Rafa Nadal - Reaching the Highest of Expectations

Maybe it was around 2007, when Nadal won his third French Open without much fuss against Roger Federer, beating Fed for the 2^nd straight time in a Final, 3^rd straight time at the French Open, and doing it rather easily. Nadal did lose a set, his first in the tournament, but unlike in the 2006 Final, when Fed blitzed Nadal 6-1 in the opening set, this was more a momentary lapse of concentration by Nadal. It was around this time that the question was beginning to be asked – just how many French Opens can Rafa Nadal actually win? The wildest guesses at the time were probably 10. It made some sense. Nadal had just turned 21. Federer seemed to be the world’s 2^nd best clay court player, and he wasn’t close to Nadal. Why not 10? Somehow, that may have been an underestimate.

Rafael Nadal, without playing his best tennis, just won his 9^th French Open. It already seems a little absurd. People may have wondered and dreamed Nadal would do this, but Rafa actually did. Nadal won his 9^th French Open Title, and in all but one run (2010) he had to either beat Roger Federer or Novak Djokovic. He beat both three times (’06-’08). Nadal has played in a very competitive time in tennis. He’s also dominated this particular surface, and more importantly, that particular tournament so much the competition doesn’t matter. Rafael Nadal is calling his shot at Roland Garros. It has become increasingly likely he’ll win as many as he wants, competition be damned.

It didn’t always look like this. Nadal was a perfect clay court player from 2005-2008, his first run of dominance. That was the period he was wearing sleeveless shirts and cargo pants, and ran faster and harder than anyone, and hit looping defensive shots and pounded Federer’s backhand like it was a punching bag. That style was ruthlessly effective. Thing is, Rafa Nadal has now changed his game, gotten older, and become even more dominant at the tournament. He responded to his first, and still only, loss at the French Open to rededicate his game to offense, to shorter points, to dictating with the forehand instead of staying with the tried and true of pounding away at backhands. He did it all to make himself more viable at the other tournaments really, and to save his legs on hardcourt. Strange thing happened, though, it didn’t make him any worse at the French.

Watching yesterday’s match against Novak Djokovic, there were a couple immediate takeaways. The first is still no one can attack Nadal’s forehand with their backhand like Djokovic, a relative advantage that will likely never have the effect it had in Djokovic’s incredible 2011 season, but still be effective. The other is that it takes a superhuman effort to get just a set of Nadal. Rafa didn’t play very well in the first set and Novak did. Then, almost literally like a swtich, Nadal turned it on in the 2^nd and then didn’t only outplay Novak, he out-attacked him. Nadal ended up with more winners, fewer unforced errors, dominated Djokovic’s 2^nd serve and won most of his own 2^nd serve points. Only a surprising mental dip cost him an easy 4^th set, but he won anyway. By the end, Novak looked broken, far more so than in previous losses to Nadal. Even last year’s epic 5-set loss, a loss that ended a tournament in which he dedicated to his first coach who had recently died, Novak didn’t seem as down as he did this time.

In a way, that makes sense. Last year, Nadal entered the French with just two losses on the season. One was to Djokovic at Monte Carlo, but Nadal was dominant in the French coming into that semifinal. He also, quietly, wildly outplayed Djokovic in that match. He had 15 more winners and fewer unforced errors. He won dominant sets while Djokovic pulled his two sets out of thin air. Novak did come close to winning, but he didn’t play well enough to really deserve it. In a way, it was the opposite of the classic 6-hour 2012 Australian Open Final, which Djokovic nearly blew despite playing reasonably better. Last year’s 5-set semifinal also continued the 5-match trend of Djokovic getting closer and closer. His first matchup against Nadal at the French was in 2006, and Djokovic retired after losing the first two sets. The next two years he lost in straight sets in the Semifinals. In 2012, he played the Final against Nadal and won a set against him for the first time at the French but lost. Then was last year. Now, for the first time, the trend reversed itself.

Nadal was beatable this year. He had been rusty all season ever since his at-the-time shocking loss to Stan Wawrinka in the Australian Open. He had won just one tournament all year long, the Madrid Masters, where he didn’t have the toughest path. He lost to Djokovic rather meekly in the Rome Final. He lost early at clay events. For the first time since 2005, Nadal was not the bettors favorite heading into the tournament, Novak was. All that, and he was further away to winning this year than last. The Nadal hurdle must seem gigantic to Djokovic right now, somewhat where it was for Federer back in 2008.

Federer ended up winning a French Open, completing his career slam, the next year. Of course, he didn’t have to go through Nadal. Maybe Djokovic gets that lucky, maybe someone else takes out Rafa next year. Maybe Rafa’s knees act up, but it is becoming less likely not more. Since returning to the tour after seven months off last February, Nadal hasn’t expressed any issues ever with his knees. He seems to be physically in the best shape he has been since 2010-11. He looks healthy and confident. He’s changed his game to play even shorter points. It was odd to see Rafa have such a healthy edge in winning short points but losing the longer rallies to Novak. Nadal wants to play these shorter points now, he wants to attack. It will keep his career going longer and also keep him winning.

The one cause for concern with the ‘Nadal will win 10 French Opens!’ crowd back in 2007 was his physical style of play could end his career early. While those fears were definitely not unfounded, as he’s missed more time than the other big stars (save for Del Potro) since he first injured his knees in 2009, he seems fine now. I think the Rafa detractors back in 2007 didn’t think he would be this good in 2014. He just turned 28 during the French Open, and seems fine. Now, Roger Federer also won his 14^th major at 28 and has won just three since, but when Federer was 28, Nadal and DJokovic were squarely in their primes. Right now, there are no up-and-coming guys Nadal has to be all that worried about. The biggest worry is still Novak.

