A little too bland

A little bit of competition has never hurt anyone. In fact, it tends to bring out the best in us. To a third person, the competition between any two people can serve as entertainment, until it gets too ugly that is. In sport however, competition can act as double edged sword. In a team game, competition between two individual on the opposite sides can take the focus away from the game as a whole; but on the other hand sometimes individual rivalries can make an extremely boring and one-sided game very interesting to watch. The same is the case in individual sports.

One such rivalry which has captivated audiences all around the world is Rafael Nadal-Roger Federer rivalry. Tennis has had a rich history of rivalries. Right from Bjorn Borg-Jimmy Connors to Andre Agassi-Pete Sampras, these rivalries have given us more memorable moments that any other rivalries in other sports. The gruelling five-setters played in extreme conditions are a tribute to these players' skill, stamina, talent and a never-say-die attitude. I never saw greats like Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors play, but I can confidently say that none of the tennis rivalries in the past 15-20 years can match the intensity of the Nadal-Federer rivalry. These two have taken the game at a whole new level with their skill, determination and single-mindedness.

We have seen some epic matches between these two players, none more better than the Wimbledon final in 2008. For years Nadal had been the King of Clay courts, and Federer had been the Grass court Emporer, with Wimbledon as his own private hunting grounds. And if anyone doubted that Nadal's victory over Federer was fluke, he again prevailed over Federer at the Australian Open earlier this year. Both players have held the top two positions between them for the past 4 years. Both of them have captured 16 out of the last 17 grand slam titles. Such has been the intensity and ferociousness of their rivalry that most experts call it the greatest rivalry in men's professional tennis. To imagine grand slam without a Nadal vS Federer match is quite unbelievable now-a-days. That is why, though Federer's feat of finally capturing the French Open has pleased most of the tennis buffs, they still were not satisfied because they were denied the pleasure of another Nadal-Federer match by Robin Soderling.

Tennis fans however were in for a bigger disappointment when Rafael Nadal withdrew from the Wimbledon owing to an injury. This was supposed to have been an epic tournament what with Nadal starting as the top seed for the first time in the last 5 years and Federer chasing a record breaking 15th grand slam title. True there are a few other players like Djokovic and Murray who have emerged as contenders for the much coveted crown, but they still don't seem ready to challenge Federer on a grass court. Besides, none of them have the intensity, nor the fortitude to stand up against Federer when he is in full swing. Yes, the experts have been saying for the past 18-24 months that Tennis is not only about the Big Two (Nadal-Federer) any more, but about the Big Four (Nadal-Federer-Djokovic-Murray). But time and again, these two giants have shown that whatever the experts might say, Tennis is still about the Big Two. All the others are just fringe actors making special appearances in a few finals.

The stakes are high for both of them not only because of the No. 1 ranking, but also because of their place in the history of Tennis. Till Nadal came along, Federer was largely regarded as one best players of all time with only the French Open title standing between him and the tag of 'Greatest Ever'. And just when the title seemed to be within his reach, Nadal came along and not only did he stake his claim at the Roland Garros, but by the end of Australian Open '09, he had usurped Federer's beloved Wimbledon crown and his much coveted No. 1 ranking.

Nowadays, a grand slam tournament without a Nadal-Federer match is like a perfectly prepared chicken curry without any salt in it. You may have all the spiciness and zing, but it still tastes bland. Federer's graceful game and Nadal's powerful game seem to add just the perfect taste and flavor to Tennis so that the fans can enjoy the game to the fullest. As Jeff MacGregor of ESPN described:

"Each is less without the other, though the other may destroy him. The legacy of one must now become the legacy of the other. Trapped, they define each other."

Whether these two players define each other or not is a question best answered by the players themselves. However, one thing is for sure: they have re-defined rivalry in sport. As far as Wimbledon '09 is concerned, let's hope Federer wins the 15th title to provide some taste for Tennis lovers.

Book Review: To Kill a Mockingbird.

