That name!

Premam! what a misnomer. The image that this word generates had me convinced that the movie by that name would not be much more than a sappy love story, albeit with high production values. Well, that taught me, didn't it? Saw the movie and was overwhelmed by how wrong I was in my assumptions. Premam is a modern, light, funny, breezy  look at life and love. Ostensibly, it tries to reason out the meaning of love, but it ends up talking about everything around as well.

To summarise the plot to a sentence, it is a story of a young man who falls in love, loses it in crushing manner, almost to the point of thinking life was over, only to find it again, and discover that one love is not the only thing in life. I would be tempted to call it a common of age movie but that's not quite it. Yes, it delineates the trials of love in three distinct stages of his life. The school romance, the college love that seemed to be 'the one', and then the one he engages in at a more 'mature' stage. The film doesn't make judgments, no messages about maturity being the final catalyst of true love, it just takes us through the journey of this particular young man. His life may or may not be the norm, it may not reflect everyman's journey, but it belongs to George, it involves his friends at every stage, it showcases the change in the thought process (though many things remain the same) as he ages. As a young boy studying for his plus 2 (11th to 12th-not clear which), his love for a girl he sees in one of his rare forays into church is childish, innocent, and impossible to all but him and his do-all friends. This is the one phase of the film itself that drags a little, even though it does introduce some interesting characters, generates situations that are identifiably amusing, and lends our hero his first taste of rejection.  The second phase sees George bulldozing his way through college, then stumbling into love, this time with a substitute teacher. At least this time, there is reciprocation, and everything is hunky dory, nice and pink. The end to this love story is not pleasant, a lot more crushing to the spirit than George had ever bargained for, and this seemingly toughens him for the next phase of life - one where he is more responsible, less of a 'bore', as his childhood buddy remarks. This love seems destined to fail too, unless...

I liked this film a lot, not having had a lot of expectations, even though this has been uniformly well received -both a commercial and critical success. I can see why though. There is a nice young feel about the movie, a certain freshness that emanates from every gesture, every song, every irreverent dialogue. It feels real, though  not when when you stop to think about it. It makes no heavy conclusions, the director keeps it light at all times, even with the seemingly serious stuff - like that interaction between a drunk George and friends when they argue energetically about his plan of going back  and declaring his 'truth' to his amnesia struck 'true love'. And when (in what is a delightful little cameo by the director himself) an abusive ex fiancee receives his comeuppance from George and co, and is not sure what he's got it for at the end of it. There are many moments like this, several cameos, and so many small sub-plots that you could get distracted easily. But I think that was the point Alphonse was trying to make. Love isn't the be-all and end-all. Life goes on all around it. The little events that keep happening around him are not distractors, they're just there. George, and his friends and love at the time aren't the only things that happen in George's life. Speaking of which, some of the stuff felt anecdotal - the balding inept professor, the PE instructor with a large appetite, the long list of suitors for one girl (she's not that hot either), the unrequited loves in college, the cool father - all felt a little personal. And not out of place - though that bit about the love-lorn suitors milling around the gate of the young school girl was pushed almost to the level of creep.

So, good film, one I've enjoyed in this language after a long time. Alphonse did Neram before this, which was quite a good effort, and now this, so this makes me hopeful of more to come. With that thought then...

The managerial merry-go-round

And so it begins. Bayern Munich confirm the departure at end of season of their mercurial manager Pep Guardiola, and that Carlo Ancelotti will take over there at Pep's tenure. Manuel Pellegrini is still at Man City, but I don't think anyone, including him, fancies his chances of remaining in that position next season. His club are favourites to bag Guardiola, but a couple of other developments have muddied waters enough to put at least some doubt in that decision whenever Guardiola makes it. Jose Mourinho finds himself out of a job, and Roman Abramovich's interest in Guardiola is an open secret. Louis Van Gaal's position at Manchester United is shaky, given the rash of defeats his team has just endured. PSG is interested as well, though I don't really think Laurent Blanc has that much to worry about. France may not be too much of an attraction to anyone, least of all a high flyer like the multiple trophy winning Spaniard.

What does the man himself think of all this? Famed for keeping his cards close to his chest - no body knew for certain where he was going to end up last time this happened, supposedly on sabbatical, it was quite a surprise when he was unveiled at Munich 3 years earlier - Guardiola himself will stay coy and non communicative on this topic.  But a look at his previous decisions would seem to indicate that the Premier League and Manchester City will most likely be his next port of calling. Why? For several reasons, foremost of which is that City may be the only one of his suitors to actually have a team that is most able to continue his winning streak. Sure, Chelsea is a London team and he has friends there, that they were champs last year is also a plus. But the team is a shambolic collection of players - ageing, past their best and despite the presence of some talent - Hazard, Oscar, Willian are not to be scoffed at - a team that is on the cusp of a changeover. Man United may have the history and the past, but the team really needs rebuilding, a task that I think Guardiola would not find to his liking or his considerable talent. If that seems harsh, consider this - he went from Barcelona, at a time when it was threatening to fall apart, to the Bayern that was already double trophy winners in the last year of Heynkes' era. That was a team already in the throes of greatness, and Guardiola carried on that story. Not that he didn't have his stamp imprinted on the club, but when you look at his achievements, you could not say that he took the team to heights never seen. He took them back to the very same heights, in fact one could argue he fell somewhat short as he has yet to win the big one - the Champions League, which ironically was the last trophy that his predecessor at Munich won. I was disappointed when Pep went to Munich. You like to see someone of his caliber and standing to take up a challenge, and to me, he took the easy way out. Not that 3 trophies (and counting) are anything to scoff at, but when you look at it from the perspective of what that club had achieved just in the pervious year, it doesn't seem as impressive.

