Let the express chug on

The King of Grand Slams, Wimbledon breathed in the first whiff of fresh air. Federer is back on the surface he loves most, for it was here numerous intimidated opponents were ruthlessly decimated by the Swiss on rampage.

A Federer bastion of sorts, this grasscourt exponent will be under a lot of pressure to prove he is yet to wither.

If Federer wins Wimbledon, the disturbing images of the battered World No. 1, eking out a diffident fight against his clay court nemesis Nadal will be a vision saved for future French Opens. On the other hand , if Federer fails to make it on the grass, the tongues that started their petulant flapping since the Australian Open, will be on a non-stop mission further unnerving the undisputed champion.

Hey, so what if Federer lost the Australian Open? So what if he still has not won the French Open? We are talking about a person who has won three Australian Open (2004, 2006, 2007) reached the final of three French Open (2006, 2007, 2008) won five Wimbledon (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007) and also won four US Open (2004, 2005, 2005, 2007).

Every sports person is bound to go through a lean period. You don't expect Sachin Tendulkar to score a century in every innings that he plays, nor do you expect the likes of Ronaldo, Lampard to strike in every match.

Sampras undoubtedly the best the game has produced failed to make an impact on clay. Forget winning, he couldn’t even reach the final stage. But Sampras with his rich haul of 12 grand slams was and will always be fondly remembered for infusing the game with facile grace, coupled with placid power.

Then why is this undue onus on Federer to prove himself in every tournament?
To some extent Federer himself created this so called "aura of invincibility". In the last five years, Federer hardly lost any match, and particularly his Grand Slam record sparing the one in Paris, was impeccable. Besides, something to be noted is Federer has always been at his ravaging best in the latter half of the year.

So, there is still time for quite rumination before the verdict on Federer is spilled. And it is sincerely hoped the verdict is positively disposed to the liking of the Swiss master.

For the sake of one of the greatest in the game, for the sake of one of the greatest grass-courters, for the sake of one of the greatest to excel on all types of surface, (mind you, Nadal may be the king of clay, but Federer is next in line) lets hope the Swiss is able to etch his way towards sixth Wimbledon, (that would make it 13 grand slams) inching his way closer to Sampras’ record.

New queen for the hearts

After the exit of Justin Henin, it does look as if the women's event has lost the grind. None of the matches could be deemed compelling or had the ability to confound the senses of an appreciable spectator, trying to sneak in some hair-raising, heart-thumping moments.
Gone are the fast-paced serve and volleys and the powerful groundstrokes hallmark of an exhilarating, adrenalin pumping round of play.
What exactly is a thrilling match?
A three-setter, peppered with service-breaks, assorted with court stabbing aces and iced with incisive winners. Unfortunately the tournament glaringly missed any of these intrinsic ingredients essential to juice up the game.
It was a tired-looking but spirited Safina, taking on a relatively fresh, Ana Ivanovic, who had an easy run enroute to her final stint on the red dirt.
The picture at Roland Garros was akin to mud on fire. The scorecard reading 6-4, 6-3 was indicative of a smug win over a waning spurt of spirit, notwithstanding the seventh successive women’s final divested off those gurgling moments of climactic exhilaration.
The game did look to be precariously treading the path of a one-sided washout, if it weren't for some remnants of those flashes of rallying brilliance that egged Safina to win her previous two matches.
Visions of those earlier matches did forge the hope that she might just about find her bearings sooner than later. But it was too much to ask.With Henin abdicating the French Open throne, Roland Garros may have a prettier, more glamourous queen, and the sports promoters may be revelling at the prospect of shuttling between a blonde (Sharapova) and a brunette (Ivanovic). But what remains to be seen is whether quality in looks can be matched by quality in play.

