Rajesh Valluri

As part of the world youth day, the pope has blessed Sydney with his holy presence. Unfortunately I couldn’t get out of work to go see him.
On a completely different comedic note, here is what some of the newspapers have focussed on, the pontff’s bright red shoes.

I am a big fan of this man. Not only he is a big champion but his on court behaviour and temperament impresses me. His ability to come back from 0-40 to win the game scoring 5 continuous points is worth watching. But for the first time this year I saw him vulnerable. He was getting frustrated and shouting when playing against Nadal during French Open and Wimbledon. I am not sure if he is doing the same with other players.

To see him play and fight even in his bad days you should watch the quarter final of Australian open when he had an undiagnosed medical condition. He had to play 5 sets but the character he showed was amazing. It was missing in French open all together. He was getting impatient and making lots of unforced errors against Nadal. And each unforced error is giving rise to few more because of his growing frustration. I agree that one can get frustrated when your opponent is not making any mistakes and you end up making the mistakes to get a point. Thats understandable. But he should not lose focus on the game. Coming to Wimbledon Roger has again shown a lot of character. Down two sets he came back in 2 tie breaks to equal 2 sets to 2. The last going for tie where the winner has to have a margin of two games. As much as I like Federer, Nadal is a deserving winner too. It was a difficult game and played amazingly by these two. I am lucky to be able to get to watch this game live.

There were Few observations I made which I would like to say. Everyone who has seen the match would say that Federer has made many unforced errors than Nadal in the game. Some of them were so silly errors that Federer would curse himself for making them. But come tie breaks he was just too good for Nadal to take him down. I was wondering if Federer was hiding his game for the crucial moments when his opponent was taking the game away from him. If ever I see Federer I would like to ask him the same question. Why did he not play the level of his game in tie breaks in the normal games. The amazing part of the game is both won almost same number of points and were equally deserving candidates for the trophy. So Roger dont let this loss take you over. I am not one of those who would say bad/hard luck to you. You can definitely do better in the next championship. I want to see you win US Open.

I don’t want to blame the light and the authorities for letting the game being played even in the dark. Rather than light the authorities were waiting for the clouds/rain to hold the match. Its pathetic for a person coming from a Cricket background where low light is a reason to hold the match.

For all those who have started to write off Roger: don’t jump on the bandwagon just yet. He may have lost a few championships this year so far but I am pretty sure he would come back strong. He just needs to focus on his skills which made him the best player to make him great again and over take Pete Sampras.
Federer needs to win US open to put an end to his grand slam drought this year

I picked up this book by Melvyn Bragg from my local library a couple of weeks ago, and I thoroughly enjoyed every page of it. I am very fond of the English language, and I am fascinated by its overwhelming influence on various cultures and peoples around the world. Its ability to force itself on to a completely strange land, and at the same time, being able to absorb a lot from that very land, makes it a uniquely qualified language for surviving against all odds, and dominating the world.

Like many other books in my collection, this book is something I picked out randomly. I didn’t even know the name of the author and so, my appreciation of the book is completely based on its merit and nothing else. The author has done a great job in chronicling the birth of this great language from the
Germanic tribes a few thousand years ago, its trials and tribulations, its struggle for existence in the middle ages and its eventual accession to world domination of today.

I loved the way the author put forward a very fair minded analysis of the history of English language. I googled the author after reading a few chapters, to know why I haven’t heard of him before, and I found out that he is an eminent English author working in the broadcasting business. After realising that, my mind was slanted a bit against him, expecting him to tell an Englishman’s version of English. However, he has shown a remarkably impartial judgement and my kudos to him for doing that.

I want to write a detailed review of the book, but it is going to be a tall order. I could just say “its a great book, go read it”. However, if you are not into anthropology and history, you may not like it. So, I owe you a detailed review and I will get you one pretty soon. However, if you are feeling adventurous, you should grab a copy and start reading it. Its pretty interesting and very informative and most of all, very entertaining.