So Pep, I think, looks for two things when he's shopping for teams - the quality of the team, and their recent successes. Man City may not have won the league last year, but they are favourites to do so this year, if they can recover from their inconsistency, and the constant speculation over who their manager will be next season. If they manage to relieve their minds from the conjecture and the resultant insecurities they should win this at a canter. And I'm sure Pep can see that. Even if they do not win the title this year, there is enough in that team to warrant the contention, shared by many pundits, that this is the best team in English club football, is probably most battle-ready to take on board his game philosophy, and has the financial acumen to provide him the support he needs in terms of players and other facilities. His family might find Manchester a bit of a drag, but then he never stays long enough for the frustration to hit too hard anyway.

What of Mourinho then? After having declared his intent to not take a sabbatical (I can just picture him scoffing at the very suggestion) he seems to have put himself in contention for any plum posts that may be available, Man United being at the top of the list. I would have thought his giant ego might prevent him from taking on the job now, 3 years after he feels he should have been offered the gig. Depending on the version of the story you heard, Mou was supposed to have broken down and sobbed, cancelled his home bookings in Manchester, and burnt pictures of Sir Alex and David Moyes when he learnt he wasn't to be the heir apparent at Old Trafford. Months, or even weeks later he was declaring himself the 'happy man' at the Chelsea unveiling, a second coming of the man they love at Stamford Bridge. So much so, that the Blues, specifically a couple of them, were booed during their 3-1 win against Sunderland, their first game in Mourinho's absence. Now that the Chelsea chapter is finally closed (one surmises), Mou might consider himself magnanimous enough to accept a belated (at least in his eyes) approach from Ed whatsisname and company. That's assuming of course that Van Gaal doesn't get another win in the next 2 games - a likely outcome if you consider the way United have been playing lately. I am reminded of the worst phase during Moyes' final moments as the manager. In fact, I can count on the finger of one hand the days since Moyes' dismissal when United haven't looked exactly like the team that played under the much maligned Scotsman. All this after spending 150 m pounds of the best. The LVG experiment hasn't worked, and unfortunately for the quirky Dutchman, his worst form comes at a time when two of the best managers in the business are available. And that's not even considering the man on the blue side who will be out of a job next season. Pellegrini hasn't done too much wrong, but who wants the best salmon in the world if the caviar is flowing?

Chelsea of course have already put Guus Hiddink in place till the end of the season. Hiddink is the perpetual placeholder, doing this role for the second time at Chelsea. Apparently, Abramovich already has Diego Simeone in his sight once Guardiola refuses his overtures. That would be quite an acquisition, I have to admit. Of the few who I'd like to see at OT, he's pretty high on the list. Pochetino, Klopp, and Tuchel from Dortmund would be others options. Not Mourinho, not Ancelotti, not Benitez, whose days at Real Madrid would appear to be numbered. Speaking of, wouldn't it be something if Guardiola ended up there? He has said he won't manage any other team in Spain, and there are but a few who would be able to have claimed playing on both sides of the Clasico and lived to talk about it...but who knows? Stranger things have happened, haven't they?

The situation around the football world is so fluid, managers cannot guarantee their place in any posting despite the lucrative, often long-term, and seemingly sack-proof contracts they seem to sign off on. Moyes signed a 6 year contract, was sacked before he even completed his first year. Ancelotti was fired from Chelsea, Real Madrid and PSG, and yet retains a healthy respect in the footballing community, so much so that his is the name that tops the list of almost every big club. Once Guardiola makes himself unavailable that is. On the same plane of respect is the Mou. If the troika is exhausted, either because they are otherwise occupied, or have already worked there, there is the second level that has Klopp, Simeone, and inexplicably Rafa Benitez. The most likely scenario that people are betting their houses on are Guardiola at City, Ancelotti at Munich(already confirmed), Mourinho at Man United, Simeone at Chelsea, and Pelegrini at PSG or Madrid. That would leave Benitez to go to PSG.

One feels sorry for LVG. He applied his philosophy and hoped to have his process implemented at United, but it just hasn't worked. Candid as always, he says he'd like not to be sacked from his last job. Whether that was an invitation for other clubs to offer him a short-term contract so he can retire with dignity or not, is a matter of speculation, but I hope he gets his wish. Isn't Swansea hiring?