Together they made an unassailable pair.
When they trotted on to the court to take on the lesser or greater fancied mortals on the other side, it was an
occasion of unfabricated joy for many a Indians.
At last here were two, who could keep the Indian flags flapping in those Grand Slams. Hard, grass, clay they excelled on all.
Their fascile understanding of eachother's game, rhythmic placement of shots and confident bodylanguage made them the indomitable force in the world of tennis.
Like brothers in arms they etched their way into the Indian tennis annals.
But what went wrong?
Success can make you thankful or wilful.
somwhere down (up) the line, they seem to have lost the zest to make fruitful use of eachother's adroitness.
When two are so much made for each other why would they want to part ways just when everything seemed to fit like a cog.
Whatever their personal differences of 'opinion' it is of no concern to the tennis afficianados as long as it
doesn't diffuse onto the tennis courts.
But that is precisely the state of matter.
Indian fans have but become accustomed to a repetitive design. Everytime before the start of a prestigious
tournament, where the country's tri-colours are at stake, it has become a pattern for one or the other to vent their purported dislike for each other in overt ways such that tread the path of vituperative purgation.
First it was the revolt against Leander Paes' captaincy, stolidly supported by Mahesh Bhupathi.
Second, few days before the Davis Cup tie with Japan, it was Leander's emphatic revealation of how he sacrificed his supposedly flowering singles career to mentor and uplift a relatively dormant rookie, Bhupathi.
But then again the pair surprised everyone with their inviolable play and soon the episode was washed off the
public consciousness for some time at least.
Now, months before the Olympics is bracing to heave itself on the willing spectators, Bhupathi has gone all
out to express his apparent displeasure about teaming with Paes.
As loving spectators of tennis or for that matter any sport, we expect at least a scintilla of respectability from our players.
It is totally unbecoming of senior players to water their discontent in public, at a time when the country's only medal hope sits enceinte on their reliable shoulders.
What's the use of nurturing ambitions when one is unable to adhere to the basic spirit of sport.
After being in the sport for so long, having tasted their share of delightful successes together and 'untogether', it is time they mould their vims towards the development of the sport.
Their disgruntled attitude and public painting of sour relations are of late edging on the irksome.
On the part of the All Indian Tennis Association it's better they give the players free rein to choose their discerning ways, rather than coercing them in to an apathetic union.
As for the Olympics, even if we do snap a medal, it will always be remembered as one won with a bitter taste.

A 19 year-old girl barely 5" 5 and a half inches tall. The lady exuded an arcane aura that left many guessing what nestled deep in the cockles of her heart.

Justine Henin, all of 25, decided to throw in the towel at an age when some of the greatest sport stars were in their full bloom. Citing no specific reason, Justine Henin quit, when she felt her life goals have taken a diversion, where tennis was no longer in the scheme of things.

Henin is the first woman in tennis to call it quits, while still sitting pretty on topmost rung of the WTA. At the press conference she convened, Henin announced stoically, "I'm at the end of the road. This is the end of a child's dream." "I started thinking about (retirement) late last year," she said. "I was at the end of the road. I leave with my head held high."

It's a pity though. Women's tennis has lost one of its biggest challenges. A lady known for her ravaging backhands, this jolting departure leaves a deep void on the tour. None of the other women players seem to have the wares to become a dominant force. The top 10 itself has just about four players who have won a Grand Slam. Others rest on the points garnered through ATP titles. Biggest example is Jelena Jankovic.

When it came to Henin at least you knew you could look forward to a "pretty" game as against those "pretty" faces. Powerful strokes, coalesced with clinical backhands and unerring serves.

She looked frail. It did look as if even a whiff of air was enough to uproot her from her place of chosen roost. But when she got moving, as those supposedly muscular limbs got on to their natural calling, those benign signs of possible capitulation seemed to wane.

However, it is a pretty spectre as a spectator enjoying those heart-thumps, when your favourite player is oozing liquid sodium out there, while you implore the ubiquitious overseer to help out for the smooth conduct of the proceeding of course heavily disposed to suit your sentimental yearnings.

But then it may be not be as pretty for the player out there. It may be deeper. Possibly it doesn't end with the victory. There is much more they yearn for.

If Henin is done with tennis, it is time we are done with Henin too. Of course she will be missed greatly. But then again it willl be for a month or two. A year at the most.

Soon she too will adorn the history books, placed among those discerning tennis masters, who did what mattered. A cute, small piece of history.