How would you rate a book that has a very simple story, no twists and turns and hero of the book is a lawyer by profession who teaches his kids the value of tolerance and cool-headedness rather than fighting back when provoked? Boring? Commonplace? Well, then I suggest that you read 'To Kill a Mockingbird' by Harper Lee. Having read Mario Puzo, Khaled Hosseini, Arthur Conan Doyle, Jeffrey Archer, Sidney Sheldon and the likes my entire life, I had never thought that a simple story could be so powerfully written that it will keep you engrossed from the first page to the last. The story is based on a true incident which took place when the author was a kid living in Alabama. The best thing about this book is that the author hasn’t written it from an adult’s perspective – which would probably have made a book on moral instruction - but from the perspective of a child. It portrays the feelings that the young girl, Scout, felt when all the events taking place in the book were unfolding before her.

The events take place in the early 1900’s when racism was prevalent in America. Scout is a six-year-old girl who lives with her father, Atticus Finch and her brother Jem. The initial part of the story tells us about the neighbors surrounding the Finches, especially the Radleys. The rumors about Boo Radley - the boy whom none of the good citizens of Maycomb County have seen - and the intriguing behavior of his parents, both fascinate and terrify Scout and Jem (though Jem does not readily show his fear). The arrival of Dill, a nephew of one of their neighbors’ and their growing friendship with him, not only creates a lot of curiosity among the two kids (regarding Dill’s past and his father), but also brings forth a hitherto unknown sense of adventure inside the two kids. Together, the three of them hatch various plans to bring Boo Radley out in the open. Their misadventures and the eventual circumstances which finally bring Boo Radley out of his house are indeed heartening to read.

Meanwhile, another event takes place which grabs the attention of all the Maycomb County (except our little adventurers). An African-American, Tom Robinson is accused of raping a white girl. The County Attorney appoints Atticus Finch as the defense attorney for Tom. Atticus’ decision to take up the defense causes a great uproar. From here on the story revolves around how Atticus has to deal with criticism and ridicule not only from his community, but also from his relatives. As always, there are a few people supporting Atticus, but they are reluctant to show public support to Atticus. Needless to say, even the two kids are dragged into this mire as they are teased and taunted by the townspeople and their friends. This is where Lee is different compared to the authors. By common experience, most authors would have introduced a tinge of drama, people physically manhandling the kids, which would provoke Atticus to make a great speech in the town center with the townspeople watching all around him etc.(yes, these thing also happen in books, and not only in movies!). But, she has stuck to facts and portrayed how such a situation can be handled without losing one’s sense of pride and dignity. The situation becomes grimmer for Scout with the arrival of her aunt who is determined the turn Scout – who is a tomboy – into an elegant lady. Scout’s plight on being invited to numerous afternoon tea parties is quite funny to read.

Another powerful message that emerges from the book as it moves on is how the hatred prevalent amongst the society can effectively destroy innocence. The events that unfold during Tom’s trial (which they watch secretly), make a profound impact on Jem. His transformation from a carefree, and headstrong boy to a mature and thinking teen is beautifully portrayed and without any drama. Also, the exemplary behavior of Atticus goes a long way in influencing Jem. Indeed, the way in which Atticus treats the whole situation at hand should serve as a reminder to the society today, which at times takes the right decisions in the wrong manner thus having a wrong impact on the younger generation.

The characters are well sketched out. Atticus Finch as the morally upright lawyer, determined to imbibe in his children a sense of tolerance, and the sense to treat all human beings equally, is brilliantly written. The way he handles his kids, when Jem is rude to an elderly woman who calls Atticus ‘nigger-lover’ or when Scout asks him the meaning of ‘rape’ is brilliantly portrayed. I believe that he is one of the finest heroes crafted both in written literature and visual entertainment including our childhood heroes like Superman, Batman etc. Jem Finch as firstly the friendly and loving elder brother, then the secretive and slightly embarrassed elder brother to the protective and mature elder brother tends to remind us of ourselves during the same stages of life. Scout, with her inquisitiveness, stubbornness, and quarrelsome nature in endearing. The character of Dill, though he appears inconsequential at first, gains prominence later on. All the other minor characters are well sketched out with different quirks and human frailties.

Briefly put, the book is funny, touching and can leave a deep impact on the reader’s psyche without appearing to be preachy. I would definitely recommend it to all book lovers.