Will I continue to support United should the nightmare scenario of the Special One finally arriving come true? I don't know. I detest the man - not his managerial capabilities, just him - and the very thought of him taking those Friday afternoon press calls representing my favourite red jersey is revolting. And this recent LVG drama has left me a little disillusioned. The owners are poncy, that Ed fellow is still in charge, taking all the wrong decisions, going after the wrong players (Cristiano Ronaldo, Bale, Neymar????), and the fans are uninspiring (sometimes I want the OT crowd to go to Selhurst Park to watch Crystal Palace - not the team, the supporters). The thing is though I'm not utterly convinced I can keep away from the Devils though. I'm an overseas supporter, I'm not steeped in the knowledge of the history of the Reds, and I certainly can't claim to know the club inside out. But still, I've followed them for the better part of 2 decades now, so I don't know. Even with the renewed interest for Liverpool, I don't see myself changing my colours to the lighter red anytime soon....

Things I like

So, keeping it simple today, which is like saying yup, I'm going to breathe today, but you know, gotta start with something.

I was just thinking the other day that we spend far too much time thinking of the things we don't like, or would like to change, either about ourselves, or about people and things we are in contact with on a daily basis. I always wondered what I would say if I had one of these "10 things I would do..."interviews where the quizzer (yes I know that's not a word) asks suspiciously intrusive questions about somebody's likes and dislikes. I felt I'd have to think about that for a minute. Don't really have that many things I feel proud about, and would not for the life of me recall the most embarrassing moment I've had, or the most fulfilling.

But yesterday as I watched a movie (can't remember which - don't judge), and the thing I noticed was the sound of thunder in the background. (Oh wait, just remembered, it was the pilot of The Leftovers..not even a movie :)) And my next thought was - I really like that sound. I really do. Lightning and thunder can be scary, and I won't say I don't feel the odd shiver down the spine, and the thump-thump of the heart when a particularly loud one bursts in the vicinity, but it's a sound and sight I really like. Have loved the rains ever since I can remember, and I guess the associative nature of these two companions of the wet weather are always pleasing to me. It could be the low rumble that goes on for minutes, or the loud fierce crack or the boom that shakes the room (you can almost smell the sulphur on a really loud one). I love them all.

Living in Penang has brought me closer to the realisation that I love these sounds, which frequently accompany the smell of rain. The weather is at its best when it's wet around here. It not only presents a relief from the stultifying humidity and heat that usually prevails in these parts, but also brings a sea-change (quite literally - we live a few hundred feet from the Straits of Malacca). The sun hides behind some friendly dark clouds and everything goes grey, blue, and green. What's not to like?

The second like in my yet unformed list is watching my wife smile. She has the smile that lights up my consciousness, which is a lot more potent than just doing the room or the building or the place we are at. It just feels like (borrowing from a book I have not read by JS Foer) everything is illuminated. It's like for that brief time nothing is wrong with my world, and if there is, then it's all going to be alright. I have never told her this, and I hope I will someday. I do remember saying to her a few days into our marriage that when I looked at her, my chest felt like it was full of something that would either make me float or just explode. She smiled at that...and I'd give anything to make her smile like that for the rest of my life, and possibly beyond that. I'm not talking about afterlife, just the memories I hope I can leave with her when I've taken my last breath.

So, that's two things I like....will hope to find more along the way...

Grand Canyon revisited

The end, or as close as you can get to it, of the year is hardly the best time to write the first post of the year, but I suppose you go with the urge when it comes.

I'm going to dive right into it. The other day, I saw the Grand Canyon again - the film, not the actual geographical marvel. It has been on my list of best films watched as long as I can remember, but it never gets a mention anywhere else. This despite the fact that it had an Oscar nomination for best original screenplay. So I kinda expected someone to remember the film, but all I get is blank stares when I do mention it. Which made me think that I saw into it too much owing to my naivety and what not. So when I had the chance, I watched it again, almost a quarter a century after it was made.

Before I talk about how the film fared on this trans-generational (well, almost) viewing, let me attempt to try and remember why I'd liked it in the first place. The film was released in 1991; India was in the throes of its discovery of liberalisation, and cable TV was making its appearance. I don't remember the year I actually saw GC, but I do know it was one of the first headline movies to show up on Star TV (or Movies, though I think this was before the time there was a dedicated movie channel), our first international channel, which brought us more than dated shows like Fraggle Rock and Fireball XL5 (Incidentally, my son recently discovered Fraggle Rock in a link coming out of an iPad app and was immensely into it for a while). So Grand Canyon, and something called Johnny Dangerously, a Michael Keaton starrer that I have never seen again, were things that seemed brand new, a nugget out of the mysterious West, of which we new only what our well-off relatives told us.

