I don't understand something this trivial. Tennis is not the only thing that Federer is a master of. By now, it is accepted that Federer's English (apart from his Swiss, German and French) is fluent enough. Yet, there seemed to be a misunderstanding through the media and Roddick was lead to believe that Federer had wrongly claimed the match to be a piece of cake for him.
I watched the whole thing live and it was more than clear that Federer was simply repeating the interviewer's words only with a hint of sarcasm in his voice. Roddick, on the other hand, who is normally the best and most gracious loser on the tour, didn't seem to happy and understandably so. One can't be cheerful (though compared to Serena he was), after playing brilliant tennis and losing in front of one's home crowd. Yet, there we have it. What does this straight sets defeat prove? A few things for sure:
1) Tie-breaks are cruel. While it's all very well to say that the better players play the bigger points better, any tennis player knows the element of luck, chance or whatever you wish to call it is undeniably ubiquitous during a tie break.
2) Federer reads Roddick's serve like a wizard and it is primarily this characteristic that always (more often than not) ensures him out-acing Roddick by the end of the match.
3) Roddick is always a threat on hard courts and he should have played Davydenko in the quarters instead of Federer. 4 playing 5 is realistic and expected. 1 playing 5 in the quarters is retarded beyond words.
4) Matches like these make you accept that it is near impossible to beat Federer in 3 sets on a hard court. 2 sets is far far easier than 3 is and apart from that thrilling loss to Safin almost 3 years ago, Federer has rarely been tested in 5 (Tommy Haas doesn't count in Aus '06 nor does nalbandian in shanghai)
5) At the end of it all, how scary does it seem when; a high quality tour professional has his day out and plays his best tennis in front of a 23,000 home crowd (14 aces, 40 odd winners and a teenage unforced error count?), and loses IN STRAIGHT SETS!!
So feel a bit for Roddick and continue to wonder why Federer doesn't command the same nigh-iconic status that he does globally as compared to Madison Avenue. It just goes to prove that A-Rod (the other one), Peyton and their band of over hyped merry men continue to make one particular world go round.
Friday 7 September, 2007
Tuesday 4 September, 2007
Burn-anke?
So how about that?
Apparently, the Asian stock markets are reacting favorably and indirectly to Bush's informal pledge to ensure that home-owners in America would not have to default on their mortgage payments for much longer.
Crudely speaking, will this lead to a better tomorrow for all the mortgage institutions, private equity firms and investment banks who find themselves in a whole lot of shit?
At Wyoming, where Bernanke did his best to assuage the current market situation, not many seem impressed. I can see why there is a general consensus and calling for a cut in the federal funds rate but even that eventually comes down to a (sometimes personal) choice between the lesser of the two evils. Vote for Kerry or Bush (okay, maybe there's no comparison now)? Bail out the credit-dependent family members or control inflation?
Amongst numerous American economists, Martin Feldstein and Susan Wachter seem the most concerned about the oncoming downturn in the US (read: global) economy. And it's common knowledge that today, when Bernanke repeatedly claims that the Fed will "act as needed", it boils down to whether enough people have faith in him and his band of merry men. Yet Otmar Issing, a former chief economist at the European Central Bank, continues to feel that the "The world economy is still very robust and growth is much more evenly spread than it was a few years ago." So should we believe him and think that this is only a minor blip of periodic fluctuations and decreasing steadiness? One of these days when i have nothing to do, i intend on gathering data and compiling a correlation and regression study on the trends of a few major Asian indices and the Dow. Even now, it's obvious what the trend would be.
The statistics have never looked promising in the US. Commercial paper, a short-term financing tool, declined by $244.1 billion, or 11 percent, in the three weeks to Aug. 29, the most in at least seven years, Fed data show. Three-month Treasury bill yields had their biggest drop since 2001 in August as investors sought safety in government debt. Most feel that the simplest way of putting it is that consumer spending will decline significantly because consumers won't be able to borrow as much against the value of their homes which would also be experiencing a periodic decline in their values.
