1958 – 2009

Michael Jackson

Why Nadal’s 5-2 head-to-head record against Federer is misleading!

A lot of arm-chair Nadal fanboys keep touting the stat that in Grand Slams, Nadal has a 5-2 head to head record against Federer and hence Federer hasn’t “dominated” Rafa.

But these guys completely miss the point (which all tennis legends like Sampras, Agassi, Laver, Mcenroe and Becker accept):

Nadal didn’t even make ONE  U.S. Open final during Federer’s reign!!!

ZILCH. ZERO. Not ONE SINGLE final in the 5 YEARS Federer won.

Why should we bother about Federer losing to Nadal, if we don’t scrutinize Nadal losing to weak players in US and Aus Opens? In fact, Nadal lost to way lower ranked Soderling in 4th round of his FAVOURITE surface after winning 4 times.  Federer has lost ONLY in the finals of Wimbledon since his 1st win in 2003  and NEVER lost US Open after he first won it in 2004.

Nadal is extremely inconsistent in Hardcourt Slams.

Considering Roger’s awesome hardcourt Slam record, the head to head would easily be in FEDERER’s favour  of at least 8-5 (4 US Open wins and 2 Aus Open wins in Federer’s prime).

By  refusing to acknowledge Nadal’s miserable hard court slam record, and refusing to see Federer’s total dominance in US Open, the head -to-head stat supporters are  PUNISHING Federer for his CONSISTENCY in reaching FINALS of ALL slams, and REWARDING Nadal for his failure in U.S.Open and Aus Open.

Absolutely ridiculous. Basically Nadal fanboys have been devastated by Federer’s French open win and the fact that he has been declared the Greatest Tennis Player of ALL Time by none other than Sampras, Agassi, Lendl, McEnroe etc etc.

The right way to check slam dominance, is to take up ALL THE SLAMS in which BOTH Nadal and Federer participated and check the winning percentage you find that Nadal is way inferior to Federer than Agassi was to Sampras (and not otherwise as Nadal fanboys love to believe).  When you add the 2 Wimbledons, 4 Aus Opens and 5 US Opens that Nadal and Federer haven’t met in, but Federer won 2 , 3  & 5 of those Slams respectively, you get the TRUE picture.

Over time, Federer will dominate sports history books, while Nadal may remain a footnote (unless he starts winning 10more slams…)

Also read: how-nadal-maintains-his-head-to-head-record-against-federer

Pete Sampras confirms Roger Federer is “the greatest player” ever in history.

For a long time, Pete Sampras believed Rod Laver to be the best tennis player in history. Laver was the last man to win all four Grand Slam titles in a single season, a feat he accomplished in both 1962 and 1967 (Open Era). Laver, however (and compatriot Ken Rosewall) was barred from competing in those tournaments from the time he turned professional in 1963 to the start of the Open era in 1968.

But Sampras now believes that Roger Federer is the greatest tennis player of all time to have ever played the game.

Roger Federer Wins French Open 2009

“Now that he’s won in Paris, I think it just more solidifies his place in history as the greatest player that played the game, in my opinion.”

“I’m a huge Laver fan, and he had a few years in there where he didn’t have an opportunity to win majors. But you can’t compare the eras, and in this era, the competition is much more fierce than Rod’s.”

“What he’s done over the past five years has never, ever been done — and probably will never, ever happen again. Regardless if he won there or not, he goes down as the greatest ever. This just confirms it.”

- Pete Sampras.

Source: CBS Sports,  June,7, 2009

There is NO recession in Online Ad Spend..regardless of what TechCrunch says!

What on EARTH is TechCrunch trying to do? It has put up an article (with a prominent link/graph) form homepage saying: “the online ad recession is officially here”

On first glance it looks HORRIBLE …with almost a 50% crash in ad revenues… ALL hell to be broken loose in the online ad world which due its performance measures was supposed to be “recession proof” at least to a certain extent.

But on closer inspection of the ridiculous “chart” tells a different story. The author of the post, Erick Schonfeld , has published a chart with the vertical axis zooming from  7500 making the 2% year-on-year drop look like almost 50%!!!

But when you take the data and start axis at 0, which is the RIGHT WAY, we find there is very TINY fall in ad spend..nothing to panic about compared to tv/print spends.

Here is the chart with the zoom as published (as yet uncorrected) in TechCrunch:

And here is how the chart must ACTUALLY look when plotted correctly:

Clearly the data is being misrepresented to “make a point” as the author confesses. WHAT POINT?

And why is TechCrunch not correcting the chart as many readers in the comments have requested?

This is not good journalism!

Intel starts initiative to connect a billion Indians!