GC had a stellar cast - Steve Martin, Kevin Kline, Mary McDonnell, Mary Louise Parker, but the one that made the deepest impression was Danny Glover. As a honest, plain-speaking tow truck driver, Glover epitomised cool for me, and in the years that followed, I jumped at the chance to see his films. Watching him in the Lethal Weapon series and Predator 2 was a bit of a downer, and I always wondered why he didn't get any meaningful roles after that. The other two things I remember - Mary Mcdonnell, sweet and sexy, and the human aspect of the story of a city that the filmmaker Lawrence Kasdan definitely saw as suffering from decay and dereliction. It was a story of ennui, greed, loneliness, conflict, and ultimately hope. The finding of an abandoned child brings a dynamic change in the life of a housewife which could be attributed to the empty nest syndrome, but wasn't, not really. A mugging in broad daylight awakens first remorse, and then sel-reconciliation in a moneyed film producer.

All these things resonated with me then, and they did so even now, but then there were new revelations as well. The successful media executive, played by Kline is going through a crisis of his own - mid-life or otherwise - and his uncertainty about what matters in life changes not just with one or two incidences. Things happen around him, he floats along with the tide, learns a few things, but eventually decides to risk bringing up a new child despite the feeling that his drifting life gives him. The loneliness that his assistant and one-night-stand feels is one of the most painful of emotions that I felt. The scene where she narrowly escapes a car jacking and subsequently breaks down in front of a sympathetic cop is as emotionally wrenching a scene I have ever watched.

So I stick to my original opinion - I liked this movie when I was 17, and I liked it even better at 41. Its one of those rare nuggets that people look at cursorily, nod absently over, and then ignore and forget. But a nugget it is, and retains pride of place in my humble all-time fave film list.

Untagged Book list

To say that I am sorely disappointed at not being 'tagged' to unleash my favourite 10 books is an understatement. People I call friends, acquaintances et al have abandoned my yearning desire to share. Ah well, as my wife suggested, why not go ahead and make the list anyway. Its not a relay, is it, You can run whenever you want. I took heed, as I usually do. So here it is.

My relationship with books, or pages of print enclosed within some sort of a cover, and once or twice even without one, has been patchy. I discovered my love for reading when very young, trying to make up for the lack of talent, friends and any sort of social life. Now that may sound like me feeling sorry for myself. It probably is, but it was also true. I had precisely 6 guys I could call friends during the 10 years I spent at Vincent's and I am in touch with precisely none of them at this point.

But I digress. So I was a book reader of some repute. Family, relatives all but called me a Booknose, apparently because they never saw that appendage of mine on account of it was always behind some book or the other. I read everywhere, and at all times; I frequented 2 libraries (3 at one point) in addition to the one at school, and I could never understand why libraries would have a limit on the number of books one could take out at a time. I would read through breakfasts, lunches, dinners, family friend visits, weekends, festivals...you get the picture. Ironically, as it turned out, the only place I wouldn't read was on the pot. Ironical because that is now the only place I do read.

Then college arrived, and the flow was interrupted. I still read, but the frequency was reduced. I still went to book sales, but the unread ones started to pile up. When I came to Bombay for my first job away from home, I was a regular visitor to the annual Strand book sale, spending a good deal of money on books I did not have the time to read.

Years went by, and the cycle of life progressed to marriage and fatherhood. There was a point, well more than a point, more like a extended line, that stretched to several years when I don't remember reading at all. What got me to restart I don't know, but the last few years have seen quite a few tomes go into the "Completed" section of my bookshelf. And most of the reading, almost 90% of it has been done on the crapper. It takes more time to get through one now, but I'm getting through them all right.

The list below is a combination of books from my first phase of life - when the reading was light, life was simple and predictable, and time didn't matter - and from the mrs recent phase of complications, decisions, and lessons learnt. It is not a list of 10 - I started by saying I would list all I could think of, then pare it down, but that has not been possible. And I don't even think this is a finite list. It will keep growing.

Happily it is a perfect mix of fiction and non, at least numerically - 6 of each. My favourite author naturally had to have more than the single entry, and there is one entry that comprises 5 (so far). But I enjoyed making this. I have been wanting to get back to blogging, and this gave me a good topic to do so. So here, in no particular order, other than FIMFOP (First In Memory First On Page)

