When it's all over [by Duncan Alex]

Federer versus Sampras: He who laughs last... Part II

... The Madison Square Garden encounter

This weekend, Federer and his agent have announced that the world number one suffered mononucleosis which is better known to me as glandular fever. Federer cited on his website that doctors think he had it since around mid-December 2007.

And since mid-December 2007, anyone who follows men’s tennis will have heard the cries of “the King is dead, the King is dead!”. In counterpoint we now hear a little cheer of “long live the king!”. Fans of Federer must be quietly chuckling at his recent misfortune, because it’s actually turned out to be his gain. As a fan of Federer’s tennis, I admit it does make me chuckle just a bit to hypothesise that Federer has known about the cause of his slump for a little while now, and just maybe, he had a bit of a laugh keeping it all to himself. After all, he was clearly getting a bit fed up of the press bandying about doom and gloom, and possibly of one upstart in particular "giving it all that"… so another source of mild amusement for me is picturing the disappointment on the Djoker's face, now, after all his "bigging up" of his Australian Open achievement. He practically took it upon himself to herald in the happy end of King Federer’s reign. Yes, indeed, how long has Federer known?

"Federer said he did not mention his bout with Mono until now because he didn’t want to take away from wins by opponents Djokovic (Australian Open) and Murray (Dubai) over the last two months."

Sneaky bugger. And it's not like Federer has been a shining example of "keeping schtum" at the right times. His somewhat derisive "constructive criticism" of Murray's game lead the British press in particular to comment, not too unfairly, about “sour grapes”. According to the New York Times, Federer who has now “learned the English term “sour grapes,” said he was trying only to provide “constructive criticism” and did not mean to imply that he did not respect Murray’s game.”

Still, Federer hasn’t done himself any favours by letting loose, and knowing the UK press, it could still come back to haunt him come Wimbledon 2008, so he’s wise to keep his counsel and try some damage control.

The other pressing bit of damage control that needs addressing surely has to be dispatching the “terrible twins” as I like to call them, of men’s tennis - Djokovic and Murray. Both players manage to slightly annoy, bait and prey on the other players' minds just a little bit with their press comments. Both have had a piece of Federer lately. And both are probably on Federer's hitlist! But first he must deal with someone else, who has a lot more history behind him.

Is Sampras likely to take another chunk out of Federer's reputation tomorrow? Your guess is as good as mine, but I have to remind myself that this is, first and foremost, a bit of money spinning! To be able to have said "I was there when tennis's greatest male players had a bit of a hit up" will cost up to US$3773 a front row dead centre courtside VIP seat.

My seat ain't VIP but it is reclining and it even has armrests, so personally I'm going to check out the match via a little known technology that allows a small virtual and visual portal into the USA at that very moment in time with multitudes of camera angles - yes, the match is streaming and if you have broadband, you can get it here on Monday night at 11.30pm GMT (7.30pm EST). It's a lot cheaper than actual seats, too, at a measly $0 (and I'll being praying for a big big server to cope with the traffic). So with the cash you’ve saved yourself, you can shell out for the rockin tunes and videos of Duncan Alex.

Addendum: Federer "won" the match 6-3, 6-7 (4), 7-6 (6) and here are some nice interesting articles summarising it:

FENDRICH ON TENNIS: Federer, Sampras put on quite a show at the Garden

Federer Stops Sampras

Federer beats Sampras in exhibition match

Federer edges Sampras in exhibition match

Roger Federer beats Pete Sampras in sold-out exhibition at Madison Square Garden

Bored, hungry, like chocolate? ... look no further... here's a recipe for "THE BOY'S SPECIAL CHOCOLATE CRACKLES"!

Requirements:
Largish pan, depending how hungry you are
Big baking tray
Cocoa powder
Rice Bubbles/Krispies
Lyles Golden Syrup
Slightly salted butter


4 oz (proper) slightly salted butter.
Cut it up and melt in pan.
Whilst melting, add 5-6 tablespoons of Lyles Golden Syrup.
Mix all into a caramelly soup.
Don't boil it! Just warm it up, let it bubble.
Add 5-6 tablespoons of cocoa. Taste it. If not cocoa-ey enough, add more.
Now gently boil the mixture for about 1 min.
Take off stove.
Add rice bubbles.
Probably a 1/3 of a normal-sized pack is enough. Pour most of the rice bubbles in first then stir, rather than later, as it's harder to spread if later.
Mix until they're all covered, do it by eye.
Get a big baking tray or little paper cake holders and fill it with the mixture. Compact it as much as possible.
Put it into the fridge for minimum 20 minutes.


ENJOY!

A £37 Billion gamble... oops

Very interested to read this Reuters story about an employee of the French bank Societe General who managed to be quite sneaky... and get away with gambling £37 Billion pounds, that's 50 billion Euros, of the bank's money. Cheeky chap.

It's silly money we're talking about here. More "than the gross domestic product of Morocco". And it raises all sorts of questions.

First up is quite how he did it.