Djokovic will likely never reach the level he had in 2011 again. That said, he still continues to beat Nadal consistently, especially in best of three matches. His problem now is best of 5. In a way, that is everyone’s problem with Nadal. Nadal has won his last four Grand Slam matches against Djokovic, including three straight in Finals. In fact, one of the most impressive stats of Nadal’s career is his record in Grand Slam matches against the other big three. He is now 9-3 against Djokovic to go along with a 9-2 mark against Federer and a 7-2 against Murray. Overall, that is a tidy 25-7 in Grand Slams, and even if you remove the French Open he’s 12-7, with at least a .500 record against all three. Rafael Nadal may not get to Federer’s 17 slams, and he won’t touch some of the records Federer put up, like winning three majors four times, or making 23 straight semifinals. Heck, even Novak DJokovic has gotten to the Semifinals of a Slam more times given the amount Nadal has lost to injury. That said, Rafael Nadal has the edge over basically everyone head-to-head. He has a winning record against everyone in the Top-25. And he has that 25-7 mark against the Big 3.

Rafael Nadal is definitely not underappreciated. The only people that decry his achievement are rather obvious trolls. They still call him a defensive one-trick pony who can only win on clay, despite his three slam wins on Hard Court and two on Grass. Nadal, though, has lived up to everyone’s best expectations of him. He’s dominated the French Open in the way most hoped he could, winning 9 of ten, winning 197 sets and dropping just 20 in his 67 French Open matches. He’s changed and adjusted his game to become an all-around force and a great player on every surface. Rafael Nadal is one of the Top-5 Players ever, but his achievements and consistency on clay is still stunning. He never gets tired of the surface, never drops in intensity, he reacted to winning his 9^th French Open like he did his 2^nd, and the emotion he showed when the National Anthem of Spain was playing was real.

He might be done winning French Opens. You never know what will happen when a tennis player gets closer and closer to 30. You never know with his medical history. You never know when someone’s desire will finally fade. That all said, if anyone’s desire will last it is Nadal’s. No one is a harder competitor. No one makes the most of every point more than him. One last stat before Rafa and the Tennis World heads off to Wimbledon (where Rafa, ironically enough, will try to end a 2-game losing streak), Nadal has won his last 12 Semifinals at majors. Now, there’s a caveat that he’s lost before the semis three times in that streak, but the 12-consecutive wins in the Semifinal Round is longer than any streak Fed had (10) and Novak’s longest is four. For his career, Nadal is 20-3 in the Semifinals of a major, which blows away Federer’s 24-10 mark, or Novak’s 13-9 mark. If you are going to beat Nadal it will have to be because you outplay him at the very end, and he’s made himself about as hard to outplay as possible, and impossible to on clay.

Where it all began, one Champion to another back in 2005

Maria Sharapova, the Underrated Champion

Today Maria Sharapova won her 2nd French Open in the last three years (she lost in the Final last year). She won her 5th career Grand Slam. This was the 40th Grand Slam played since she stormed onto teh scene winning Wimbledon in 2004. Back then she was just 17 and knocked off an in-her-absolute-physical-prime Serena Williams in straight sets. She was extremely young, but extremely good. She was poised to be the next big thing in tennis. It didn't hurt that was a tall, beautiful, blonde girl from Russia. She was anointed that day.

Where it all started, winning the '04 Wimbledon at 17

40 slams later, Sharapova has, stunningly a little under-the-radar, pretty much fullfilled the promise she showed that day at Wimbledon. She's changed her game, changed her attitude, changed her preparation, and given her awesome results on clay the last few years, changed her favored service. She did all that, added four more majors, won the career slam, and somehow never really got the credit she deserved. We may think she should have done more, but she's done a whole lot, and more than anything, she was a true tennis player.

When she burst onto the scene the comparisons to Anna Kournikova were immediate, but also very complimentary. She was thought of as everything Kournikova wasn't, someone committed to tennis, with a bunch of prodigous skill. She accomplished at 17 something Anna famously never did, win a major. She kept to those standards for the first four years of her career. Competing with a prime Serena Williams, a still great Venus Williams, and both the primes of Kim Clijsters and Justine Henin, from Wimbledon 2004 through the 2008 Australian Open, a period of 15 majors, she won three slams, made another final, and made the semis 6 other times. She truly was Anna Kournikova with far more talent. Then injury struck.

Cementing her early legacy, winning the 2008 Australian Open

After winning that 2008 Australian Open, Sharapova started on a three year drought that included three different bouts with shoulder injuries, and just one trip past the Round of 16 at any majors. This was a lean time in Women's Tennis as well, and Sharapova did nothing. Suddenly, the Kournikova comparisons came back: was Maria tired of tennis? Did she care more about modeling? Was she too concerned with off the court ambitions? A lot of her poor results were explained by that balky shoulder, but maybe she wasn't long for the tennis world.

Women's tennis, especially since 2000, is a strange world where people come and go all the time. Justin Henin and Kim Clisjters retired, then unretired, then retired again. Younger players like Ana Ivanovic, Dinara Safina, Vera Zvonareva were great players one year and gone two years later (Ivanovic has returned to Top-20 status consistently it should be noted). Sharapova straying away from tennis was an easy storyline to write because it seemed possible. All the elements were there. Here was this woman who was essentially perfect to market outside tennis. She was a tall, beautiful blonde, who spoke excellent English, who was a Champion athlete. She was a marketers dream. It was easy for her to stray away from tennis after battling injury and already accomplishing a lot. Problem was Maria cared more about tennis than anyone gave her credit.

The Nadir of her career, a shocking 6-2 6-1 loss in the 1st round of '10 Australian Open

Off the court, Maria Sharapova seems the furthest thing from a fighter, a tennis lifer, as any Champion tennis player could be. But if you just watch her on the court, the evidence is all there. Start with one of the most controversial aspects of Maria's game, her loud grunt after every stroke. It started as a joke, than a point of issue, but beyond the ridiculous volume lies the energy she expends on each shot. When Rafa or Novak do the same thing (admittedly, not as loudly and distracting) people agree it is because how much they give on each shot. For Maria it is the same, the most outward example of how much she loves competition and the sport.