1. Wolf Hall – Hilary Mantel Had only brushed past Thomas Cromwell in a chapter on World History in school, so was surprised and completely unprepared for how significant a figure he was. The style of writing took some getting used to, but once that happened, it just slid on like a comfortable glove. Beautiful writing on a story that could have been told in 10 pages or a thousand. Mantel falls somewhere in the middle but keeps the grip on, in what could have been tedious reading. It was like watching history in full HD.
2. Empress of Blandings – P.G. Wodehouse
   Calling PG my favourite author is like . Since the time I took up one of his books in my final years in school, I can only associate him with the tears that ran down my cheeks as I tried to keep the laughs quiet and within my belly. I even seem to recall falling off a narrow sofa in my earliest home because I couldn’t keep myself from doubling over. Today, I seldom go through any of these volumes without a fixed grin on my face. Lord Emsworth from Blandings would have been everyone’s favourite uncle if the world of Blandings was made compulsory reading at early school level.
3. On Warne – Gideon Haigh
   I distrust biographies because they always seem to project an idol from a singe, sometimes biased perspective. Haigh’s reputation as a writer was the only reason I picked this one up, and was I glad I did! The blurb on the front page – From the greatest cricket writers of our time, on the greatest cricketer of our age – actually is the most accurate description there is for this book.
4. Far from the Madding Crowd – Thomas Hardy
   No one does pathos and melancholy as well as Thomas Hardy (well maybe Shakespeare, but I like reading stuff written in the original language, which I can understand). And none makes a landscape as good a character as the human elements in a story as much as Hardy. And this from someone that usually skips through verbose and poetic descriptions of the envrions.
5. Leave it to Psmith – P.G. Wodehouse
   I saw “Isi Bahane” on TV (this a generation before satellites evolved into living room invaders) almost a decade before I read the book that inspired it. Psmith was so underrated as a Wodehouse character; I would completely ignore it at the library. Thank the Gods that be I had no more Jeeves and Emsworths left to explore. Psmith is the kind of person everyone aspires to be. The personification of cool, the debonair gentleman and rogue, the man with an answer to everything, everytime, a charmer who caused a flutter where he went, and one with whom you had the assurance that all would, eventually, end well.
6. A Short History of Nearly Everything – Bill Bryson Who knew history could be interesting, and so funny!
7. A Corner of a Foreign Field – Ramchandra Guha
   A history of Indian cricket from the eyes of a very articulate fan of the game.
8. Eats, Shoots and Leaves – Lynne Truss
   English can sometimes be an infuriatingly illogical language, and sometimes what you’ve “known” all your life may not always be the "right way". Truss finds a way to right the misonceptions in the most delightful and engrossing way. Should be compulsory reading at school, I say. (Incidentally, apologies to Ms Truss for all the transgressions I've no doubt made in this little piece against all the rules she mentions in this book)
9. The Song of Ice and Fire series – George R R Martin
   Have told this story many times, so at the risk of repeating myself for the nth time, let me start by saying that I did not read the first book in this series till (more than) a few years after a visiting client gifted it to me. At the time, the gifter had claimed that this was one of the “great modern American classics” (it is nothing of the sort of course), which along with the strange dragon on the cover kinda put me off it. The book stayed on my shelf till one evening when I could find nothing better to start up on. And once I did, I could not put it down. By the time I was finished, I was ready for the next in the series….and now 5 have been published and  promptly devoured. No one was more excited when news of a TV series was announced. HBO, no less. Felt an odd sense of foolish pride when the series turned popular. Today it holds the record for the ‘most downloaded series’ in history. My only grouse – the man who writes these does so very slowly. Book 6 is in the works for over 2 years now with no sign of a release date…and that man is not getting younger. My biggest fear is that Martin will pass over to a more spiritual abode, leaving everyone wondering what happened to the Starks and that spunky dwarf Tyrion. Rude? Maybe. But history teaches us, a story is best told till the end by the one who started it. People that pick up an incomplete story to complete it never do it justice. So there!
10. The Secret History – Donna Tartt Have to thank the Guardian for this. Saw this article on this writer who had published one fantastic novel, well received and successful, and then vanished into seemingly thin air. Tartt achieved fame early in life with this book, and then disappeared, resurfacing last year with “The Goldfinch”. I intend on reading that someday, but at the time I read about the real life version of Finding Forrester, Tartt’s life story intrigued me enough to go back to the original talent-revealing debut novel. I was not disappointed. This is a truly gifted author. Hope she can keep writing often enough to slake our appetites.
11. The Big Short – Michael Lewis
    I had read other books on the financial crash of 2008. The bursting of the subprime bubble has been examined in minute detail in several books like Joseph Stiglitz’s Freefall, but none of the experts had looked at it from the angle Lewis has. And almost none have the flair and ease of the written word that Lewis has. Looking forward to reading more of his work.
12. Fever Pitch – Nick Hornby
    Tales from the diary of a football club fan. Hornby is an Arsenal fan, but he might have been speaking for every single one of that wonderful breed. I could identify with parts of his obsession, and am sure there are millions out there who might have thought this book was a startling image of the person they saw in the mirror each day. Funny, scary, and heart-warming in equal measure, Hornby does not condone or validate the obsession, but he sure does humanize it.

Red and blue

This has got to be the shittiest way of resuming the blogging hobby, but I suppose the way the year began, I shouldn't have expected anything better. Another loss for United, this time in the FA Cup, to go with the loss to Spurs that the year began with, and we are now looking at the possibility of having a very bad end to the season. Of course, there are still 4 and bit months to go, but you can't help look at the portents without a sense of doom and gloom. This loss has firmed my resolve, once again, to stop staying up late to watch the United games. How long the resolve lasts will depend on how long United continue down this spiral down to Hell.

I could go into some heavy analysis into what I think is wrong with this United team, and I don’t think I would be far wrong. I don’t think I’d be far right either. It is not a great time to be a United fan. These defeats had always been hard to take, and these last two especially so. Tottenham have some good players and so have Swansea. They also have smart, young, attack minded managers in Sherwood and Laudrup, but their form of late has been inconsistent. They have not been beating the top teams and haven’t looked that convincing when playing the rest either. United, till this latest loss, at least could have laid claim to winning at least against teams not in the Top 8. No longer, it would seem.

