Review: Crossing the Line

Crossing the Line by Gideon Haigh
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

This is a very timely book, and yet it misses the point. The book has been written in the aftermath of the Cape Town scandal. Haigh has done an excellent job of describing the general levels of greed and cluelessness in the corridors of Cricket Australia,highlighting that the disaster was something waiting to happen. He goes back to the Argus review to identify the various problems with Australian cricket. Everyone knows how administrators worldwide are chasing the big dollars of T20, compromising test cricket while duly paying it lip service. Nothing new there. Australia failed to plan for succession planning after the great team of the 2000s and subsequently lost a lot more than they won. The board, on the other hand, realised that T20 was a cash cow and made the Big Bash the #1 cricket product in Australia. But to point to the poor management as a reason for Australia to have a middling team is one thing, to lay that as a root cause of the stupidity of Bancroft, Smith and Warner is another thing. Sportsmen and women the world over play under pressure and some cheat. Like in all other walks of life, there are some who think they can get away with it. The backlash against the Australians is purely because there has never been any great love for Australian cricket teams. When they won, everyone had to take it. Now, its open season. To say that the pursuit of more money, the sidelining of the Shield, Greg Chappell's misguided plans are in any way responsible for bad behavior is to miss the point. Haigh is a great writer, but at times blinkered.

View all my reviews

I used to love Woody Allen movies; now I dont think I can watch one again

A few days ago I read this article by Richard Brody (who I often disagree with) about Woody Allen.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/watching-myself-watch-woody-allen-films

Dylan Farrow

When I read the letter by Dylan Farrow, a little bit of me died. I do believe her. The mind boggles and hits a wall when it tries to imagine any conceivable scenario where she would make something like this up. So I believe her.  I have always loved Allen's philosophy-via-humor and I find myself thinking of lines and scenes in his movies often in my daily life. I am sure I will continue to do so, but I cannot recommend him to anyone without shuddering slightly. I know VS Naipaul is a horrible, horrible person, but it mitigates his sins somehow that he was only horrible to adults. Forgetting for a moment the psychology around victims and not underestimating what his wife Pat Naipaul and his  Brazilian mistress Margaret must have gone through, adults always have a choice of getting up and walking out. Sins committed against children are among the worst, if not the worst. Brody is right in that Allen's movies show you in a way that he is capable of such behavior, or at least of behaving in any way he wants without worrying about the repercussions or hurt passed around. For a major movie director and icon, living in NYC, he must have met and interacted with millions of women. To choose to fall in love with his own partner's adopted daughter..that smacks of something right there. But I was convinced when I learned that he has been with Soon-Yi longer than he was with Farrow, so it must be love. But still. True love may exist but the lightning bolt, I'm not so sure.

All these years I had thought that the molestation allegations were just that - allegations that had no basis in fact; I was not aware of this letter written by the victim. But given that I believe it 100%, I went back to see when she had written it: early 2014. I wonder what I was doing and how I missed it. I guess with the excessive media we consume, we are bound to miss a link here and there. But I have been thinking about it since I read it. Somehow with a writer, it is easier to ignore their private life for they do not appear in front of you telling you and impressing themselves upon you. I suppose if Naipaul were a personal writer (how many years did we read him and not even cotton on to the fact that he was married; to his singular mind it would have been an extraneous detail) his books might have affected us more. Writers of fiction are even more secure, behind the printed word and the universe and characters they create. But a movie actor, one who famously writes his own scripts, one who does allow a similarity to exist between him and his onscreen persona, that is a different story. It becomes harder to shake off. And I dont want to shake it off, but I am finding it hard to think of his movies for any length of time before this seedy smoke creeps in.