Her father gave up everything in Russia to bring her to the US when Maria was 9 to train in Florida. He worked scores of bad, low-paying jobs so Maria could train for years before being accepted into the IMG academy. Maria has that same work ethic, and it showed. Through the battles with shoulder injuries. Through the years of falling short in majors early way too often. Through the years of modeling agencies and outward interests trying to drag her away, she stayed committed. She stayed in the game, working on getting better. Realizing she couldn't pound her way to wins, she became even more fit, a better defensive player, a better counterpuncher. She changed the way she played, and the results have been amazing.

The Ultimate Redemption, winning the Career Slam at the '12 French Open

Her career almost reads like Kurt Warner's, a fast start with three major wins and loads of deep runs in majors from her age 17 season to age 21 season. Then, like Warner in New York and early in Arizona, Maria went through her down period. Finally, like Warner from 2007-2009, Maria fought back. Starting from teh 2011 French Open, over the next 17 majors, she's won two more, reached three other finals, and three other semifinals. She's remained interested in her off the court avenues, as she remains one of the msot marketable women athletes in teh world, but I hope she is finally getting the recognition she deserves as a tennis player.

Obviously, the model for any up and coming tennis player, the best case scenario, would be Serena, someone so gifted they can fly through the sport winning majors in buckets. But that is really unattainable, in teh same way being the next Federer or Nadal is. No, the real model should be Maria Sharapova. She's had a Hall of Fame career by staying in the sport. She didn't take the easy way out. She wasn't flighty and not dedicated enough. She didn't burn out too quickly as so many women tennis players have, sadly, done. No, she fought through everything. She's a Champion five times over. Her personality may resemble the beautiful woman she is, but her career resembles the grunter who scrambles and plays defense but still hits through the court. And the tennis world has been better off for it.

Re-Post: RTW Trip: The A-B-C's, Pt. 2

The Conclusion of my A-B-C's for my Round-the-World Trip.

N is for New Meats

My second day in Cape Town I had crocodile ribs. That opened the pandora's box of strange, new meats to try out. Crocodile became Ostrich, which became Warthog, which became another dose of Crocodile, which became Gembok (an antelope like thing), and all of this was just South Africa. Africa as a continent has some really unique fauna, and I tasted most of them (I don't think they eat Elephant or Hippo or Giraffe), but my tour of meats didn't end there. The most bizarre meat was still to come, and that happened my last day in Cambodia, where I went to one place that is notable for a crawling little appetizer. When I first saw turantula on the menu, I was excited. When they brought those 8-legged things to me, I was disappointed at how small they were. When I tasted them I was excited at how good they were. I finished off this tour in Australia with Kangaroo, another tender, red meat that I wish we could have in the US.


O is for the Oxford Art Factory

This is the only entry about a night spot, mainly because there was a witness to what happened that night anyway, in my cousin who was in Sydney at the time. We left an already decent bar near the Sydney waterfront that had lively music, a livelier crowd and view of the harbor on a beautiful night. I was a little skeptical of this place on Oxford Street being as good, and although I'm not one to leave a good thing too easily, since he was paying, I left without too much of a fight. The entrance to the Oxford Art Gallery gave off a really 'club' vibe, and a large area of the place was a nightclub, but that was closed off to ticketed guests only because some DJ was playing there. Instead, we had to hang at the bar, which had a dance floor, a giant projection screen playing music videos (that weren't the same songs as the ones playing out loud), a long bar and a ton of young people. It was an interesting night out with my cousin, and I learned a lot, like how seriously they take trying to keep out people without a ticket from the many side entrances to the club, to the fact that in Australia, they might not know what an 'Irish Car Bomb' is, and instead charge you for Guinness and Jameson separately. It was a long night, but a damn fun one.


P is for Phang Nga Bay

I was sick for each of my first two days in Phuket, but our last day there, I braved my still pulsating stomach illness to join my Mom on a boat tour of Phang Nga Bay. We ended up going for a nicer (in terms of price) tour than originally planned because instead of two tours we were just doing one, and while we did miss out on the other tour, I can't say that this tour was anything but incredible. The view of the small rock islands jutting out of the crystal-clear blue water, the winding caves that we were taken in by kayak, made to duck to avoid the glistening limestone formations on the ceilings, the umpteen photo opportunities. Everything combined for a memorable day out in the Andaman Bay. Somehow, despite all that was excellent with this tour, my most lasting memory is having to pass over the free, ice-cold coke bottles that the rest of the people on the tour boat were gulping down as an antidote against the oppressive heat because of my stomach.


Q is for Quality Family Time (yeah, I know, boring)

Obviously, the main attraction, in terms of getting to spend time with family, is to visit my long lost family in Australia. I had met them all before eons ago, and met my cousin Lisa in the US two years previously, but this would be meeting them on their turf; spending time at their home. I would also get to spend some time with the part of my family that is trapped in India (I kid about the 'trapped' thing). What I didn't expect was to meet another cousin who lives in the US in Sydney, or meet cousins of my parents in Sydney, Singapore, Mumbai and other places. The height of this history lesson came at a party in Bangalore at my Mom's cousin's house for his daughter's communion, where my Uncle Anthony basically pointed out each person and told me how they were connected to me. Because of how Mangalore worked, all of my 2nd cousins on that side of the family (My Mom's paternal family) are basically my Mom's age, so that added to the confusion. The last family members I met on my trip were my Aunt and cousin who used to live in Boston, one last reminder of the family I left behind in the US and the long litany of them I had met on my voyage.


R is for Rendang and Roti (Canai)

I wanted to go to Malaysia mainly for the food. I would say the cuisine encompassed about 75% of my reasoning to go to Malaysia. My favorite part of the cuisine experience in Malaysia was probably the seafood in the night markets in Penang, the stalls that sold fish, squid, clams, scallops adn shrimp by the ounce with any sauce you want, delivered to your table as you sip a Tiger Beer listening to the music. That's life. But this is about Rending and Roti Canai, my two mainstay Malaysian dishes I eat in the US. Roti Canai was a little hard to find since it is a breakfast food there, but I was able to get it at a Muslim eatery across our hotel in KL that stayed open all night. Rendang was more plentiful, and although none of the Rendangs we sampled were what we have in the US, we tried a few of them and all were quite good. Some were more spicy, some were more saucy, some were just totally different, but the various versions of Rendang was almost the connecting line for our time in Malaysia. I went to Malaysia for food, and if I go back, it will be for food. I'm sure there are more authentic restaurants serving Rendang that we didn't try out last time.