To borrow an intriguing idea by an anonymous person on the Internet, perhaps it is getting clearer that the US economy is completely addicted to "cheap" money and must have virtually unlimited access to it in order to function.The fact that the Federal Reserve would be ready and willing to cut interest rates with unemployment at 4.6% and the economy growing at more than 4.0% in the latest quarter speaks volumes about the nature of this addiction.
Apparently, the Asian stock markets are reacting favorably and indirectly to Bush's informal pledge to ensure that home-owners in America would not have to default on their mortgage payments for much longer.
Crudely speaking, will this lead to a better tomorrow for all the mortgage institutions, private equity firms and investment banks who find themselves in a whole lot of shit?
At Wyoming, where Bernanke did his best to assuage the current market situation, not many seem impressed. I can see why there is a general consensus and calling for a cut in the federal funds rate but even that eventually comes down to a (sometimes personal) choice between the lesser of the two evils. Vote for Kerry or Bush (okay, maybe there's no comparison now)? Bail out the credit-dependent family members or control inflation?
Amongst numerous American economists, Martin Feldstein and Susan Wachter seem the most concerned about the oncoming downturn in the US (read: global) economy. And it's common knowledge that today, when Bernanke repeatedly claims that the Fed will "act as needed", it boils down to whether enough people have faith in him and his band of merry men. Yet Otmar Issing, a former chief economist at the European Central Bank, continues to feel that the "The world economy is still very robust and growth is much more evenly spread than it was a few years ago." So should we believe him and think that this is only a minor blip of periodic fluctuations and decreasing steadiness? One of these days when i have nothing to do, i intend on gathering data and compiling a correlation and regression study on the trends of a few major Asian indices and the Dow. Even now, it's obvious what the trend would be.
The statistics have never looked promising in the US. Commercial paper, a short-term financing tool, declined by $244.1 billion, or 11 percent, in the three weeks to Aug. 29, the most in at least seven years, Fed data show. Three-month Treasury bill yields had their biggest drop since 2001 in August as investors sought safety in government debt. Most feel that the simplest way of putting it is that consumer spending will decline significantly because consumers won't be able to borrow as much against the value of their homes which would also be experiencing a periodic decline in their values.
To borrow an intriguing idea by an anonymous person on the Internet, perhaps it is getting clearer that the US economy is completely addicted to "cheap" money and must have virtually unlimited access to it in order to function.The fact that the Federal Reserve would be ready and willing to cut interest rates with unemployment at 4.6% and the economy growing at more than 4.0% in the latest quarter speaks volumes about the nature of this addiction.
Saturday 1 September, 2007
Isner In, Isner Out
By the end of the day then, either we witness the biggest upset in grand slam history or we witness another ruthless display of what i term as 'professional "clinicalism" '. Perhaps this is not entirely fair because to be honest, i haven't really witnessed a Federer win where there haven't been those few shots that always succeed in amazing the viewer. Hence, it is an injustice to claim that Federer won primarily because he always got the job done. That's what Hewitt was famous for in his heydays back when he routed Sampras in 2001 only to get worse than a taste of his own medicine in 2004.
Do i personally think that Isner can cause an upset here? OF COURSE NOT! If being 6'9" meant that it was so easy then perhaps Karlovic would have been in the top 10 by now. Since this comes from an opinion that hasn't even seen Isner in action, I'm going to vehemently claim that if Federer plays badly (which i believe he usually plays), he loses ONE set in a tiebreak or maybe even 5-7 or 4-6; nothing more than that.
Perhaps some may consider that a moral victory for Isner - to take a set of the World's best.
They can have that cake.
Do i personally think that Isner can cause an upset here? OF COURSE NOT! If being 6'9" meant that it was so easy then perhaps Karlovic would have been in the top 10 by now. Since this comes from an opinion that hasn't even seen Isner in action, I'm going to vehemently claim that if Federer plays badly (which i believe he usually plays), he loses ONE set in a tiebreak or maybe even 5-7 or 4-6; nothing more than that.
Perhaps some may consider that a moral victory for Isner - to take a set of the World's best.
They can have that cake.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)