This match was very underwhelming, when you consider the stature of players in the game. Both the players looked ill at ease and its almost like the least worse of them won. I mean, Federer who has been clinical so far in the execution of his game plan. He won only because his opponent Safin played even worse than him. This does not bode well for my favorite player as he prepares to face his arch-nemesis Nadal in the final. ( Nadal’s lopsided semifinal against the German is going on as I write this).

The bright-spot in the telecast of Federer’s game came at the post match conference. To a question about his playing abilities, this giant of a player replies, “Don’t count me out, just yet”. I believe that should go down as the understatement of the decade. Well done, Federer.

Every time some moron sportscaster talks about how Federer is looking week or how he is not the invincible force he once was, Federer shuts them up not by his verbal responses, but by doing what he does best, crushing his opponents with clinical precision and the ruthlessness of a Roman warrior. He makes it look so simple and his opponents so feeble that one has to wonder how anyone could even doubt his abilities. Case in point, Federer’s campaign to defend his Wimbledon title, and all his detractors’ trash talk about how he would fail to do so.

Novac was the first seeded player and a possible finalist sent home too soon in the second round itself. While it in itself is an insult for a player his stature, it is particulary demeaning after he shot his mouth in the lead up to the championship about Federer looking vulnerable and how he is looking forward to beating him again.

Next was the much hyped fourth round encounter between the Aussie player Hewitt and Federer. The media made it sound like its going to be an uphill battle for Federer. I watched the game with particular interest, not because of all the hype built into it, but because I felt it would be a genuinely good match up between the defending champion and a one time champion. However, my man Federer obliterated Hewitt in straight sets with so much blinking an eye. Clinical in his forehand, deceptive with his drop shots and ferocious with the serve, Federer was particularly harsh today. He has answered his critics by eliminating the one threat before the finals in an easy and matter-of-fact way. There is no telling how a possible match-up between Nadal and Federer would play out. But, it would be one hell of a match and if Federer repeats half of his performance from today, Nadal would have no chance of even coming anywhere close to conquering the grass court.
Go Federer.

Is it just me or is there anyone else that thinks Adam Sandler is past his prime. I saw some of his earlier movies, and they are very funny in a low-brow, laugh your ass off kind of way. However, his latest installment, the Zohan movie, is very disappointing and is hardly worth the 15 dollars and the two hours I spent watching the movie. Sandler should realise that he can not just use his slap stick and bawdy humor without putting some substantial work on the story and the script. The movie falls flatly on its face, just five minutes into the movie and it starts to feel like we are watching a high school project made for a film course by complete amateurs. Although there are genuinely funny moments involving Rob Schnider, they are few and far between and they alone could not carry the whole movie.

I am a very forgiving critic and I actually went to the movies to relax my brain after a few rough weeks at work. I was hoping that it would chill me out and I don’t need to use my brains for the two hours and just enjoy a laugh. I ended up going home with a headache instead. Please avoid watching this movie at all costs. I think I should end this review with a little piggy-backing on the movie title, by telling all of you this.
“Don’t bother with the Zohan”

I like that this guy is a good tennis player and all, and he is a very cheerful and funny guy. His tennis is very impressive and his on-court post game antics are very funny, so I used to like him. However, Federer is my downright favorite. I love his game and his personality and admire the fact that he holds his composure in the toughest of sporting moments.
Read my article about Federe here
Unfortunately, Federer lost two grand slam tournaments this year. Novac beat him in the semi-final at the Australian open and Federer’s ace rival got him again at the French. However, Federer was playing a consistant game and did very well in both tournaments, reaching the semi-final and final respectively. That fact, however, didn’t stop the sports-writers and commentators started questioning Federer’s ability to retain his supremacy over the game, and even went as far as asking if he would win any major tournaments this year.

Anyway, coming back to Novac, he caused a stir by saying that Federer looks vulnerable and he is looking forward to beating him for a second time this year. I think that is just arrogant of him to say such a thing. Federer is a very quiet gentlemanly player and there is no call for Novac to start this verbal feud. I am thinking that he did that to phsyce his opponent out before the tournament. Ironically, Novac got his ass handed to him in the second round itself by seventy-fifth seed Russian Safin. I hope Novac learns his lesson and keep his mouth shut from now on.