S is for Sushi!!

From one food to another. I didn't only go to Japan to eat sushi, but it just so happened that I eat a metric ton of sushi.I had expected the sushi in Japan to be good and to also be expensive, but only half of that statement turned out to be true. Of course, there is very expensive sushi, and I would classify one place I went to as moderately expensive, but the scores of 'Kaiten Sushi' places, with their conveyor belt, generally gave me good bang for my buck. The best of those places served all their different types of sushi, which encompassed most of the ones anyone would generally want, for 126 yen (about $1.25). Another had most for 115 yen, and then a few in the 165, 199, 250, and 450 yen categories. I ate at these places too many times that by the end I was able to request what I wanted to the sushi chef (by yelling at him, which is what everyone does) in Japanese. Although the real revelation in Japanese cuisine was the Japanese Korean BBQ, sushi was what really sustained me. Sushi became a part of me.


T is for Table Mountain

Table Mountain has the distinction of being one of the Top 10 tourist attractions worldwide according to Tripadvisor. I knew this going in, so my expectations were damn high for Table Mountain. My Uncle also told me it was the best tourist attraction in Cape Town, one of the best tourist spots in the world, so my expectations were a little higher. Somehow, Table Mountain exceeded them. The view on the cable car up to Table Mountain was incredible,, but that was merely an appetizer for what was on top. Table Mountain is situated directly behind Cape Town, creating a perfect view of the entire city. There is also the view of the Western Cape down South of Cape Town. The best part may be the size of the 'Table' top, making Table Mountain a perfect place to get some exercise walking up and down the rocks. I haven't seen enough of the world to say if it really is one of the 10 best tourist attractions, but I can't see how anyone could possibly be disappointed with spending some time atop of Table Mountain.


U is for the United MileagePlus Program

When I first started researching the logistics of how this trip would work, I found that each of the three major alliances gave round-the-world tickets. Of course, those came with about a $6,000 price, so those were quickly forgotten about. Then, I found that United offered a round-the-world mileage ticket for 180,000 miles, but the amount of stipulations on that were about three pages of text, and nearly every itinerary I wanted was not allowed for one reason or another. I finally settled on two seperated mileage tickets, and then the fun began. United and its Star Alliance partners can basically connect any two places in the world, but the fun is maximizing the stopovers, layovers, airlines and airports. I was able to get everything I wanted. Somehow, despite Johannesburg creating a nearly perfect triangle with New York and Ho Chi Minh, it was acceptable to use it as a stopover, making Cape Town fall into my lap. The amount of iterations and mock-itineraries I made on United.com's MileagePlus page; the amount of combinations and permutations of airlines and airports from Melbourne to Tokyo to Bangalore. I finally settled on getting a flight on All Nippon, because why not try All Nippon. United MileagePlus gave me 12 and 16 hour layovers in Singapore. It gave me everything I wanted. You rarely get a chance to say this to an American airline (and you rarely want to), but thank you United Airlines, for making your Mileage program a joy to use.


V is for the Victoria & Albert Waterfront

The Victoria and Albert (V&A) Waterfront in Cape Town was basically my city center during my stay on the Western Cape. It helped that it was a beautiful 15-20 minute walk away from my hostel. The Waterfront encapsulated everything I loved about Cape Town in one smaller than you would think area. There was great food with interesting meats, especially at City Grill, a place that gave me the royal treatment when I decided to go a second straight day. There was a mix of interesting people with awesome South African accents. There was great beer (Milk & Honey - which was so good it deserved its own letter). There was an incredible view of Table Mountain off in the distance, and there was the nervousness of leaving the place at night in fear of being attacked. If I had to do Cape Town again, I might stay closer to Long Street, but staying near the V&A Waterfront gave me an incredible start for my trip, energizing everything that had to come.


W is for Wine Tastings  

I'm not really a wine fan. I choose to drink beer, or scotch, or mostly anything over wine. But going to two of the more exotic wine producing countries, it was hard to avoid the lure of taking a lazy trip into Wine Country. My first experience was a tour to the Stellenbosch wine region of Cape Town. Given the nature of the trip (me and about 10 other mostly 40+ year old folks), that day was more about the odd entertainment of conversing with older married folk who joked in German, Danish and (for my sake) English. The other trip was near Melbourne, it a more picturesque area, with rolling hills of wineries, glowing under a purely sunny day. I still remember the names of the Melbourne wineries. There was De Botoli, there was Helen Hills, where we had lunch and I had one of the meatiest lamb legs I've ever had, and then Chandon, which was as nice as you would think, given the brand. Even after all the wine tasting, I'm still not the largest wine fan, but at least I enjoyed them enough that I can see me doing an adequate amount of wine tasting with my future wife at some point. My interest in wine will grow greater with age, much like the wine itself, but these trips to the wine regions of South Africa and Melbourne were a nice catalyst to get this process going.


X is for Xacuti

This trip to Goa was a slight disappointment, mainly because of where we chose to stay. Instead of staying at the more active North Goa, where we stayed in January 2011, we stayed in South Goa, which is quieter, but supposedly more beautiful. That may or may not be true, but if I go to Goa again, I'm definitely staying in North Goa. Anyway, back to South Goa. Because getting shack food was a little tougher and demanded driving some distance, I had more normal Goan food this time. Xacuti, a Goan curry used to cook beef, lamb, prawn and everything else in, represents those authentic Goan flavors. It took a while to get into the groove in Goa, but the food helped. Shack food was and still is great, but having Goan curries, headlined with Xacuti, on the beach with a beer, all for around 5 dollars, is still about as good as it gets in India.