Everyone knows that the best way to spur economic and social progress in a developing country like India is to connect citizens to information &  ideas, which in turn bring more  people access to  capital. And capital is key to avail any service. Once Internet connectivity crosses the threshold and becomes ultra mass, it  has the power to change life as we know it today.

In this regard it is indeed heartening to know that a tech powerhosue like Intel has launched The Connected Indian Movement which aims to be “the catalyst for delivering the power of the Internet into the hands of a billion Indians. “ Over the next few months Intel along with its key partners will “mobilize people, resources & infrastructure to facilitate Internet adoption. Overtime, this collaboration will help build partnerships between people, Industries and stakeholders via a complete and connected ecosystem to accelerate the growth of Internet and its benefits to the society.”

Intel has even launched an interactive application on Facebook called “Virtual Yatra”.  Below is a screen grab of the Facebook app. Do join the movement on Facebook at:

http://apps.facebook.com/virtualyatra/

Virtual Yatra on Facebook

Who is the Fake IPL Player?

The mystery author of the Fake IPL Player blog is not a cricketer.

My guess is that he isn’t even present in South Africa. He is most likely an intelligent journalist but could easily be a recently “pink-slipped” IT chap with loads of free time sitting in the US. This isn’t a money-making blog as there are no Google Ads on the blog though it takes just 2 minutes to start Google Ads on Blogger.

If he isn’t in South Africa, then how does he get his “information”?  He either makes up the story using already published news articles or probably through a “source” who could be one of hundreds of small time journalists covering the IPL in South Africa. These journalists travel from city to city ,  cover many teams and have lots of access to information most of which is hardly “secret” info and available to thousands of cricket fans. The content in the blog posts (especially the dressing room stuff) is pure conjecture & guesswork built on easily available info anyways. Any cricket fan in India who saw the pre-IPL press conference with Buchanan and Ganguly, can see that former Indian captain is irritated by Buchanan. Anyone who saw KKR matches can find out that there is no unity in the team. Very similar to the Indian National team under Greg Chappell during the world cup in West Indies!!!

If the Fake IPL Player is indeed a journalist, then it is highly probable that the journalist is a Bengali (and belongs to a Calcutta based Bengali or English newspaper) and most likely he is pretty pissed at Ganguly being insulted & snubbed by Buchanan and SRK by removing him as captain. I would be furious too, as Ganguly is India’s most successful captain in history and has the respect of almost entire cricketing fraternity in India. And the lesser said about John Buchanan the better.  Just ask Shane Warne about Buchanan. McCullum hasn’t even captained a provincial New Zealand squad, leave alone international teams. Almost nobody in India likes John Buchanan I guess. If SRK has even half a cricketing brain he would immediately make Ganguly not only the sole Captain but also the Coach of Knight Riders (like Shane Warne for Rajasthan Royals).

Of course the content of the blog isn’t of the same quality as compared to the Fake Steve Jobs blog written by a Forbes journalist, but in its own way its pretty entertaining and completely harmless if the reader’s understand it is pure fiction.

Paul McCartney is right, but is the Music Industry wrong?

First, lets hear from Sir Paul McCartney :

“Anyone who does something good, particularly if you get really lucky and do a great artistic thing and have a mega hit, I think you should get rewarded for that.

“I’m in favour of that sort of thing.

He added: “The problem is you get a lot of young bands coming up and some of them aren’t going to last forever so if they have a massive hit that’s going to pay their mortgage forever.”

Source: BBC

Now, please read the following comment from DAVE  in the Silicon Alley Insider which brilliantly analyzes the mistake the Music Industry is making. The comment is written in such a superb manner, am going to put it here verbatim (since the author has given express permission to release it to the public domain.)

Dave:

The real problem is that the industry in general has not adapted to the changing market, and the officially offered releases are monopolistically overpriced. Before the internet, music was a tangible commodity, either a product, (in the case of CDs, cassettes, 8-tracks, records, etc) or a service (in the case of radio broadcasting, and concerts). The nature of a tangible commodity is that it is both desirable and scarce, and is thus valuable. In the case of music as a product, the intangible music was desirable, and the tangible medium on which it was printed was scarce. In the case of music as a service, the intangible music is the desirable part, and the scarce tangible part is “bandwidth”. (As in, a single radio station or live group can only reach a limited number of people)

The internet changed the market, but the industry is operating today as if the old market rules applied. In today’s open market, there is no scarcity inherent in product-music with which to demand value. Music is still desirable, but it is not inextricably tied to any tangible item. Basic economics demands that in any situation where supply is essentially infinite, value is essentially zero.