If I had been asked however to analyse this string of defeats (United has now lost 4 games at home, and we are only in January – I don’t know the stats, but I think you would have to go far down the years to find a worse record in recent years), I would have said its lack of confidence. As simple as that would seem, it is really just that. United have not had a great team for the last 3 years. Remember when Rooney made noises a couple of years ago of wanting to quit because we weren’t signing any big players? He was right, even if his motivations were probably less noble than what his statement signified. Ever since the Glazers took over, Fergie has had to do with limited budget to get the kind of players he has wanted, and I suspect the Glazers played him very well in that Fergie has never publicly said he has not had the money to buy. Suspecting the Glazers had Fergie convinced only he mattered in the long run is probably simplistic, but it is the only way I can explain Fergie’s reluctance to get into the transfer market with an purpose for his last few years at the helm. So we have this team that is not very competitive, filled with players who wouldn’t have made the starting team of most international, let alone club teams. The fact that they have been competing well for the League title for these last years has to do with Fergie’s imposing stature in the dressing room, on the sidelines, in press rooms, in interviews…everywhere really. He was the wolf that huffed and puffed and the United team sailed in that wind that his personality generated. So when he left, abruptly for many people, it created a vacuum that paradoxically sucked out the confidence from the bubble that was the United team.

All of a sudden there was a new manager, one capable on paper to handle a team of this standing, yet someone who had never won anything of note. David Moyes is a coach any team would have felt lucky to have, and he had been in the very-shortlist for the longest of times. And yet, when it came to the reality that was United, it was clear that it was not just a matter of assuming the role; it actually meant carrying on the winning habit. Which was always going to be a problem with the team that he inherited. The summer that followed was not the brightest for Moyes or United or the common fan. The inexperience of the acquiring team was not helped by the perceived fall in stature that prevailed in the minds of any targets that United had in mind, and the August window closed with confusion, chaos and humiliation – and just Fellaini to show for it.

To complicate matters further, there was controversy in the form of the Rooney drama, and then a spate of injuries to key players. Van Persie, Carrick, Rafael, and then Rooney himself fell to ailments that kept them out for long critical periods. Nothing that Ferguson did not have to contend with under his command, so what is different this year? A couple of seasons ago, United had one of their regular back 4’s available, so we had Carrick and Fletcher as center backs and Valencia as the right half back. It didn’t work and with De Gea still finding his feet, this was the weakest I have ever seen United in defence. And yet, they competed, challenged for the title, and lost out on the final day when Aguero danced past the QPR defence and scored that heart breaking title clincher.

So, problems have been surmounted with pomp and élan, and now when they resurface, pundits and fans alike expect to see the resurgence of old. For what is a United team if not resilient and guaranteed to bounce back? This season has seen a few mini comebacks that have looked like comebacks only because of the constant string of failures. The season was prefaced with an insipid set of friendly fixtures, where they lost an alarming number of games, and leaked goals in almost every one of them. The first game of the season saw hope spring anew as the very Swansea team that would knock them out of the FA Cup was bounced out for 5 goals without reply. Then came the reverse against West Brom, the losses to Liverpool and Man City, the draws with Cardiff and Spurs, and before they knew it, United was languishing in the second 5. Then there was a short burst of victories, highlighted by a somewhat surprising unbeaten run in the Champion’s League. Then came back-to-back home losses to Everton and Newcastle, followed by another string of wins against lesser teams, which rekindled hope of at least a top 4 finish. That must now surely be considered unlikely with the latest defeats at home.

Beginning the year with a tough set of fixtures did not help obviously, but at the time, the thing that surprised me was how Moyes reacted to it. Not because he did not have reason to, but just that it was unusual for him to complain like that. It occurred to me that Fergie would have done the same thing, and it slightly concerned me that Moyes seemed to have done what his predecessor would have. In the months that followed, its been a struggle for Moyes, not because of the humungosity of the job at hand, but because he is measured up in everything that he does against what “Fergie would have done”.  It was an easy trap to fall into, and with the kind of scrutiny the job comes with; any man with a weaker stomach may have crumbled. Moyes has braved the storm well, has not let his composure be shaken, but has yet to make this job his own.

And therein lies the rub. Moyes will always have a tough job at United, and one doubts he expected any less, but if he is seeking to keep up the Fergie legend, he will be out of the job faster than anything he’s ever done. It is striking that most of the losses have come at home. The Old Trafford crowd can be intimidating, more for the home team perhaps when the going goes tough. Unlike other clubs that have known failure, and can afford to be upbeat in the face of constant defeats, this crowd is not used to more than cheering the goals that its team scores. It is a well-known fact that at OT, if you silence the crowd, you tend to get a result. I first saw this in the 1-6 defeat to City 2 seasons ago. As soon as the noisy neighbours scored the first, they had the strangle on the crowd, and with that the eleven on the field. That has happened more and more this season – teams have come to Old Trafford unafraid of being aggressive, and the crowds have been unsure, not confident in their new manager, and that has been personified in their team’s performances. Away from home, the performances have not been much better, but the mistakes have been fewer, the limbs freer, the flow a little better.

