The North-West Frontier Province in Pakistan is infamous today for being a forlorn battlefield littered with the remains of missiles, bombs and fallen soldiers.
It represents the senselessness of man-made violence and a people trapped on the wrong side of a self-authored history.
Down the valley of the glorious Khyber Pass, representing the last path to the mountainous regions of the Afghan border, there lies a village called Nawakille which for decades sequentially produced and sent forth Pakistan’s greatest gifts to the athletic world.
Sporting dynasties are best characterized by two crucial tenets – longevity and dominance . They possess an aura of invincibility that is anything but sporadic.
The longer the dominance, the greater the lure and this is exactly why the legend of the Khans remains the greatest untold story of a dynasty in the history of sport.
Most sports require a precarious blend of various athletic attributes. Conventional sports such as football value the conventional characteristics such as speed, stamina and endurance.
Marathon runners prize endurance and stamina; sprinters need power and speed. Rugby players need speed as well as strength – a combination which defines an athlete’s “ability to explode.”
A Formula One driver requires lightning fast reflexes while golfers rely on immense mental strength as well as muscle endurance.
Squash, much like tennis, requires all of the above.
It requires aerobic fitness to survive two hours of scampering around a closed court at a frenetic pace.
It requires an unparalleled anaerobic ability to sprint forward, backward and sideways for minutes and then do it all over again.
It requires specific muscle endurance to hit the same shot repeatedly at a three second interval up to 20 times. And it requires a quality reflex mechanism to play a small ball travelling at speeds close to 200 kilometers an hour.
The British Empire gave the sporting world enough that we hold dear. They gave us Golf in 1502; Cricket in 1787, Tennis in 1859, Hockey in 1860, Football in 1863 and Rugby in 1871 just to name a few.
And though the French theoretically "invented" the game of squash, it was the British who developed it, popularized it and spread it to the world. Brazil would do well to gift them a Jules Rimet trophy, Australia could give up a Cricket World Cup with a few Ashes trophies thrown in as bonus and perhaps Sampras or Federer could donate a few Wimbledons.
No nation could ever be more deserving.
The story of the Khans however, does not begin with its most well known - Jahangir. It ends with him.
To delve deeper into the past and trace his lineage we must go back a century when India and Pakistan were one and the British had built squash courts to entertain their officers while they served the empire.
To Be Continued.....
Friday 4 June, 2010
Thursday 3 June, 2010
Why Rockin' Robin beat Roger
There are many reasons why Roger Federer finally failed to make it to the semifinals of a Grand Slam. Foremost among these is the fact that all streaks which involve winning have to end.
And this wasn’t a “participating-in-a-major kind of streak”. It was more of a “beating-five-of-the-world’s-top-players-at-every-major-for-six-years” kind of streak!
Notice the difference in context .
This was a streak and it has accordingly been celebrated in the tennis world.
Leave talks of Federer’s demise aside, for he has been written off too often and made far too many people eat their words. I’m not falling for it.
If forced, I will only gratefully concede that Federer’s demise is relative. And that is to be expected.
But for people who think Robin Soderling is anywhere close to the sporting definition of a “cuckoo”, please think again.
He boasts the kind of game that is typical of what sport calls a “giant killer"— fearlessness, power and the most important factor of them all—the belief that he actually could win.
If you follow American sport, think Appalachian State, the Golden State Warriors and the New York Giants because they defined both fearlessness as well as the belief that they could win. And none defined it better.
Don’t get this wrong. Roger Federer did not lose because his semifinal streak had to end. It could have ended next month at SW19, the same way Sampras was stunned by Krajicek in 1996.
He didn’t lose because he had beaten Soderling 12 times in a row and therefore Soderling had to beat him once. Rockin’ Robin could have done that at a lesser tournament in the near future.
And strangely enough, Roger Federer did not lose because he played unusually badly. One couldn’t say the same about his final against Del Potro at Flushing Meadows or his French Open losses to Nadal.
He lost because he was outplayed.
Because Soderling played better than him.
He served better, returned better and flattened his forehand unleashing enough power to cause Federer more than just discomfort.
With his backhand he was consistent if not devastating and when he had opportunities, he grabbed them unlike in the past. I would never bet against Nadal on clay but if someone can beat him, I’d like to think it would be the Swede.
A monumental effort is required to beat Roger Federer in the latter stages of a Grand Slam. The opponent has to play out of his skin and Federer simply cannot be at his best. Del Potro did it at the US Open. Nadal did it at Wimbledon while Safin did it at the Australian Open five years ago.
But this time?
Federer played well. Not at his very best which is what we may have grown accustomed to, but he played good tennis.
Soderling played better.
Period.
And this wasn’t a “participating-in-a-major kind of streak”. It was more of a “beating-five-of-the-world’s-top-players-at-every-major-for-six-years” kind of streak!
Notice the difference in context .
This was a streak and it has accordingly been celebrated in the tennis world.
Leave talks of Federer’s demise aside, for he has been written off too often and made far too many people eat their words. I’m not falling for it.
If forced, I will only gratefully concede that Federer’s demise is relative. And that is to be expected.
But for people who think Robin Soderling is anywhere close to the sporting definition of a “cuckoo”, please think again.
He boasts the kind of game that is typical of what sport calls a “giant killer"— fearlessness, power and the most important factor of them all—the belief that he actually could win.
If you follow American sport, think Appalachian State, the Golden State Warriors and the New York Giants because they defined both fearlessness as well as the belief that they could win. And none defined it better.
Don’t get this wrong. Roger Federer did not lose because his semifinal streak had to end. It could have ended next month at SW19, the same way Sampras was stunned by Krajicek in 1996.
He didn’t lose because he had beaten Soderling 12 times in a row and therefore Soderling had to beat him once. Rockin’ Robin could have done that at a lesser tournament in the near future.
And strangely enough, Roger Federer did not lose because he played unusually badly. One couldn’t say the same about his final against Del Potro at Flushing Meadows or his French Open losses to Nadal.
He lost because he was outplayed.
Because Soderling played better than him.
He served better, returned better and flattened his forehand unleashing enough power to cause Federer more than just discomfort.
With his backhand he was consistent if not devastating and when he had opportunities, he grabbed them unlike in the past. I would never bet against Nadal on clay but if someone can beat him, I’d like to think it would be the Swede.
A monumental effort is required to beat Roger Federer in the latter stages of a Grand Slam. The opponent has to play out of his skin and Federer simply cannot be at his best. Del Potro did it at the US Open. Nadal did it at Wimbledon while Safin did it at the Australian Open five years ago.
But this time?
Federer played well. Not at his very best which is what we may have grown accustomed to, but he played good tennis.
Soderling played better.
Period.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)