Review: Ghachar Ghochar

Ghachar Ghochar by Vivek Shanbhag
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

One reviewer compared this book to Chekhov. Well, that was enough to pique my interest. At first I was surprised at how slender the book itself was, almost a novella more than a novel. I went in with no expectations and no plot awareness and was quickly engaged. Shanbhag's book is evocative for middle class Indians, in how well he depicts the day to day life of a joint family, finding the magic in small details that linger with you and float to the surface of your memory unexpectedly. As a slice of life, showing the nuts and bolts of regular life, it is excellent. However, the book did seem to end unexpectedly for me. A critical eye could say that it meanders a little (if a novella can meander) but that would mean that we can pin down exactly what the book is about. And I'm not sure I can do that. I finished it feeling that I had almost certainly been deprived of another hundred pages. But the comparison to the Russian master are worthy, there is definitely the same insight, love (without judgment) of his flawed characters..Evocative and way too short.

View all my reviews

'Dunkirk' - Christopher Nolan's most un-Nolan film, which is a good thing

Christopher Nolan is overrated. Memento was brilliant, Insomnia and The Prestige were solid movies and Batman Begins was a good movie, a much needed reboot, the harbinger of the conflicted superhero movie. But with the release of The Dark Knight and its subsequent fanboy mania, that overlooked the choppy action sequences and illogical plot that consists of 'a guy without a plan' actually planning things to a tee (get caught, stich bomb in man's stomach...really) he somewhere got a bit too big. The Dark Knight Rises, Inception and Interstellar were all humorless, incredibly dull exercises in big budget showiness with no sense of awe or magic. And woe behold me if I ranted against him. Off with his head!

So I went into 'Dunkirk' apprehensively. Yes, I was told that the reviews were great, but they always were. Some magazines have already written glowing reviews for his next movie, whatever that may be. Dunkirk turns out to be his best movie since Memento. Nolan was apparently intrigued by the idea of the movie after making the crossing himself and imagining the journey in war time. And bound by history and a thankful decency, he has made a movie that adds almost nothing to what we know about Dunkirk, but offers a visceral experience, making the terror of war almost palpable. Nothing made on film may ever compare to the opening passage of Saving Private Ryan, but Dunkirk is epic on its own right. There are large passages with few words, almost no exposition (un-Nolan like, but welcome) and the casting of mostly unknown actors works marvelously. Tom Hardy gets his beautiful face covered by Nolan once again(!) - something for them to work out, but in swift strokes, Nolan is able to convey the terror on land, sea and in the air. Most nothing is done for effect and the net effect is immense. Zimmer's music is also powerful, as the story demands almost. The best compliment I can pay Dunkirk is that even without getting into too many facts, he makes it feel like a documentary. More of the same, please. Christopher Nolan is a genius.

Wimbledon 2017 Mens Quarter finals: Some surprises coming in, but expect none going forward

Men's QF days promises some thrills, but no major surprises on the cards:

Expect Murray, Federer, Djokovic and Cilic to power through to the semis.
 

 

Sadly (for me), in spite of Rafael Nadal bowing it, the tournament moves on mercilessly. Anyways, the remaining eight men, diversely representing eight countries (Great Britain, America, Switzerland, Canada, Luxembourg, Croatia, Serbia and the Czech Republic)

Andy Murray v Sam Querrey: Querrey is playing terrific tennis, and last year had knocked out Novak Djokovic, kicking of his slump. He is a big server, and plays well on grass. He has beaten a few top 20 players this year, including Nadal in Mexico. He has the game and the confidence. But Murray eats big servers for breakfast and is approaching something close to his best form of the year.  He has beaten Querrey on the one occasion they played here and more importantly defeated him the last time they met, in Australia earlier this year. Murray now is better than Murray then. Querrey might stretch Murray to a tiebreak or two, but his run ends here.

Pick: Murray in 4 sets.

Roger Federer v Milos Raonic: A rematch of last year's semi-final, where an undercooked Federer still lead by two sets to one before falling in five sets to the Canadian who was playing the best tennis of his life. Now the Swiss is playing better and the Canadian is not at his 2016 level. While it is true that Federer has not played anyone with a serve the caliber of Raonic, it is also true that Raonic has not met anyone nearly as complete on grass as Federer. Before last year, the Swiss had beaten the Canadian on grass twice, once on these lawns. Expect the same.

Pick: Federer to win in 3 sets.