So it’s a crisis of confidence, and there is now a feeling that something has to change. It is a cycle that needs breaking. Whether that is done through a influx of new faces - or one big one, like Ozil seemed to have engineered for Arsenal - or a change in tactics, it is Moyes who will need to be at the forefront and he is the one that will, at least in perception, need to drive that change. If not, the change that will inevitably occur, even with all this talk of United giving more time to its managers, will be in the name of manager. And that will be unfortunate. For in my mind, Moyes is the man for the job. It is however not I, or the millions of fans worldwide, or the pundits, or Old Trafford for that matter, who needs to be convinced. It’s the 11 on the pitch that have to believe in him the way they believed in a grey headed bespectacled grandfather with a tasty hair dryer.          

Response to an obnoxious letter

Hi Sampath,

Read your article for the DNA a few days ago. Was moved to write a response.

I’m someone who likes celebrity bashing as much as the person in the next cubicle. And Sachin, while someone I respect a lot, is not my favorite sportsperson, or even cricketer. Some of the questions you put forth were quite relevant, things I have groused about in the past. But the way you put them forth appears churlish, and quite frankly incendiary – meant to irritate than get any serious answers. This kinda demeans the intent, assuming that intent was to get straightforward answers to legitimate questions.
What I inferred from your queries was hurt mostly, and rejection, either personal or of some idol of you own that you felt got slighted because of the demi-god status that Tendulkar commands in this country. Personally, I find that kind of adulation quite reprehensible, but man, this is no way of getting even.
Inline below my response to each of your questions. Just as someone who likes, but does not love Tendulkar, but certainly doesn’t like the tone behind your questions.


1. In 1999-2000, Indian cricket was rocked by the match-fixing scandal. You were a key member of the team that was captained by Mohammed Azharuddin, and Ajay Jadeja was your teammate. But you didn’t say a word. When asked why you remained silent, you said: “The only reason I did not speak about it is that I didn’t know anything about it. I would have given a statement if I knew something.” So are you lying, or are you being a cretin when you say that you had no clue about match-fixing going on?

[] Ok, assume Tendulkar did know something about this. What would you have wanted him to do? Come clean and confess everything to the board and the media? Come out with a grand – I knew about it, but kept quite because of the seniority if the player’s involved? Sure, he could have said that, but what would that have achieved? He may have had doubts, but what if that was all he had? You think he was the only other player in that team? Why single him out for a question like that? Because of the stature that he has now? What about back then when all he had was a desire to play and just do well? And have a career? He should have given all that up to confess what he might have suspected?
And dude, if he is a cretin for thinking about his career, then I’m sure you and I are too. How many times have we witnesses wrongdoings in our immediate neighborhood and kept quite because it would have, in our minds at least, ‘served no purpose’ or do more harm than good? Cretin? Really?

2. The whole world knows that you (and subsequently MS Dhoni) are the reason the BCCI has been stonewalling the ICC’s move to make DRS (Decision Referral System) mandatory in all international fixtures. What exactly do you have against the DRS? Is it that, without technology, the benefit of the doubt (especially on LBWs) goes to the batsman, and you, knowing that there will be far more LBWs with DRS than without, don’t want technology messing with your averages and milestone-hunting?

[] I have a problem with the DRS too, and not because it will affect my own stats, but for the reason that it is, as of now, not a system without glitches.
Sure it helps catch out the LBWs a lot more efficiently, but Hotspot is known to be error-prone, and the Snickometer is not used, so what real value is the DRS adding? DRS is a system that has provided huge advantages to a certain type of bowler. If the umpires wise up and pull up their game, there really is no need for the damn thing anyways. Games have been won and lost on bad decisions before, but they are being won and lost due to Hotspot errors too.
And if Tendulkar has Dhoni’s ears on this, he probably has a lot to say on several issues regarding the team, eh? And according to one of your later questions, he was a bad captain. Does that mean he’s a better captain in proxy??

3. You are richer than anybody can ever want to be. Why then are you forever, and shamelessly, asking or accepting favours from the government? Be it having to change the law (Customs Act) so you don’t have to pay duty on an obscenely expensive luxury vehicle, or petitioning the government to relax the FSI regulations for your bungalow in Bandra, why can’t you just graciously accept the rules that apply to everyone else instead of cashing in on your celebrity status to seek favours?

[] This I have to agree with. But like any person who likes to take advantage of his position, he likes to do things the shorter route. Wouldn’t you use your good offices with the man that counted for a few perks every now and then? I do.

4. For most, nay, all, of your adult life, you have been a very influential person, with access to the highest corridors of power. Yet, not once in your life have you ever taken a stand on any issue — not even on sporting ones. Do you then seriously expect to make a meaningful contribution to any of the debates in the Rajya Sabha? If not, why did you agree to become a Rajya Sabha MP?

