.  Like men’s tennis in the 80s, when even Pat Cash won just the solitary slam and a fair few hovered around the half dozen mark.

When it is caused by the failure of the top three or four to dominate the rest of the field consistently, it doesn’t leave the audience with any one or two players to root for, any match ups to look forward for.  Only the hardcore tennis enthusiast will watch, because he/she just wants to watch some tennis and not necessarily specific players.

And even then, the men’s draw seems a lot more enticing.  As an advocate of equality in general and women’s tennis specifically, I have to say that, sadly, I don’t have a rebuttal anymore to those who ask what’s there to like about women’s tennis.

Let’s talk about Errani

The rather unheralded Sara Errani has made impressive progress at Roland Garros 2012.  She has taken out Ana Ivanovic and Svetlana Kuznetsova to set up a quarterfinal clash with 10th seed Angelique Kerber.   It is her best result so far at this tournament even though clay is obviously her favourite surface.  A petite, scrapping defender taking out powerful players is rather surprising (and perhaps disappointing for those who wanted to see the stars in the semis).  Or is it?

The progress of Errani and what tennis watchers make of it might say a lot about how much each one judges a player by their rankings.  As opposed to how they play, that is.

I first saw Errani earlier this year at the Australian Open when she took on Petra Kvitova, one of the contenders for the title.   She lost to Kvitova after mounting a valiant fight in the face of the former’s impressive firepower.  But two things immediately stood out to me:  her skills at the net and her footwork.   What she lacked in size and power, she made up with movement.  Perhaps, all she could do would be to put the ball back in play but she could consistently make Kvitova play one more ball and make another attempted winner.  I felt right then that this player ought to do well at the French Open 2012 barring some misfortune, injuries or loss of form.

She backed it up with some good results in the clay season and was also winning consistently in doubles, partnering Roberta Vinci.     I think it was around the time Radwanska won at Miami that somebody asked me on youtube who I thought were the top contenders for the French Open.  I mentioned Azarenka and probably also Sharapova, though I am not sure.  I also said that I expected Errani to do well though she might not be a contender for the title.  The other guy LOL-ed on me and politely implied that I was being ridiculous.

Here we are, approaching the end of the first week, and Errani has indeed done wonderfully well for herself.  I would like to take it up with that guy again if I bump into him but I guess I don’t remember his id and wouldn’t want to be a tool and drag it.   I am just curious why he thought the idea of Errani doing well was ridiculous.  Was it her not too sparkling ranking, her prior record?  Or have we started believing that petite, un-physical players cannot do well in tennis, irrespective of surface or skill?

It must be a really long while ago, then, that Justine Henin ruled Roland Garros.  Or, Martina Hingis enjoyed a tremendous season (1997) which has only been matched or bettered by the likes of Serena Williams.   Today, Errani played some monster volleys.  There was one backhand pickup barely inches above the floor that, in particular, stood out.   It must probably be her doubles success that helped her execute volleys that you rarely see in either men’s or women’s tennis these days.

When she beat Ana Ivanovic, they said Ivanovic played an awful match.  They’ll probably say the same thing about Kuznetsova.  And while that is largely true, Errani also skilfully exposed their over-dependence on power and on hitting through, which doesn’t work so well on clay.  She retrieved relentlessly and forced them to work her into positions from where she wouldn’t be able to make a shot, rather than blast winners.   Confronted with a rather stern test of their groundstroking skills, both came up short.

Up next is the German Kerber who has steadily progressed through the ranks and will certainly mount a stiff challenge to Errani.  Don’t count out another upset, though.  These power girls don’t move like Steffi Graf and they may have their work cut out if they can’t win free points on their serve.  Errani also seems to enjoy a degree of comfort on clay that practically nobody else left in the draw seems to.  Perhaps Li Na or Maria Sharapova, but they too depend on muscling their way through to some extent.

As I write, Azarenka has lost to Cibulkova.  Kvitova had a torrid time against Bratchikova yesterday and doesn’t look particularly convincing on current form.  But even if she loses, Errani has already exceeded expectations.