Secondly - accountability... call me naive and foolish, but I'm just wondering, how exactly does £37 billion in transactions go unnoticed? And what about if it is one single transaction, as they seem to be hinting at when they say a "50-billion-euro (37 billion pounds) market bet by a lone trader"? Has anyone in Societe General ever heard of safeguards? Fingers crossed my bank's a bit better organised.

Thirdly, what's the motive for one to take that kind of risk to one's own ass? Maybe Jerome Kerviel was harboring a secret desire to start building a really world class Underground Lair from which he could control the world? Not likely, there's just too much competition - too many Dr Evil wannabes dotting the planet. No it seems - according to his family - Jerome has no motive. Perhaps he's a sociopath. But that wouldn't explain why he's being really helpful during the investigation.

Maybe the real motive reads something like this?:
Bank gets greedy and wants to make lots of money (it's a bank, it's supposed to want this). It decides to gamble 50 billion Euros. Can't really do this legally, but dammnit! - it really wants a go! So it sets up all sorts of smoke and mirrors. But the gamble doesn't quite work out, and.. Holy Hairy Monkey Mother of the Monkey God - guys... GUYS! .. we may just have set off a series of events leading to a WORLDWIDE RECESSION!

"Merde! Comment pouvons-nous fixer ceci ?!!!" Calm down, calm down... I know, I've got it! Let's blame Junior Employee of the Month!

He'll go quietly as long as we tell him he'll only do two to five, plus a measly 375,000 Euro fine. That Swiss bank account for when he gets out will never show up on the investigation's radar. Aw, hell, hate to say it, we can't risk that, just tell him he'll get some money, then when he's inside, don't give it to him after all. Sorted. And you Mr Chief - Jean-Pierre Mustier - I know you're having a bad day, but you're going to have to pretend to want to resign. Chairman will handle the bit where he tells you "you've been a very naughty boy so you're going to have to stick around and clean this up".

It's all so ridiculous I am eagerly awaiting more information!

On the up side, and the story really is quite upbeat considering how many people must be totally screwed by the whole debacle, if indeed he is to blame, our young Jerome can't have been too bad at it. He only lost £7 billion - even if that was just from the £37 billion bet, that's about a 20% loss - not bad by gambling standards. Now, where's my local Coral shop?



For more randomness in the form of thoughts, stories, music and videos, visit duncanalex.com or imaginaryband.com

What makes Trailer Park Boys so good?

A friend got me into this show. He makes films - the latest one won some awards too. With my limited knowledge of TV, as far as I am aware Trailer Park Boys has never been aired in the UK, although I’d hazard a guess it has reached or is about to reach homes in the US, because the movie is soon hitting theatre screens there.

Anyway, when he said "check this out", I approached the first episode with slight trepidation. What hit you first are really dodgy haircuts and character names. Of course, you don't quite realise how funny it is yet. But soon, you're half way through the 20 minute episode and you've laughed out loud a couple of times at the ridiculousness of the whole situation and the behaviour of the characters - these grown adults behaving like playground children. And towards the end you find yourself rooting for them. The pleasant sting in the tail is that you're left with a warm and fuzzy feeling.

Because it's a show of interesting contradictions. It has heart. It also has crime, and moral ambiguity. It has one dimensional characters and it has really real characters.

By the third or fourth episode I was hooked to the main characters, the shambles they live in, the havoc reaped by Ricky the village idiot, and the drunken hilarity of Mr Lahey the Trailer Park Supervisor... not to mention his inimitable side-creasing relationship with pregnant-gutted partner-in-crime, Randy.

The stories are great. And to top it off TPB has proper character development, over the short and long term. That feels realistic, interesting, and most of all properly milks the characters and their changes, inside and out, for laughs. Everyone changes and grows. Even Randy's stomach gets bigger. And despite this, like in life, everyone keeps making the same mistakes, or slightly different ones, and somehow, everyone stays rooted to Sunnyvale Trailer Park. After all it's their territory, their home.

TPB has a certain kind of integrity too. This is unusual, coming from a TV series in which all the characters are wasters of one kind or another, including of course the quintessential trailer park trash, J-Roc, an Eminem-clone. We've got ex-cons, gangsta wannabes and porn movie makers, drug dealers, dirty cops, loose girls, shopping cart thieves. Everyone does alcohol and drugs to excess, and pretty much everyone is stupid and has utter disregard for the environment and the general public. But, believe me, you will grow to like these flawed characters. There are some core values there - family, loyalty and friendship stand out. A sense of community prevails. In some ways (and I say some) these complete idiots are better neighbours than many suburbian folks worldwide. It feels crazy to write these words, knowing the show!

So in summary I fully recommend it as an offbeat, hilarious show for open-minded folks. It encompasses many different types of humour but I'd have to say it has generally more male appeal (and by that I don't mean that it's sexist - in fact one of the amazing things is despite how easily it could fall into such traps, it is not sexist whatsoever). At times the lead actors are truly brilliant - some moments with Lahey and Ricky really stand out. The show covers morally dubious grounds and often. It's always entertaining and interesting because it smacks of the reality of a life on the fringes of society whilst keeping the focus firmly on the laughs. It's written, acted and filmed with rare discipline. It's so damn good cos it's a shitcom, Randy.