 

 

Gilles Muller v Marin Cilic: Both great servers. Both with over 10 wins on grass already this year. They partied long and hard in Luxembourg for Muller's career-defining performance in defeating Rafael Nadal, apparently showing no nerves and displaying excellent grass court nous, but surely Muller must be a little tired and more riskily, on a high that he needs to climb down off. Cilic has an excellent record on grass, defeated Muller two weeks ago and is still smarting from somehow letting Federer off the hook last year in the quarters after holding match points. Oh, and one more thing: Muller's epic fifth set 15-13 took longer than Cilic's entire fourth round match.

Pick: Cilic in 3 sets.

Novak Djokovic v Tomas Berdych: This tournament was where the slump started for Novak, which resulted in him relinquishing all 4 of his Slam titles, started. And it does appear that this tournament is where he is slowly, but surely, rediscovering his inner mongrel, so essential to his success. He can put aside the hugging and loving and learning for now. Facing an opponent he has beaten 25/27 times should provide him with a brisk workout, nothing else, for Berdych, so long a mainstay in the top ten, has had his own slump. Berdych can look to his 2010 defeat of Novak on these courts for inspiration. But that was a long time ago, and unlikely to return. The big serving, industrious Czech will need to be happy with a quarter-final result.

Pick: Djokovic in 4 sets.

 

 

Wimbledon Fourth Round Monday: Sweet Sixteen promises day of plenty, old and new



Here it is: too much of a good thing. Spoilt for choice, surrounded by riches and unsure where to look or whom to back. This is the quandary the second Monday of Wimbledon offers every year, uniquely in the Slams, holding all the round of 16 matches on one day. Get a lucky ticket and make the right moves and you could catch a bit of all 32 men and women remaining in the draw. But, as Rafael Nadal mentioned in his press conference, the sheer number of matches means that you are definitely going to miss some good players as well. The peril of plenty.

Clockwise: New mum Azarenka is hoping to go deep; pre-tournament fave Pliskova was knocked out in the 3R; Garbine Muguruza is looking to find her form from 2016; 2 time champ Kvitova, back from a horrific injury, was a winner by just showing up; World #1 Angie Kerber looks to turn her year around here and Venus Williams just goes on and on.



The men's draw is top heavy after a few years and the women's is open as an field ready to be plucked by the next Ostapenko.Or maybe the current one herself, who has shown admirable grit and spirit in fighting her way to the last 16. She plays the Ukrainian, Elena Svitolina in one of the many women's matches which are just too close to call. Ostapenko had an unforgettable French Open, and so did Svitolina, but for different reasons. Serving for her quarter-final match against Simona Halep, the Croatian proceed to melt down in epic proportions, and lost 12 of the next 13 games to lose 3-6,7-6(8), 6-0. Either way, it promises to be close and thrilling. Pick: Ostapenko

Romanian Simona Halep, the beneficiary of the Svitolina meltdown, who then proceeded to have her own in the final (up a set and 3-1 with a point for a double break before she was beaten down by the Latvian in the French finals) goes up against the most popular mum in Belarus, Viktoria Azarenka, one of the most popular players on tour. Azarenka has been a darling of the crowd even more than usual, but her lack of sufficient match play coupled with Halep's form and skills should see the end of the ride for Azarenka. Pick: Halep

The other two matches in this section of the draw pit 37-year old Venus Williams, playing her 20^th Wimbledon, against the 19 year old Croat, Ana Konjuh, in the first match on Centre Court and the British hope in the ladies (yes, you read that right) Johanna Konta against Carolina Garcia. Garcia is still trying to live up to her early promise and is playing well, but Konta has the force and the crowd behind her. Konjuh is no lucky winner here, having earned the epithet 'Baby Serena'. Venus has all the experience in the world on this grass, but youth has no fear and that could lead to a tight match for the American. Picks: Konta and Williams

At the top of the draw, Serena Williams' last two title victims, World #1 Angelique Kerber and Venezuelan Garbine Muguruza tee off, both having ordinary years after their breakthroughs last year. Kerber has been hanging on to the top ranking by her nails, but her toughness is a huge asset. Muguruza takes to the grass more naturally, and that might be enough for her. The Pole Aggie Radwanska, another Serena-final victim takes on the apparently ageless Russian Svetlana Kuznetsova, with the Russian dominating the head to head (13-4). Picks: Muguruza and Kuznetsova

In the least heralded section of the women's draw, the American Coco VAndeweghe, approaching something her form from Australia, where she made a semi-final run, emerges as the strongest favorite to overturn the Dane Caroline Wozniacki and in the battle of near-unknowns, Maggie Rybarikova, who defeated Petra Kvitova earlier should hold the advantage of Petra Martic from Croatia.