Y is for Youth Hostels

You may be asking where did I stay when I was alone. You probably aren't, but you could be. And the answer, for every place where I was alone and didn't have family living there, was Youth Hostels, courtesy of Hostels.com or HostelWorld.com, or Booking.com. I had certain rules for any place I stayed. Firstmost, was to be in my own room. I lived through a 10-bed dorm-style room in Madrid in Spring 2010, and I was never going to do repeat that harrowing experience. My second requirement was air conditioning, because staying in Cambodia or Vietnam without it would have meant certain death. The final one was Wi-Fi, which most hostels give for free. All of these qualifications were met in a lot of places that were a lot nicer than what many would expect from the term 'Youth Hostel'. My hostel in Siem Reap (The Lotus Lodge) was actually a beautiful hotel, with giant rooms, a beautifully decorated pool with a bar and lodge area near it. The ones in Japan were modern, devilishly clean buildings. The best part, though, of Youth Hostels are the youth; the people there to meet. I would have never known how fun Colombians are, or never hung out with Brisbane-ites, or never met scores of other people if not for youth hostels.


Z is for Zero Regrets

When I left JFK on February 25th, on South African Airlines flight SA204, aboard a beautiful Airbus A340-600, with three seats all to myself, I was excited, obviously, but also extremely nervous. It was daunting to be away from the US for so long, especially since I was going to be alone for about half the trip. Since these are the 2010s, with Wi-Fi everywhere, I wasn't really alone, but what if I didn't make friends at the hostel? What if I got sick? What if I got injured? What if I didn't plan this well? Luckily, other than the sick part, none of those fears were realized. Only my dreams were. This trip was a great gift from a dad who I gifted with not having to pay for an 8th term at NYU. But more than that it was a chance for me to do a trip that I would never really have the chance to do again at an age where I don't have mortgages or car leases or any other real 'adult' strings holding me back. This was an opportunity to experience three continents, nine countries and countless cities. It was a chance to do anything I wanted, within the bounds of the law of course, and eat anything I wanted, and drink anything I wanted. When I left I was dreaming of eating a black pepper at Jumbo Seafood and then telling the cab driver 'Changi Airport' while telling myself 'Home'. But when I reached Jumbo Seafood on June 7th, and finished my black pepper crab, I instead of wanting to go home, wanted to start it all over again. You only get one chance to do this sort of trip, and I had my chance. Thank God I loved every part of it.

Re-Post: RTW Trip: The A-B-C's, Pt/ 1

I've done this type of thing before, with the A-B-C's of the 2010 FIFA World Cup and the 2010 NFL Season, but this is different. This is longer. There is a good chance this is the longest post I've ever done by the time it is done. Anyway, here are the A-B-C's of my trip (the first of a few trip-overview posts). I'll try to be a little creative with these, so none of these will simply be cities.


A is for Aussie Rules Football 

Well, this is a sports blog, so I'll start with the one international sport that dominated my trip. Sure, seeing the Royal Challengers Bangalore (still a terribly idiotic name) beat the Mumbai Indians by four runs was fun, but it was Aussie Rules Football that I really took too. I still feel that if Aussie Rules was an American sport (which would certainly be tough given 'Aussie' is in the name) it would be my 2nd favorite sport after 'American Rules' Football. The strategy is incredible in that game, the action end-to-end. Even sluggish defensive games seem fun and exciting. My cousins' favorite team Essendon is still #3 in the league, and if they continue to be good that will probably get me to get up (or stay up) to watch some of the AFL playoffs. Australia loves sports in a way that seems entirely American, since they follow many different sports (compared to Europe, where it is mainly just football), and it helps that I stayed in Victoria, but Aussie Rules, with their crazy fans, their 'Inside the NBA'-lite weekly show, and strategy any sports fan would love quickly became my favorite.


B is for Black Pepper Crab

One of my mental images when I was planning the trip was eating a giant Black Pepper Crab on Singapore's East Coast Seafood Center, with the planes descending into Changi flying overhead. In the beginning, this was an image of the last thing I would do on the trip (apart from flying), but I soon added a second near-full-day layover in Singapore on the way to Melbourne, making the image double in my mind. I was able to go to Jumbo Seafood both times, and eat those massive crabs. I have no real idea how they make the Black Pepper sauce taste so good. It permeates through the entire crab without being too saucy and messy. The cleanliness factor is important, because as a messy eater working with a crab that weighs nearly a kilo, there is a high chance for it being an extremely messy exercise. Somehow, I classed myself up to the point that I barely made any mess. So much so that I was able to save one of the lobster (or in this case, crab) bibs they gave me because it was so pristine. Jumbo seafood spoiled me, as now I want any trip to India to end with a day in Singapore and a black pepper crab at Jumbo seafood. No final leg of a trip will be complete without it.


C is for Columns at Ranakpur

I didn't really want to go to Rajasthan when I was planning my trip. I have disliked doing any touristy activities in India after a disappointing trip to Kerala after my cousin's wedding in Early 2011. Rajasthan was the idea of my Mom, and I went along because it is hard not to. Luckily, Rajasthan was surprisingly entertaining, with good food, good sights, good shopping (which for me meant good hand-crafted coasters) and a lack of humidity. However, nothing from that part of the trip was as memorable as the Jain temple in Ranakpur. It took us about two hours to get there from Udaipur, and we had to wait around for another 45 minutes, meandering around the temple, before the cameras (and the foreigners) were let inside. Nothing in those Jain temples are more impressive than their array of Columns, none similar to any others. I would estimate there were around 1,000 columns in that temple (quick note: estimate could be very, very wrong, but it was a large number), all carved with exacting detail. The whole temple was a brilliant testament to what India could be as a tourist destination.


D is for Dalat Easy Riders

My only regret with the Dalat Easy Rider tour is that I didn't get to ride the motorcycle. The Dalat Easy Rider tour was the first trip I did after I recovered from my first of two stomach upsets. The first bout (which took up my entire stay in Ho Chi Minh City was the worst of the two, and I was still a little unsure if I was totally healthy when the day started, but the feeling of the cool Dalat air rushing through my body, and the incredible views of the Vietnamese forest hills above, below and underneath me. The temples were all situated on these hills, serenely isolated from the rest of Dalat. The most fun was the incredible little roller-coaster descent to the Datanla Waterfall, but that whole day was memorable. I didn't really know too much about Dalat, and my tight schedule made this basically the only large trip I could take when I was there, but my God was I so happy I did. They have tours where you can rent the motorcycle yourself, but it probably was more fun being the passenger, just enjoying idyllic, forested Vietnam.