If money were the only issue, we could conclude that record labels are nothing but manipulative, greedy bastards, out to fleece consumers by destroying the free market and establishing a de facto monopoly over music. But money isn’t the only issue.

The mega hits McCartney is talking about are only possible due to popularity. Restricting distribution in any fashion hurts this popularity. As the labels are well ware, popularity can be leveraged into revenue generating activities. Popular groups can compel greater ticket prices and greater merchandise sales in any market, and greater CD sales in a traditional market.

In a traditional market, failing to restrict CD distribution increases costs and decreases profits. Piracy is seen as a direct threat to sales revenues. However, in an internet P2P market, the cost of distribution is borne by the consumers, not the publishers. The cost to distribute a billion copies is no greater than the cost to distribute a thousand. Using P2P, the cost to manufacture popularity is fixed.

The music industry currently markets only one group: people who are willing to pay for music. They villify and alienate another market: people who share music illegally. They completely ignore a third market: people who would listen to music if they didn’t have to break the law or pay for the music directly. This third market is arguably the largest of the three, it is virtually untapped, but direct marketing of this group is virtually impossible. You can’t make direct sales to this group, but you may be able to convert them into willing buyers; you may be able to get indirect sales – tickets and merchandise, for instance. You can do this if and only if you can reach them.

And here is where we learn that not only are the record labels greedy and manipulative, but they are also massively stupid. They have at their disposal a group of people ready willing and able to provide a revolutionary service, one that can reach a market the labels could only dream about, and instead of working with that group, they try to have its members thrown in jail! (Of course, this only brings more attention to P2P, resulting in more piracy, and compelling every increasing responses by the pirate community… The industry shoots itself in the foot at least twice)

For the first time in history, de-monetizing music distribution can result in greater profits for artists and labels. One of two things can happen: either the labels can adjust their business strategies to adapt to this, or some enterprising individual will create a new label around this new strategy, forcing the rest of the labels to follow suit.

The question is who will accomplish the goal first: Indie artists, or the legacy labels?

(As the author of this comment, I release it to the public domain, free of restrictions)

So,  Paul Mcartney is technically right about artists being paid for their work. But the Music Industry is definitely not doing the right thing by killign an amazing source of REVENUE for those same artists to save an “obsolete” revenue model. Apple I-Tunes is proof that people are willing to pay for downloads, and artists like Prince are proof that by offerring free downlaods, they get to charge a premium to their concerts and earn MORE.

Jai Ho Rahman!

AR Rahman wins 2 Oscars

On a night when Danny Boyle’s “Slumdog Millionaire” won 8 Oscars (out of 9 Academy Award nominations), India’s very own A R Rahman stood tall with a rare double Oscar win (for Best Original Score and Best Original Song).

Amazing win for the Mozart of Madras.

Check out Guardian for more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/oscars

Will Nadal burn out at age 26 like Bjorn Borg?

I found interesting similarities in the Grand Slam runs between Sampras and Federer as well as Borg and Nadal in terms of their Age vs Slams won!

(Note that have taken 31 yrs as maximum age considering Sampras retired at that age for apples to apples comparison for the 14 slam win rate).

Some important pointers:

1. Pete Sampras had only 3 wins in his last 16 slams.

2. Roger Federer needs only ONE win in his next 15 slams to equal Sampras and just 2 to break the world record.

3.  Nadal has more than 35 slams to beat Sampras, and is close to beating Borg’s slam total by age 23

4. Borg had the highest rate of slams by age 23 and played only 3 slams a year. He never played a lot of Aussie opens (except early on in 1974 types ) as he kept losing US Opens . Borg didn’t feel Aussie Open was important unless he won the US Open.

Nadal seems to be slightly behind Borg’s run rate. And Federer’s win rate is next to Borg despite playing way longer schedules. Unbelievable.

Nadal too may burn out like Borg especially because his game is more Physical than Federer’s and the body takes punishment on hard courts. Nadal also won’t be able to maintain the speed and power beyond age 25-26…as the tennis schedules are too long now days. Federer’s game like Sampras suits long term play.

Grand Slam wins

But I feel even if Nadal wins 15 slams and Federer wins the French, they can still be called greatest only of the MODERN era as people forget Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall were banned for more than 44 Slams due to them turning PRO… Rosewall lost peak 11 years of his life. It was Laver and Rosewall’s efforts which led to the Open era in the first place and modern players from Borg to Nadal and Federer have to be thankful for them. Between them, Laver and Rosewall would have won 20+ slams if allowed to play as there was no one close to them. And it isn’t their problem that Hardcourts weren’t provided for Slams, as either would have won for SURE if there was that surface provided.  It is for this reason, that historians will ALWAYS place Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall as the Greatest Tennis Players of ALL TIME.  To beat them, the minimum no. of slam which Federer or Nadal must win are 20, else there is no comparison for the unfair way in which Laver/Rosewall were prevented for 44 Slams simply because they turned Pro.