Go Federer.

A living legend

The big fella turned two on the 16th of June,08. He is already very tall for his age albeit much skinnier. To answer the obvious question as to where he gets his good looks from, his Uncle of-course.
I was there for his first B’day in my village in India, and there was a huge feast where half the village came by to wish him on his b’day. It was a relatively tame affair this time around, when my sister and her husband just had kids in their neigbourhood for cake and ice-cream. Apparently it was still a lot of fun, but my nephew was bemused at the presence of all his friends in his house. Ahh, the innocence of infancy.

Happy B’day Srinadh!! love you big fella.

NBA finals 2008. Lakers Vs Cletics

I am not a big fan of NBA (Nation Basketball Association) or college Basketball. One of my friend is into basketball and he was supporting Boston Cletics. He was the one who told me about the finals (Cletics Vs Lakers). Since I had heard a lot about Lakers I thought I should watch it sometime. So this year I watched the second game of the finals game for an hour or so.

The reason I avoid it I don’t understand the game much. Even if I do I can’t watch the game for 3 hrs. I don’t have that much patience in me. Anyways I have a friend who is a LA Lakers fan. Thats when I saw few basketball games (not the entire game) and know one person (Kobe Bryant) whom he adores. It seems he is similar to Sachin Tendulkar in India’s cricket team. I am not a big fan of him either. I somehow feel he is selfish for benchmarks and personal achivements that costs the team. I have similar opinion of Kobe as well with what little I heard about him. But I would rate Kobe much more selfish for attention.

Anyway, this year’s finals (best of 7) I would say it was rather one sided. Cletics won first 3 next two by Lakers 6th was won by Cletics which sealed their NBA 2008 title. My friend who supports Cletics is not entirely happy as his Lakers friends are not accepting the defeat. I agree with him that Lakers’ fans should accept that Celtics were too good than their team in the finals. Its not as if Lakers lost on purpose (unless Lakers fixed the game by accepting money). But my friend is mad. Rather than enjoying the moment he was trying to down Lakers. I was suggesting him to put sarcastic funny messages like “Lakers were sooo good in their game when they intend to loose”, “Lakers rock as only they know how to play sooo good in their game of loosing”, “Lakers were doing soo good in what they did… you never knew whether they were in for winning or loosing” or something else.

With this post I like to pay my respect and tributes to Timothy John Russert popularly known as Tim Russert. He is one fine journalist in the media business where everyone else is vying for ratings and promoting their own agenda. I have long stopped watching news channels as I can’t take some of their biases and preferences when it comes to news and reporting. I can’t believe when they try to thrust their positions and opinions and so can’t digest beyond a certain point. The maximum time I usually spend on the national news media like Fox or CNN is hardly 10 mins before I am compelled to change the channel or feel like shooting myself in the head. But its another thing with Tim Russet or his “Meet the Press” show.
you will be missed, dear friend
He would not ask questions just because he has to ask. He would base most of his interviews on the statements/stands that person has taken previously and vociferously defends himself otherwise. He would not call the guest a liar or call his bluff. He lets the audience do that. In that he expects the audience to be smart and not like other anchors who try to thrust their opinions on people. He is not only trying to ask them uncomfortable questions but at the same time crediting some of the guests’ acomplishments as well. He must be taking lot of time and effort to compile his guests positions on various issues that are of concern to the viewers and general public.
Many of his guests lie. And he would counter them with another statement of their’s a few years back to call the bluff. But he does not say “you are lying”. He followed his predecessor Lawrance Spivak on his advice of : Be aggressive, persistent and civil. And some of his quotes are worth mentioning here.
“My views are not important.”
“Lawrence Spivak, who founded ‘Meet the Press,’ told me before he died that the job of the host is to learn as much as you can about your guest’s positions and take the other side, And to do that in a persistent and civil way. And that’s what I try to do every Sunday.” - 2007 interview with Time Magazine.