E is for Eating and Observing

No city can really go wrong with a CN Tower type tower. It is strange because the only thing those towers are selling is the ability to view the city from up above. They have no residential or commercial purpose because all they are are elevator shafts and a few revolving floors. Still, their allure is pretty hard to avoid. I went to many cities with these types of buildings, and what my Mom and I quickly realized is that the price of actually having food at one of the revolving restaurants is a damn good deal when considering the price of not having food at one of the revolving observation decks. We did this little scam at the Menara KL in Kuala Lumpur, but there we only had tea. I took the scam to its natural conclusion with a lunch buffet at the Sydney Tower. The buffet there was really good. They gave a ridiculous amount of meat choices, all presented really well. In the end, the view actually became kind of secondary to the food in Sydney. I went to two observation decks sans food in Melbourne (The Eureka Tower) and Tokyo (The Tokyo SkyTree), but they weren't the same.



F is for Flinders St. & Federation Square

Melbourne isn't Sydney. It doesn't have the array of sights to see, the world-famous Opera House, or the hustle and bustle. But it is probably the best walking city I went to on my trip (some of this is probably due to the fact that I walked in Melbourne more than any other city). And during my various walks around Melbourne, Federation Square, right opposite the ornate entrance to Flinders St. Station, was my center point. From there, you got a view of everything. The cluster of buildings to the East, the other cluster of government buildings and financial offices to the West, and the Eureka Tower and the newer buildings to the South. You had the MCG off to one side, and the wiry Eiffel-Tower styled top of the Arts building on one side. From there, I enjoyed a few brews at the International Brew House who's name I now forget, but it was just a great way to end an evening in Melbourne.


G is for General Pol Pot

Call it ignorance, but I didn't really know a lot about the Khmer Rouge genocide that Cambodia endured in the 70's before heading to Phnom Penh. It never had the cache or the scope of the Holocaust, but seeing what I saw and experiencing what I experienced, there is a definite argument to be made that it was worse. What Pol Pot and his cronies did in Cambodia defies explanation, defies everything, really. To bash babies' brains into tree stumps. To smash peoples' skulls with hammers and axes. To play loud propaganda music to cover up the shrieks and cries for help. All of it for no real reason. What is left of the Pol Pot regime is basically the 'Killing Fields' outside of Phnom Penh and the old school-house-turned-torture-prison-turned-museum in Phnom Penh, and both make for a chilling, lasting, day of witnessing just how evil evil can get.


H is for Haribeil

I mentioned how when leaving Tokyo, I was not sure if having those last 10 days in India was a mistake or not. I left India a month-and-a-half earlier wanting more time with my family, but came back dreading the heat, the humidity and all the countless other pains that one has to deal with in India. But if anything made me happy to spend those last 10 days was my trip to my cousin's friend's estate in little Haribeil.There is no better way to describe the scenery and beauty of the estate region of India than by saying that it is unlike anything you would imagine would be in India. There is nothing Indian about it, apart from the semi-frequent power outages. When I was in the estate, it was hard to imagine that this is the same country that I was sweating my skin off two days in earlier, wilting under the oppressive heat. No, this is a different India. This is the India you see in the 'Incredible India' tourism ads that are on TV every now and then. Put aside the fact that the people there and what we did during those few days was also memorable, but I've done the same with those same people in Bangalore. No, the estate was the star. That and her shortbread.


I is for Intestinal Issues

When I travel to India, I go in knowing that I will most likely get sick at some point. It is just going to happen. I usually don't get sick enough to throw up, but sick enough to ruin a few days. Well, this time I never really got sick in India. That's the good news. The bad news is I got sick two other times outside India. The first came as a real punch to the gut, as all of a sudden on my flight from Johannesburg to Bangkok, I started feeling ill. Within an hour, I was fixed in a catatonic state, zombied out and lightheaded. The stomach illness ended up lasting throughout my three days in Ho Chi Minh City, ruining that city for me. In the end, I've put that bout on having tap water in Cape Town the night before I left. The second was more normal, coming from indulging in one too many spicy Thai dishes in my first day in Bangkok, and I only exacerbated that bout by having oily food on the second evening of the bout and a Gin and Tonic on the third. I don't know what consumed me to do that, but it did lead to me eating a $7 Naan. So there's that.


J is for the Japan Rail Pass

Japan's railway system is world famous, for all the right reasons. It is ridiculously precise, pulling into the station at the exact right position at the exact right time. Of course, one of these right reasons isn't its price. Traveling by rail is not cheap, but Japan does its tourist a service by offering the Japan Rail Pass, allowing unlimited access to their JR Trains, including the slower (but still super-fast) versions of their Shinkansen Bullet Trains. The passes aren't cheap, but they are still a damn good deal. The big problem is that Japan doesn't really advertise this pass, and you have to buy the voucher to buy the pass outside of Japan. The trains, after all the messiness of getting the pass and getting on a train, were wonderful, with Wi-Fi, seats that recline far further back than any economy seat on a plane, and girls rolling food and drink carts through the cars, even selling beer. The hours I spent on the train allowed me to watch most of Season 1 of Game of Thrones and get near Mt. Fuji. By the end of my time in Japan, I became a veteran at riding the JR Rail, knowing how to confidently flash my pass to the guards, knowing where to line up to easily enter the train, and knowing just where the AC Outlets are located on the trains.


K is for Kangaroos!