I would not like to advocate one style of play as inherently superior to the other because it ultimately depends on the player’s execution and also his/her mental strength and confidence.  But I do believe we can enjoy tennis, or any other sport, if we rely more on what our eyes see and less on expertspeak and media publicity.  Also, look at a player’s arms and legs and what they are capable of doing and not just her physical stature.  A handy pair of arms and legs can still neutralize a lot in tennis, as Errani is showing.

I speak here from my own experience.  I missed out on the Erranis of my childhood years but I don’t, now.   There is not much fun in following a player after he/she has won a Grand slam or two.  The thrill of assessing a player’ potential when she is still trying to find her range and finding yourself at least partly vindicated is something else and, in my opinion, enhances your enjoyment of the game.  Cheers!

 

 

Fed Ex back on track

The Swiss Ace Roger Federer has been playing some scintillating tennis after his dramatic loss to Novak Djokovic in the 2011 US Open and it has finally paid off. The tennis world was only just getting used to the Nole-Rafa era but Federer has silently stolen a march over Rafael Nadal and replaced him as world no.2.   Still hurting from his loss at the slippery blue clay of Madrid, the news couldn’t have come at a worse time for Nadal.  Bang in the middle of the clay court season, where he was hoping to make up some psychological advantage that he seems to have conceded, he has to now also catch up with Federer before he beats Djokovic.

Tennis has got more physical and more demanding through the years and it would appear that a feat akin to Jimmy Connors reaching the US Open semi finals in 1991 cannot be repeated in contemporary tennis.  And yet, Federer has found a way.   His motivation cannot be too high, given that he is sitting pretty on the open era slams record.  His body must surely be slowing down now.  That’s at least is what one would think.  And yet, Federer is actually playing better than he has in a long time.

It did appear as if he was not too high on motivation post the 2010 Australian Open.  He returned some less flattering results at the slams, getting no further than the semis at US Open in 2010 and 2011 and losing in the quarters at Wimbledon in 2011.  During this time, his ranking slumped at no.4 as even Andy Murray surged ahead of him.

In hindsight, losing a semi final from match point on serve in the fifth set (US Open 2011) seems to have been the antidote to his troubles.  Federer was uncharacteristically bitter after the loss and even suggested that Djokovic had had some good luck.   He would later acknowledge that he was losing out on the mental side in tight matches during this phase and he had worked on it post the 2011 US Open.

How much of a difference will that make in slams remains to be seen.  He enjoyed the upper hand against Nadal in this year’s Australian Open semi final and still lost the match.   But it has certainly spurred him to play more aggressively than he has in a long time.   Watching Federer now is like a throwback to 2004 when he worked Marat Safin and Lleyton Hewitt, among others, effortlessly, pushing forward with geometric precision and unfailingly finding that easy volley to put away.  Tennis is supposed to be a lot tougher now than back then when, if you listen to his detractors, he got lucky and cashed in on a weak field.  But you could hardly tell, looking at how he dismissed Tipsarevic or Ferrer at Madrid.  Or John Isner at Indian Wells.  A deceptive slice or drop here or there to lure the opponent and Federer moves in for the kill.   With grace and elegance.

If anything,  his amazing footwork is even more in evidence when contrasted with some of the top contemporary players.   His serve having regaining the machine like reliability that it had partially lost in the interim, he relies on footwork to punish opponents who stand too far back in the court and display wooden limbs.  The Australian Open encounter with Juan Martin Del Potro is Exhibit A.   At Madrid, his ability to remain in position no matter how much he stretched for his stroke gave him a massive edge over opponents who were habituated to hitting balls off balance.

He is also consistently hitting through his backhand and, especially, shown more commitment with the crosscourt.   He still doesn’t seem to hit some of those incredible angles off the backhand that he could get in, say, 2006.  What’s most interesting, though, is he has started to imitate some Nadal-like movement.  This was especially noticeable at Madrid, where he ran backwards or sideways without turning, just the way Nadal is fond of doing.  Of course, with Federer’s feline-like grace, you hardly notice even when he is being a little un-Federer in his ways.

At 30, far from preparing for a slow retreat into the sunset, Federer is rolling back the years and reminding the tennis world about his credentials, just in case they had forgotten for a bit.   He still needs to do something about his now two year long slam drought.  But he may finally be putting himself in the best position to win one more…and in the meantime, is more than regaling crowds with his racquet artistry.