under Akshay Sawai

One match makes us rejoice and plan dinners with strangers. Another kills our appetite. What is it about sport that affects us in such extreme ways?

Thursday night was a gloomy one. India lost to Spain in the hockey World Cup. The sport had seen a revival in the past few days, thanks to India’s win over Pakistan in the first match. After that, they lost to Australia. No problem. It was expected. Australia defeated South Africa 12-0. India only lost 5-2.

But against Spain we were expected to win. The discerning reminded us that Spain were the No. 3 team in the world, nine places above India. We lowered our expectations. But when Jose Brasa, India’s Spanish coach, said that the team was “going upar” and Spain did not worry him, our hopes went ‘upar’ again.

The first sign of trouble came even before the match began. India were warming up. The water sprinklers came on and sent arcs of mist and spray flying to all corners of the field. The 16,000-capacity Dhyan Chand stadium roared.

A couple of Indian players waved back at the stands. It was not terribly wrong of them to do so, but it revealed a small wavering of focus. Old rule. Never play to the gallery before a match. Finish the job and wave all you want.

Spain were relentless. They were hungry. They too had to win their second match in the tournament to keep their hopes alive. They threw themselves at India. The Indian defenders—Sandeep Singh, Bharat Chhikara and Dhananjay Mahadik—could offer only token resistance to the Spanish forwards. India’s own strikers were easily dispossessed or thwarted by the fast and big Spaniards. Maybe it is all down to size against European teams. They simply are bigger and faster. Whatever chances India had were through the six penalty corners that they received. Even there, they could only convert one.

In the press conference afterwards Coach Brasa said that the main reason for the defeat was India’s lack of experience. He is right in a way because India played only two hastily arranged practice matches before the tournament. That said, the Indian players have to work on fundamentals like speed and fitness to have a better chance against European teams. That cannot be denied.

The worst part of such a defeat, worse even than personal despondency, is the return of the naysayers. They get a chance to open their traps again. Most would not be able to run a round of a hockey field but they will laugh off those who do much more. There was such a specimen in the press conference on Thursday. He started with a rudely put question to Indian captain Rajpal Singh. Soon the two were verbally sparring, although Rajpal was careful to not raise his voice. At one point he seemed to suggest to the journalist that since he seemed so wise, why didn’t he step on the field and try his theories out. The journalist said, “Jo karna hain, aap ko karna hain. Hum kya karenge?” Rajpal said, “Aap mein dum bhi nahin hain kuch karne ka.”

This is how it always is in India. We eulogise, then we condemn. There is never a balanced view of things. But if hockey is to flourish, the last thing it needs is fickle fans. If you want to back the team, back it through ups and downs. If not, well, it was nice to meet you.

0

1 Jan 1970 | BY Akshay Sawai

There is no guarantee India will reach the World Cup semis, but suddenly hockey is alive again.

0

6 Mar 2010 | BY Akshay Sawai

A brief introduction to the league of extraordinary sportspeople. Like Tendulkar, they are the unforgettables.

0

6 Mar 2010 | BY Akshay Sawai

Sanath Jayasuriya and Arjuna Ranatunga will be batting on opposing sides when Sri Lanka goes to the polls.

0

27 Feb 2010 | BY Akshay Sawai

Sergio Aguero is one of the most compelling stories in sport. He is not just a striker for Argentina, but also the son-in-law of Diego Maradona.

0

20 Feb 2010 | BY Akshay Sawai

Even as it battles heavy debt, Manchester United has opened a signature café in Mumbai’s Phoenix Mills.

0

13 Feb 2010 | BY Akshay Sawai

Ice cream now has a rival that is modern, lighter and warmer. There is a battle on for your affection.

0

13 Feb 2010 | BY Akshay Sawai

You only realise the importance of Rahul Dravid after a humiliating Test loss.

0

13 Feb 2010 | BY Akshay Sawai

It shows a batsman making a stroke which does not exist in the books, but the organisers think that is okay.

0

6 Feb 2010 | BY Akshay Sawai

Tennis matches make you feel the English language has only two words—‘Come On’. The two contestants urge themselves to ‘come on’. Their coaches and wives, sitting at the courtside, shake fists and shout ‘come on!’ Banner writers are more imaginative. Yet, sometimes, they too only manage to tattoo, on placards or on national flags, ‘come on X’ or ‘come on Y’. You’d believe that even the clouds above the arena have formed so as to read ‘come on’.

Andy Murray fired four consecutive ‘come ons’ in the fifth game of the second set of Sunday’s Australian Open final against Roger Federer. But that was about the only thing he did consistently. Murray hung in there well enough, especially in the third set, but could not deliver the finishing blow. Statistics are overrated, as the great Federer himself said a couple of days ago. But they offer some clues. Murray, not as sharp and aggressive, hit 29 winners in the match. Federer’s lashing forehand and heavy backhand brought him 46 winners. Quite a few of them traveled at over 150 kmph. That is faster than most bowlers bowl. You can thus imagine Murray’s task. He not only had to get his racquet to these bullets but also return them in a controlled way many times over in a point.

But then Federer makes it hard to hit winners past him. He scrambles back to the centre of the court after each shot and clings to the baseline. The defence is almost as competent as the offence. Only Rafael Nadal’s high rising topspin could consistently eject him from his comfort zone. Others still remain at his mercy.

It seemed this Sunday might be Murray’s. Like Nadal, he has fire in the belly and has beaten Federer more times than he has lost to him. In fact, Murray still heads their head-to-head record. This was also his second Grand Slam final, making him less susceptible to nerves. He had had two days of rest.

What’s more, the two do not share the mutual respect that Federer and Nadal do. (That might change now. Early in the match, Federer had the class to applaud a Murray backhand pass on a crucial point. At the presentation ceremony, both were generous in their evaluation of the other). There was slight animus between the two that suggested a bruising duel and possibly a win for the compelling young scrapper from Scotland, who, when eight, survived a shooting spree at his school by hiding under a desk.

But Federer, who should be rechristened ‘Featherer’ for the grace of his game, did not allow Murray to sink his teeth into the match. Though Murray’s a fighter, the impregnability of Federer’s game from early on affected his body language. Often, he was found burying his head in a towel brought by ballboys (in pink uniforms and caps with ear flaps that made them look like kids in animal costumes).

Federer must now rank as the world’s most remarkable athlete along with Sachin Tendulkar. Few, if any, have their blend of achievement and qualities. Few tick so many distinct boxes. Few have their longevity. Sixteen Grand Slam titles is a stunning achievement.

One year ago during the presentation ceremony of the Australian Open, Federer was a broken man, reduced to tears by Nadal and the ordeal of making a speech in public soon after a humbling defeat. Now he is back in his throne. For you and me, this is the stuff of dreams. For Roger Federer, it’s just life.

1

1 Jan 1970 | BY Akshay Sawai
Syndicate content