[] Again, good point. No logic behind this decision. Tendulkar’s only defense probably is the one most failed celebrity politicians have made (Dara Singh, Amitabh Bachchan) – that they wanted to make a difference, were swayed by the sweet talking politicos that got them to agree, and that it seemed the right thing to do. Also, knowing Sachin (a man with great talents, thought out intelligence not being one of them), someone must have said the magic words – Attendance is not mandatory.

5. And having become a Rajya Sabha MP, you say ‘cricket comes first?!!’ What were you thinking? That being a Member of Parliament is a nice hobby or what?

[]Hehe…refer to earlier response

6. Why is your captaincy record so abysmal? If your cricketing intelligence is so great, and if you are a thorough professional, and if you are a nice guy, how can you not be even an average captain, like, say, Anil Kumble was? You’ve got to have something that the other guys don’t have for you to be such an extraordinarily poor captain. What could this be? You ever think about that?

[]Ouch, painful that. I bet Tendulkar regrets this more than anything else. Its taken him a while but he finally realizes captaincy is not good for his soul. You may consider that selfish, but consider two things – 1. A captain is only as good as his team and 2. A non-performing captain especially one whose form is important to the team, more than his captaincy skills, will not survive, thus relieving him of the captaincy as well as the place in the team. Tendulkar chose his form and career, which is not much different from what several others would do. And in one sense, it is the selfless thing to do. He will never be remembered as a great captain, which is like the epitome of any professional cricketer's career (Shane Warne was the best captain that never was), but at least he contributed in the only way he could.
And what, might I ask, does being a nice guy and thorough professional have to do with being a good captain?? Anil Kumble was a good captain, more than average intelligence(of the cricketing kind too), as was Rahul Dravid. But if your personality is such that it inspires less fear than say a Ganguly does, you cannot succeed at this very difficult task. You either need aggressive forcefulness like Dada or calm, imperturbable, zen-like demeanor like Dhoni.

7. Against Bangladesh in the Asia Cup this year, you crawled to your 100th hundred (114 in 147 balls on a flat track against a bovinely gentle attack) at 4.5 runs an over, and actually slowed down in the slog overs when the team’s interests dictated that you score faster. And it was because of your milestone obsession that we lost the match to Bangladesh, which cost us a place in the final. This is not a one-off incident, but the culminating irony of a long career marked by the relentless deployment of individual talent for individual glory, though last I checked, cricket was a team game. Now that you’ve got every record in the book, will you, at least in the last remaining matches of your career, either stop playing for records, or stop paying lip service to how you are a team player — because it’s too brazenly hypocritical to do both?

[]Tendulkar these days is a shadow of his former self, so that has to be taken into consideration when you talk about his recent form. In the match that you mentioned, he did crawl – but that was needed to get rid of this persistent thorn in the craw – the 100th ton. It was people like you and I that couldn’t stop talking about how long the damn ton seemed to be taking. As he said later, it was as if he hadn’t scored the first 99. An unsaid sentiment seemed to be he wished he hadn’t scored that many. I’d like to see you work under the kind of stress that you and I can only write about, that he’s had to undergo in this mad, mad country. It had been the in thing to joke about this on twitter. You think he hadn't read a couple hundred of those? Actually, you and I contributed to that slow 100. Who’s ‘brazenly hypocritical’ now?

8. Why is it that when the chips are down, and India is chasing, you never (save the Sharjah hundreds way back in 1998 on a flat track) ever take India home? Don’t say, ‘check the records’ — because the records tell me very clearly that you’ve never single-handedly (like Dravid did in Adelaide or Laxman did while batting with a number 11 to take India home against the Aussies) taken India past the finishing line in your 22-plus years of international cricket. And what kills me is that you had the ability to do exactly that — if Yuvraj could, Laxman could, and Dravid could, so could you. But you never did. You just cannot bat for the team under pressure, is that it? Or is it that you never cared for the team as much as you claim to?

[]This is a grouse I’ve had too. Too few of his innings have been in winning games. But then, can we blame all those losses on him? Or should we instead focus on why the others chose to under perform in those instances (so, so many of them). Isn’t it more logical to assume, that when there are match-winning innings played, more often than not, the one heroic innings has overshadowed the poor performance of 3 or 4 other batsmen, including Tendulkar. I haven’t looked at the records, but of the colossal number of runs made, and made against all kinds of opposition all over the world, surely you can find more instances of ‘performance under pressure’ than you would in a standard cricketing career? Tell you what, speak to a friend of mine – Ajay Menon, who I had this discussion with, and failed. Let me know if you want a debate, and I’ll send over his e-mail id.

9. I’ve been pondering this one for ages. How did you become such a boring person — open your mouth and everyone goes to sleep?

[]Jeez, get over yourself. Not everyone is a Shane Warne, or presumably R Sampath. You obviously are the smart witty one that regales the room in every room you find an audience in. Being a boring guy myself, I say to you – good for you. You guys need us to be the listeners, don’t ya? Lappin' up all those smarties you keep puking out?

10. This is an easy one. Do you like journalists who suck up to you?

[]Sure he does. And he might not like you. But then you’ve called him a cretin, selfish, blatantly hypocritical, and boring. And now you want the love??