Other than meeting my family, there was probably nothing I wanted to do more in Australia than fiddle around with the native wildlife. Australia's probably more famous for its wildlife than anything else, and nothing is more recognizable than those weird, hopping marsupials. My Uncle and Aunt took my sister to a wildlife farm on Phillip Island, near Melbourne, that had free range kangaroos that you can go up to, pet and feed them (and the Emus, but I was terrified of the Emus, with their velociraptorian faces and height). I never expected to see so many kangaroos and so many of them be willing to hop right over to you and beg for food. The kangaroos really were like hopping dogs. My sister told me that when she went, the kangaroos shied away from her and everyone else at the park. I was astounded by this, because they flocked to me like sheep coming to a shepard. The best moment, though, was my cousin Lisa noticing the little head of a baby kangaroo popping intermittently out of the pouch of the mother kangaroo. That basically forced me to be a paparazzi for a while, trying to snap a picture of a kangaroo baby. I was able to, and I was also able to throw feed at a sleeping koala in hopes of waking it up (failed), and was able to have a picture of me being terrified of an emu (success). All in all, a great, uniquely Australian, day.


L is for Leopold Cafe

I never really knew about Leopold Cafe until November 26th, 2008, when Mumbai was attacked. The Leopold Cafe was one of the targets, and a few people died amidst the hundreds of rounds fired into that Cafe. I had no idea it was so close to my Grandparents' apartment, but now I do. Now I also know who the manager is, what the rules of the upstairs is, the protocol for entering with a backpack, and who some of the main waiters are. Mostly because of the attack, but also due to the preponderance of foreigners, common opinion is that Leopold Cafe is more of a tourist attraction than a place to eat, but I have to disagree. Leopold Cafe's food in genuinely good. That whole little hamlet off the Causeway near the Taj hotel is littered with good restaurants that are probably a little too commercial to ever get the credit that they deserve. Both times before I left Mumbai for the airport was go to Leopold for one last meal, one last few hours spent people watching the foreigners having fun in my old family hometown.


M is for Milk & Honey

Nothing I drank had the impact of Milk & Honey Beer, courtesy of Mitchell's Scottish Ale House in the V&A Waterfront in Cape Town. I went there too many times, and drank Milk & Honey too many times. I actually enjoyed some of the other craft beer they had, but the Milk & Honey beer was the best beer I have ever had. My last day there, I had too many mugs of Milk & Honey, and because of fearing being hungover during my flight because of those beers, I had tap water in my hotel, which I believer directly led to my sickness that ruined my time in Ho Chi Minh City. Would I trade not having those extra Milk & Honey's for being able to get out of bed in Ho Chi Minh City? Yeah, I probably would. But Milk & Honey led to a lot of great things in Cape Town, most of which is ensuring that I have to go back.

Celebration of the Spurs, Pt. 2

What makes the Spurs so special? Of course, like most dynastic sports team, talent plays a role. Gregg Popovich is one of the 5 best NBA coaches ever, easily the best coach of the past 15 years (in that admittedly random period he has 4 rings to Phil's 5), and his influence pervades through that entire organization. They also employ Tim Duncan, who while he's 'regressed' into being a Top-5 Power Forward at age 38, he was the best Power Forward Ever good for a 10-year period from 1998-2007. They also employ two other future Hall of Famers in Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili. Ginobili is the best South American basketball player in NBA history, and Parker is probably the 2nd best European player ever, with only Dirk outclassing what Parker has done. That all said, it is more than talent that has allowed the Spurs to stay competitive and relevant far longer than they should have. It is a system, and organization, a culture that works better than anything I have seen in sports.

A decade from now, when Popovich is retired and Duncan is retired and the Spurs are, most likely, just another ordinary small-market team trying to compete, people may finally start realizing what the Spurs did. When we know the breadth of their accomplishments, and when Popovich (and Duncan/Parker/Ginobili, but most importantly Popovich) is removed enough to open up honestly about what he accomplished and how, the Spurs will be studied in business schools around the country. The Patriots may have had a higher profile being in the NFL, and the Rays may provide a more interesting study given their success in an unfair, capitalist market, but to me no team matches the Spurs in terms of a case study. They are sports, they are business, they are where they meet.

Over the years, the Spurs have always managed to stay one step ahead. The only NBA trend they didn't see coming was the '7-Seconds or Less' era and the impact of faster pace, which they took a while to turn to, but they only didn't because they still had success, and success against it. They started shooting threes more and more before anyone else. They started going small before almost anyone else. They started focusing on eliminating layups and threes and allowing 15-20 footers before anyone else. They unlocked so many keys that the rest of the NBA copies, the only thing that comes close is the Oakland A's. In a weird way, what hurts them is the ridiculous, grinding, dominant and, sadly, boring success. They don't have a 'My Shit Doesn't Work in the Playoffs' moment like Billy Beane. The Spurs' shit did work, and work and work and work.

Now the Spurs have made their fair share of mistakes over the years. No team is perfect. I already pointed to a huge on-court mistake that cost them a likely title in 2006, with Ginobili fouling Dirk on a drive up three late in Game 7. They of course had myriad mistakes that cost them the Title last year. Change just two things (I'm less inclined to add Fisher's 0.4 second shot to this both because that was more the Lakers pro-actively making it happen, and there's less proof the '04 Spurs beat Minnesota or Detroit) and the Spurs win six titles already and they're being hailed as one of the Greatest Dynasties Ever.

The Spurs have also made some odd personnel decisions over the years, like sign Hedo Turkoglu in a miscast role, or way overpay for Rasho Nesterovic, or way overpay again for Richard Jefferson, but these are merely tiny mistrokes on a beautiful 16-year canvas. For every Torkuglo there was the signing of Stephen Jackson in 2003, or Fabricio Oberto in 2006, or swapping Hill for Leonard, or brining back Danny Green and Patty Mills from the dead. There is no NBA team that has had such a sterling record in offseason acquisitions.

Popovich created a culture more than he created a system, because the system has changed. There isn't much resemblance between the 2005 Spurs and the 2014 Spurs apart from Manu Ginobili driving to the hoop (of course, back then Ginobili had long flowing locks, not a hilarious bald spot). Those Spurs were a defensive force, these are a high-paced offensive machine. Popovich just created an atmosphere where players would by into the new way the Spurs were going to play. To seamlessly transition from a slower, defensive team to a fast one overnight and do it well without totally overhauling the roster takes a foundation that was already rock-solid, and that is all Popovich and Duncan.