For more randomness in the form of thoughts, stories, music and videos, visit duncanalex.com or imaginaryband.com

Here's a little selection of photos from the areas around my home in beautiful Devon, UK.















For more randomness in the form of thoughts, stories, music and videos, visit duncanalex.com or imaginaryband.com

Who’s it going to be - Tsonga or Djokovic?

Personally, I would like to see Tsonga win. He seems a sweet natured lad. And it’s not his fault he’s French. Go Tsonga!

In the match we’ll have a quick mover with powerful serves versus… another quick mover with large serves. Just how quick is Tsonga? Well against Nadal, who seems to be one of the quickest around, the answer seems to come back as “pretty f’ing quick”. Or perhaps ordinarily quick (say, like… Federer!), but coupled with superb co-ordination and a massive wingspan - quite Ali-like in that regard too! Ali used to by turns reach to hit, and keep his opponents at bay, very successfully with his naturally long reach. If Tsonga keeps it up – keeps reaching shots, and keeps up the impeccable drop shots and volleys, he might just throw Djokovic’s rhythm off. Perhaps an upper hand?

Djokovic is one cocky boy, no doubt talented, bit of a thinker, perhaps not as bright as he thinks though. He could resort to gamesmanship. Those sorts of tactics may help crack someone who’s already down (e.g. Federer) but I couldn’t vouch for it lasting long as a successful approach if one was to gradually alienate the entire field of opponents. However, methinks gamesmanship might be water off Tsonga’s back as he is apparently of placid temperament and definitely, via his good-naturedness, a popular crowd-pleaser. Also he is aloof to the other player on court. So, versus a feisty annoyer (who seems slightly to feed off a partisan crowd as in the match against the crowd-backed Federer) this makes for an interesting match-up, one of the best.

Before the match I doubt Tsonga will say anything at all. Part of his power for now lies with the unknown. [Seems nobody has the full grasp yet of quite how or why he killed all those seeds]. But I’d expect pre-game psychological warfare from Djokovic as seemed to work for him against Federer. I’m almost certain Federer didn’t sleep too well and was worrying a bit, despite all his words to the contrary, having had the seeds of doubt planted by his opponent.

As an aside – no expert, obviously but I’m putting in my 2 cents (what are blogs for!) - I reckon Federer needs a new coach, i.e. a coach at all. Surely there’s times when he needs the wisdom, detached appraisal, support and master-planning that a coach/mentor could provide. I’ve no idea how many people are in his team already doing these things though… now that he can’t rely on being a better player than everyone else on every single day, perhaps he’d also benefit from some of the tidbits and knowledge about opponents that I suspect only a coach could pick up from the sidelines. He said recently he mainly focuses on improving his own game. A future weakness perhaps? Today Federer was thrashed by Djokovic. The other day, Djokovic reportedly gave fellow Serbian Tipsarevic some good advice on how to play Federer prior to that clash. Where does Federer get this sort of information on his opponents? Then again, from all accounts he’s a sociable chap so perhaps he has a collection of sports friends (and coaches) – you know, people like Tiger Woods, no one special, to call upon for advice and to restore faith in himself.

Speaking of faith in himself, Tsonga’s greatest strength, it appears, is just this. He has said it before. And no injuries now… Djokovic, for all his bravado, could be covering for his insecurities. I would bet he does not have the self-belief that the big Frenchman does. Even after thrashing Federer. And I reckon this might be his undoing.

Predictions on the scoreline… hmm. It’s fun to try… and I’ve never publicly gone out on a limb before, so sod it! After this morning, when my safe bet got beaten, I don’t care any more :). Let’s say a tough first set. A break of each. 7-5 to Djokovic. Set 2 goes 6-4 in Tsonga’s favour. Set 3 goes to Tsonga 6-3. Set 4 a tight one, 7-6 (5) Tsonga. C’mon Tsonga!

Music to be happy to and music to be sentimental to…
And here songs and videos available from 15 cents.

Federer v Djokovic - live

Here's a blow by blow account of the Djokivic Federer match.

Thank you to Paolo Bandini (Guardian Unlimited).

Long live the king!

Hope you enjoy this music.

Oh dear.

Djokovic beat Federer 7-5, 6-3, 7-6 (7-5)

Ah the stoic Swiss. To have that sense of perspective and grounded philosophy... "I think he made the more important points today, it was a bit unfortunate for me," Federer admitted. "It depends a lot on form, you can't always play your best. There is no doubt I have played better before. I've created a monster that I need to win every tournament. Still, the semi-finals isn't bad."

Here's a handy story about the match

For more randomness in the form of thoughts, stories, music and videos, visit duncanalex.com or imaginaryband.com