Picks: Halep, Konta, Ostapenko, V Williams from the bottom half and Vandeweghe, Rybarikova, Kuznetsova and Muguruza from the top half.

Qualification (for potential bettors): my original picks were Pliskova and Kvitova! You have been warned.

Clockwise: Rafael Nadal, looking to continue his La Decima form; form favorite Roger Federer, defying everyone at 35; Stan Wawrinka has always had a problem with grass, and left in R1; Djokovic is finding his best form at the place where it all started to go wrong last year; Sasha Zverev looking to crash the exclusive club; an injured World #1, Andy Murray looks set to fight for his crown.

 

If the women's field is young and inexperienced, the men's is more traditionally loaded.



There are fewer oh-so-open matches on the men's side, with the famed Big Four coming in on good form – Djokovic in the last two weeks, Murray the last month, Nadal and Federer all year. Given that the last time someone outside this ever-amazing quartet won Wimbledon was in 2002 (Lleyton Hewitt), it would be a brave, rich and foolhardy person to bet on anyone else. Djokovic should handily beat Frenchman Adrian Mannarino, who just doesn’t have the tools to challenge the Serb. Likewise Murray will be up against another shot maker in another Frenchman Benoit Paire (just YouTube Paire dropshot to sample his ridiculous talent) but should be strong enough to overcome him. Nadal faces a slightly tricky opponent in Giles Muller, a fast/grass court specialist with a monster serve who can take time away from the Spaniard and make things tough. Bad news – Muller beat Nadal at Wimbledon. Good news: That was 12 years ago, and Nadal has gotten better on the grass since then. Federer plays the most intriguing matchup against the Bulgarian heartthrob Grigor Dimitrov who has been saddled with the impossible-to-live-up-to moniker 'Baby Fed', his game resembling the Swiss master's in many ways. But everything Grigor does, Roger does better. And the head to head is five – nil in his favor too. Expect the big 4 to all come through, with Nadal facing the toughest challenge.

In the remaining matches, the American Sam Querrey, who knocked out Djokovic in the third round, last year should be able to handle the big serving South African Kevin Anderson, who was two sets to love up against Djokovic two years ago. Expect a close serve-fest. Marin Cilic should put paid to Roberta Bautista Agut's surprising run this far, and Thomas Berdych's grass-court nous should be sufficient against Dominic Theim, who has surprised many by progressing this far. The last matchup is a doozy – last year's finalist and monster serving Canadian Milos Raonic against rising superstar Russian Alex Zverev, for whom the sky is the limit.

Picks: Murray, Querrey, Nadal and Cilic to come through from the top half and Raonic, Federer, Berdych and Djokovic from the bottom.

Prediction: More close matches on the women's side. On the men's side: Dimitrov-Federer will be beautiful to watch, Nadal could get pushed hard against Muller and Raonic-Zverev is almost too close to call.

Too much of a good thing: Never enough!

 

When the Djoker forgot to entertain

When Novak Djokovic won the Novak-Slam last year, he remarked that it was as if his ‘spirit had left his body’ during the final points. Well, that spirit has come thudding to the ground. The quarter-final thumping at the hands of Dominic Thiem in Paris last week was the kind of out-of body performance that made the match go from irresistible to unwatchable.

Watching Djokovic crash out of the French Open last Wednesday was the most disorienting and painful sight I’ve ever seen on a tennis court (apart from my own attempts at a slam dunk overhead). Even though he was in a slump that had already seen him give up three of the four Slam titles he proudly held a year ago (the first man to do so since Laver; and the first ever to win 4 straight Slams on three surfaces), this was a defeat of such a nature that left me stunned. It turned out I was in good company – seven-time Slam winners John McEnroe and Mats Wilander had pretty much the same response, struggling for words. The mind raced through all the Slams in all the years past to find a comparable defeat. One could not be found.

