Technology: Email (or spam!)

In the beginning, using email for personal communication felt similar to leaving a voice mail. However in the digital era, email is the primary means of communication. Some of key differences between face-to-face conversations and email are
1. Uncertainty of delivery and element of delay till the reply comes.
2. No secondary validations like facial expressions, gestures etc
3. Being in writing, emails can be referred to, quoted, or forwarded.

Some of the behavior of email is similar to postal letters, but I never experienced the postal letter era. Relatives are now an international call away, and time-zone differences have started interfering with friendship. I went from having friends down the road and relatives a phone call away, to using email to communicate my affection.

However, just when I was getting comfortable with using email, I read the news that spam made up 94% of all e-mail in December. This certainly adds to the seriousness of the first difference, which I listed. The reality is that the recipient of my email, playing tag-team with the email service has to locate my message amongst 16 spam messages.

Tennis: Hingis v2.0

Martina Hingis (6) defeated Na Li (19) 4-6 6-3 6-0 in the Women's fourth round match. But as they say, don't judge a game by its score! (ok, I made it up!) The scoreboard seems to suggest that Hingis found her form after the first set and demolished Na Li. But that is far from the reality. The 6-0 of Hingis was very different from the typical 6-0 of Roger Federer.
Have a look at the match statistics below

Winners (Including Service)
Na Li: 33
M Hingis: 8
Unforced Errors
Na Li: 69
M Hingis: 18

The talented Na Li didn't miss a first serve until game 10 of the first set. She was hitting winners from all flanks. Na Li has a clean nice two-handed backhand, and generates a lot of power in the shot. Hingis had a weaker serve, and lacked the Na Li's firepower in the ground strokes.

Second set onwards though, the experience of Hingis showed, as she played percentage tennis, well within herself. She got more balls back into play, and forced Na Li to earn her points. This started to put pressure on Na Li, and who seemed to loose her composure, and started to make unforced errors under pressure. Towards the end, with things not going her way, Na Li just couldn't play consistently enough, was quite erratic, and in the process essentially gifted the game to Hingis.

I wish Sania Mirza saw this game, as she can learn a lot from the way Hingis played today.

Tennis: Federer magic

R Federer (1) defeats N.Djokovic (14) 6-2, 7-5, 6-3 in the 4th Round of Australian Open 2007. The score suggests another page in the champions book, and it truly was. Federer is displaying a level of game which is higher than I have ever seen. Some of the salient points in Federer's game were
1. Equanimity: one can see him flinch or frown. Missing are the war like theatrics which are displayed by players like M Baghdatis. He saves the energy for the more important things
2. Balance: Federer's height (6' 1'') seems to be just right. He is able to get in position of every ball, however hard Djokovic hit it. Having such balance and court positioning ensures he is able to create angles, from where other players just hit percentage shots.
3. Judgement: Couple of times on the net Federer as position got into position it seemed as if he knew where the ball was going before Djokovic hit them. Anticipating where the opponent is going to hit the ball (based on approach, tendency etc) and preparing early for the shot, is an aspect of the game which commentators don't talk about much. Although very important for the serve returns and volleys, it is critical even for ground game.
4. Good second serving: Federer pulled up some solid second serves at some critical points. It means the Djokovic didn't get inroads into the match.

We must be lucky to get an opportunity to see such marvelous tennis Live.

Tennis: Sania slump

India’s Sania Mirza(Singles Rank 53) lost to Aiko Nakamura (Singles Rank 65) 6/3 6/2 in the second round of the Australian Open 2007. Here is the Scorecard, and some press coverage.

Vital stats (of Sania) in the game:

• Unforced Errors 26
• Winners (Including Service): 14
• Winning % on 1st Serve: 14 of 23 = 61 %
• Winning % on 2nd Serve: 4 of 20 = 20 %.

I saw Sania play at the Stanford Open in 2006. My impression of Sania was of a good player with immense potential who needs fine-tuning, and direction. However I could find the same two problems with her game
1. A very weak second serve, something, which she could definitely improve by practice.
2. Habit of hitting every ball hard, very hard and in the process making a bunch of unforced errors.

Sania's game is arrogant, like a raging bull. One can see aggression in every shot, but I fear the thinking cap being misplaced at critical junctures in the points. Sania has been ranked in the Top 50 for a while now, and at that level, the game becomes a craft, and one has to work their way through tough points, weather elements, different opponents, and injuries. At 20, Sania has time to learn. But its a game of the young with Sharapova (19), Safina (20), Vadisova (18). Ms Mirza needs to hurry up.

Philosophy: The fuzzy subjective

Today afternoon I was listening to the story of two kids being kidnapped, and the associated stories about other missing kids.

I grew up in the city of Mumbai, India. Mumbai, although being the most modern Indian city at that time, still had the slums, open garbage cans, and smelly sewers. The image of the US which my generation saw on TV or in photos sent over was of a "spic and span" country, with shiny high-rises and neat rows of houses in the country side. The only time we saw something contrary was the movies, but movies are part-fiction/part-reality anyway. US seemed a country with near perfect living conditions.

Living in the US for more than 2 years had left me a bit disillusioned regarding my notions. I heard about crime on TV, I tripped over a Starbucks coffee left at the pavement, and on radio I heard about homeless people getting affected by the un-seasonally cold winters. All this sounded familiar, so what was I missing?

Its numbers, which are conspicuous by their absence. Although I don't have the statistics on this, but I think if one pulled them they will show that # of pounds of garbage per square mile, # of incidents of crime per day, and the # of homeless people per person is more in India than US. Where subjective views can create a fuzzy equality, the statistics can clearly setup aside reality from vague notions.

-MG

p.s. Just trying to make a point about objectivity. I know India has changed a lot, and continues to change as I type.