For a detailed perspective, please also read the following article:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/119898-the-hall-of-goats

Op-Ed Columnist Roger Cohen of the NYTimes.com beats Bono!

Never expected him to out-write Bono in the NYTimes op-ed, but his spoof on Billy Joel’s  grammy winning song “We didn’t start the fire” as a “tribute” to President Obama of the US is a must read (or sing?). Have reproduced the words below. Enjoy!

Start the Fire
By ROGER COHEN
January 19, 2009

With apologies to Billy Joel, who’s more of a chronologist, and in tribute to a president, Barack Hussein Obama, representing a new post-cold-war generation of 21st-century Americans.

We Didn’t Start the Fire (2)

Bill Clinton, Tina Fey, capitalist China, O.J.,

Asia rising, Facebook, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ugg boots, Seinfeld

West Bank, Gaza City, Tupac Amaru Shakur

Mohamed Atta, W.M.D., Harry Potter, Reality TV

Tom Cruise, American Beauty, MP3, Oprah Winfrey

Schwarzenegger, YouTube, America’s got organic food

Armstrong, blogosphere, Monica Lewinsky

We didn’t start the fire

It was always burning

Since the world’s been turning

We didn’t start the fire

No we didn’t light it

But we tried to fight it

Vlad Putin, Medvedev, Assad, Posh-and-Becks

The West Wing, Y2K, massacre in Falluja

Britney Spears, Spike Lee, Kurt Cobain, Sarkozy

Mia Hamm, Heath Ledger, Viagra, Napster

Lindsay Lohan, skinny jeans, Boston’s got a winning team

Lehman Brothers, A.I.G., subprime, Ponzi scheme

Rwanda, Darfur, Bosnia, and a billion poor,

Tehran, Hezbollah, trouble with the jihadis

We didn’t start the fire

It was always burning

Since the world’s been turning

We didn’t start the fire

No we didn’t light it

But we tried to fight it

New Orleans, Bolaño, Sarah Palin no-go

TiVo, Hu Jintao, and the vegan-eco crowd

Tony Blair, Paris Hilton, Princess Di, Bin Laden

Pyongyang, the renditions gang, Roger Clemens in a cloud

ACT UP, Infinite Jest, O.J. Part Two, Johnny Depp

iPhones, Federer, Who Let the Dogs Out?

Halle Berry, cloned Dolly, and another Kennedy

Jon Stewart, American Psycho, tsunami, Danger Mouse

We didn’t start the fire

It was always burning

Since the world’s been turning

We didn’t start the fire

No we didn’t light it

But we tried to fight it

Sedaris, Unabomber, Girls Gone Wild, Nasrallah

Jay-Z, Shanghai, shock and awe in Baghdad

Amy Winehouse, Imus, gases of the greenhouse

Kelly Ripa, Maureen Dowd, Ted Williams gone mad

Outsourcing, Mumbai, so many didn’t have to die

David Blaine, human rights, and Napoleon Dynamite

Mandela, Madonna’s ex, abstinence, safe sex

Rabin blown away, what else do I have to say?

We didn’t start the fire

It was always burning

Since the world’s been turning

We didn’t start the fire

No we didn’t light it

But we tried to fight it

BlackBerry, global mall, Hillary Clinton standing tall

Tiger Woods, Barry Bonds, MySpace, The Corrections

Rushdie, Starbucks, Channel Tunnel, Spurlock

American Idol, Black Hawk Down, Miracle on the Hudson

Sopranos, Cougars, Da Vinci Code, life on Mars

Saddam hung, Mugabe, traumatic stress, mission creep

Social networks, match.com, iChat, Amazon,

Terror cells, endless war, I can’t take it anymore

We didn’t start the fire

It was always burning

Since the world’s been turning

We didn’t start the fire

No we didn’t light it

But we tried to fight it

Hawaii, Kenya, Kansas and Jakarta

Harvard, finding God, social work, Axelrod

Red state, blue state, unity can no longer wait,

A time to reap, a time to sow, we will close Guantánamo

Iowa, Yes We Can, McCain was just an also-ran

I Have a Dream, Bush out, a black man in the White House

We didn’t start the fire

It was always burning

Since the world’s been turning

We didn’t start the fire

No we didn’t light it

But we tried to fight it

We didn’t start the fire

It was always burning

Since the world’s been turning

We didn’t start the fire …