It wasn’t that Djokovic was knocked out in an early round like at Wimbledon last year (3R to Sam Querrey). Nor was it that Djokovic lost to an unknown player (Dennis Istomin in Australia). He lost in a completely respectable quarter-final to the only man who had beaten the eventual French champion Rafael Nadal on clay this year, the Austrian especially-on-clay wunderkind and last year’s semifinalist, Dominic Thiem. No, the shock at this defeat was all in the manner and not in the result. And it was to a man who he had just beaten 0 and 1 two weeks ago. Things seemed to be getting back on track, slowly.

…

Not since 2005 had he lost a set to love in a Grand Slam. And even during the early years, when he was known as a joker (not always appreciatively) when he had a reputation of retiring in matches (he retired two sets to love down against Nadal in 2006 and almost ludicrously claimed he had been ‘in control’ in the early stages), there had hardly been a match where he so visibly threw in the towel.

From 2008 to the end of 2010, he was content being #3. He would mostly reach the semifinals of Slams, lose to Federer or Nadal (except in Aus ’08) and be characteristically generous in defeat (and continues to be), always good to see. But in 2011, he changed the status quo and went from chasing the top two to leaving them chasing him. The greatest achievements in sport come when the status quo is challenged. But this was not the Djokovic we knew. That many loved and some found irritable at times. The man for whom match point was just a hurdle to be crossed before winning a match (ask Roger Federer in the 2010 and 2011 US Open semifinals, about that). This was not the man who defeated a sublime Federer to win his second U S Open in 2015 in front of a not-even-remotely balanced nighttime New York crowd. The man who, not once, but twice, has handed the formidable Nadal seven defeats – count them, seven – in a row. The man who defeated two of his greatest rivals in back to back matches – 4h50m against Murray and then a day and a bit later, 5h53m against Nadal to claim what was his greatest Slam title, a barely comprehensible feat of skill, endurance, strength and indomitability. Djokovic, who used to be weak, called a joke by Federer and mocked by Roddick had transformed himself into Mr Indomitable. He could not be passed. He would not be beaten. None shall pass, as the Black Knight said.

…

Except that now he was floundering, making seven backhand errors in the first set tiebreak against a fearless opponent. He might as well have lost his limbs for how effective he was in the third set. A third set, when everyone expected him to grind down and find a way back in, he chose to bolt. Charging the net and giving up the ghost, and now the joke was on him.

Change must come. The firing of his entire coaching team, the switch to Lacoste, the hiring of Agassi, however unconventional the terms all speak to an intent to rediscover his mojo. The retention of Pepe Imaz, the repeated talking of love and peace – this is all very well at a commune, but not on a tennis court, in a sport that Boris Becker once said was ‘boxing without the punches’. Jim Courier was not the only expert to question Djokovic on the benefit of keeping Pepe around.

Twelve months ago, he was the next Laver. The man who was seriously challenging Roger Federer for the overall Slam count and a legitimate contender for the GOAT title. Now, he risks going the way of Mats Wilander, who after winning three Slams in 1988, barely won a match of significance at a Slam after. Once the peak was reached, he could not reset his goals. And tennis was the poorer.

Falling down is how we grow. Staying down is how we die. Here’s hoping Novak Djokovic doesn’t  stay down.

Disclosure: I am a Rafa Nadal fan and could argue that Novak’s slump is a good sign from that point of view. Novak Djokovic could and has defeated Nadal and Federer on their favorite surfaces handily. But as a tennis fan, who wants the best to be the best, it is hard viewing. Djokovic at his best is a real threat to Federer’s Slam count. Yet, one hopes that Agassi slaps some sense into him. Maybe Steffi can give him a dose of good German common sense and tell him to shelve the peace and love for post-retirement. He needs to find the inner mongrel. Come on Novak, rip some shirts. Without it, he may as well almost retire to his house in Florida. Otherwise this is too painful.