Hi guys,
Having received surprising responses and calls for some more ‘writing’, here I am again.
The topic I am about to tread on is a slightly controversial one, as it goes against one of our ingrained thoughts about dignity and 'it’s not about winning'.
I was pulverized and completely in awe while watching the Federer V Tsonga match on tele yesterday when Federer was 2-0 up and going along without breaking into a sweat and Tsonga on the other hand jumping , diving, groping well frankly doing whatever was needed just to get into the contest, at this point I thought who deserves to win this one? one who is supremely talented and just great to watch or the one who is also a great talent but giving it more than he has and doesn't mind looking bad but wants to win at all costs.....
How many times have we seen a superior talent than Federer and him being beaten by one such player? Never !!! But these semi geniuses have beat the genius, so could that style of play be considered less attractive but highly effective? And then which is better to watch?
Another super example would be that of a Steve Waugh and his brother Mark, twins but so different in their more than successful ways.
Mark: classy, elegant and talented
Steve: grit, determined and talented
Who would you like to watch? really difficult to choose, results centuries scored in a winning cause, percentage wise probably a Mark would score over a Steve, when a Mark Waugh is on song the team is happy and confident, but when the team is in all sorts of bother , the team hopes for a typical Steve Waugh outing , why so ? And if so is that not entertaining?
Steve Waugh and very recently Saurav Ganguly were considered bunnies against a short ball and an unquestioned weakness, they certainly looked 'UGLY' quite frankly bad and totally out of place while coping with it, but how many times did these two guys actually get out to a short one?
well the point that I am trying to make is that, all the pure genius on display does bring absolute viewing pleasure, no question and that is pure entertainment, but the other less glamorous style equal in achievement by all means should also be considered equally entertaining as it gives the spectator a view of how a superior temperament has more chances of bringing it home, in a spectacularly and entertainingly ‘Ugly’ way..........'JUST' thoughts.
Having received surprising responses and calls for some more ‘writing’, here I am again.
The topic I am about to tread on is a slightly controversial one, as it goes against one of our ingrained thoughts about dignity and 'it’s not about winning'.
I was pulverized and completely in awe while watching the Federer V Tsonga match on tele yesterday when Federer was 2-0 up and going along without breaking into a sweat and Tsonga on the other hand jumping , diving, groping well frankly doing whatever was needed just to get into the contest, at this point I thought who deserves to win this one? one who is supremely talented and just great to watch or the one who is also a great talent but giving it more than he has and doesn't mind looking bad but wants to win at all costs.....
How many times have we seen a superior talent than Federer and him being beaten by one such player? Never !!! But these semi geniuses have beat the genius, so could that style of play be considered less attractive but highly effective? And then which is better to watch?
Another super example would be that of a Steve Waugh and his brother Mark, twins but so different in their more than successful ways.
Mark: classy, elegant and talented
Steve: grit, determined and talented
Who would you like to watch? really difficult to choose, results centuries scored in a winning cause, percentage wise probably a Mark would score over a Steve, when a Mark Waugh is on song the team is happy and confident, but when the team is in all sorts of bother , the team hopes for a typical Steve Waugh outing , why so ? And if so is that not entertaining?
Steve Waugh and very recently Saurav Ganguly were considered bunnies against a short ball and an unquestioned weakness, they certainly looked 'UGLY' quite frankly bad and totally out of place while coping with it, but how many times did these two guys actually get out to a short one?
well the point that I am trying to make is that, all the pure genius on display does bring absolute viewing pleasure, no question and that is pure entertainment, but the other less glamorous style equal in achievement by all means should also be considered equally entertaining as it gives the spectator a view of how a superior temperament has more chances of bringing it home, in a spectacularly and entertainingly ‘Ugly’ way..........'JUST' thoughts.