Tim Duncan is a Top-10 player All Time. He is. There's really no good argument against it. He's also most likely the most humble player on those lists, and he's the one who carries himself the least like a Top-10 player. He receives coaching, he's never chased stats, he willfully takes less minutes, he's allowed Pop to bench him late in games when the situation calls for it (and even, as we saw in Game 6 last year, when the situation didn't). He's rarely demanded anything from his team. He only once even thought about leaving San Antonio. He's quietly re-upped instead of having long drawn out contract negotiations. When the best player on the team, and one of the All-Time Greats carries himself like that, it sets the tone for the entire franchise, and the rest of hte Spurs took note.

The success of the Spurs is more than just Popovich and Duncan, but it is nice to have those two constants to look on. They also both exemplify why the Spurs are slow to get the credit they deserve, as outside of NBA-nerds it took until their success became too much to avoid that they gained general acceptance. It doesn't help when Duncan rarely gives long interviews, when he shies away from teh public light. It doesn't help when Popovich's public persona is a gruff, ironically short-answering, caustic genius. Sure, most media members will tell you when the cameras are off Popovich is one of the most engaging and open NBA personalities out there, but that doesn't help him with the people who aren't there when the lights turn off. But all of that is part of the Cultural Brilliance. Everything is about the team, not the media, not the spotlight, but the team.

There have been great stories the past few years about how the Spurs treat former Spurs. It seems like anyone who passes through the Spurs organization becomes a Spur for life. Guys like Robert Horry and Bruce Bowen are legends in teh Spurs Organization. If Avery Johnson is in town he'll have dinner with teh Spurs, same with Michael Finley, or Brent Barry, or Mario Elie, or Sean Eliot. The Spurs are a family, they are an organization in teh old-school sense of the word.

The rest of the NBA should take notice, but what the Spurs have done is basically impossible. It is not easy to get an All-Time coach, win the lottery in a year when an All-Time talent like Tim Duncan is there, and then nail late pick after late pick, but the Spurs did it. They changed the way NBA teams could be constructed, but they also changed the way NBA teams are built and run. The Spurs were dominant, but they've been dominant in wildly different NBA's. They were dominant in the iso-heavy, defense era, in the run and gun era, and in today's analytically savvy era. They've been the best example of Organizational Culture in sports in the 21st Century and it is hard to see any team coming close to repeating what they have done short of putting together a Big-3 like Miami did. The Spurs made the NBA a more cultured sport but also a changed sport. 

Why I think the Rangers will win the Stanley Cup Finals

So many times during that awesome Western Conference Final, I read fans, bloggers and media members write, tweet and posit that that was the true Stanley Cup Final, that both teh Kings and Blackhawks would be heavy favorites and likely win in five, maybe six. That the only way the Rangers can win is if Lundqvist stands on their head and they score on quintuple-deflections enough times to win. I've really had enough of that. Now, the Kings are a better team, they have depth, they've won a Cup recently, but I think way too many people are assuming the Rangers have no chance. Here are my five reasons why I'm picking the Rangers to win the Cup.


1.) They have the better goalie

Jonathan Quick is a very good player. He had an absurd playoff run in 2012, with a .946 save percentage, unheard of for an entire postseason. That's all good, but he is not that guy right now. Quick has been terribly streaky in these playoffs. He started dreadfully, then had a dominant 6-game stretch to end the Sharks series and begin against Anaheim, but ever since the Kings took that 2-0 lead against the Ducks, he has been decidedly average. Quick's played 12 games since and given up at least two goals in 11 of them. The Blackhawks are a very good offense, but Quick had a .885 save percentage against them, which is bad against any team in today's NHL. For the postseason, he has a 2.86 GAA and a .906 save percentage, both below average numbers. Quick was also very good in last year's playoffs, but it is becoming increasingly likely that the 2012 playoffs was an aberration.

On the other side is Lundqvist, who has a 2.03 GAA and a .928 save percentage. His career postseason numbers are basically the same as Quick's. He's been more consistent through his career. He hasn't won a Cup, but he's been dominant in every Game 7 he's played. I'll talk more to this later, but the Rangers are as tested in long series and Lundqvist has done well with the Rangers facing elimination. If he has one black mark in his postseason career, it is faring poorly when facing a non-Game 7 clinching situation, but the Rangers would be lucky to be in that situation. Henrik Lundqvist is an excellent goalie, and can absolutely steal a series.


2.) Tiredness from LA

I'll give the Kings a ton of credit in winning three Game 7's this postseason, all on the road, and coming back three different times against Chicago to win yesterday. That is an incredibly feat, and just getting here is amazing for the Kings. That all said, they looked and seemed tired at the end of the Blackhawks series. They were able to win because they got some odd bounces on three of their goals yesterday (especially the first and OT winners), but they were dominated late in that series in overall shooting numbers. The NHL media is pushing two different 'advanced' stats right now, Corsi and Fenwick Ratings. Now, these aren't really all that advanced, but simply instead of using 'Shots on Goal' they count overall shots, including Shots that miss and shots that are blocked. The Kings are dominant in this, but they lost the ratings in Game 5-7 against Chicago, and lost badly in Game 7. Now, the Blackhawks are a very good team in these ratings, but so are the Rangers, ranking 6th in the NHL this season. For the playoffs, both teams are pretty much the same, with the Rangers trending up. They can claim territorial play better than people believe in this series. The Kings may get the bounces, but they'll also have to work against a better goalie in Lundqvist than any goalie they've faced so far (Niemi, Anderson/Gibson, Crawford). LA playing Game 7 after Game 7 can hurt them, especially given how physical the last series was.


3.) It's Never as Easy as it Seems

The NHL Stanley Cup Finals are known for lopsided seeding matchups, as we've many times had a lower seeded team square off against a higher seeded one from the opposite conference. This isn't even one of those cases, but the way people are viewing these teams let's just say it is. In my mind, this whole matchup is analogous to the Cup Finals in '03, '04 and '06. Three straight times, a high-seed from the East beat another high-seed from the East in a physical, often excellent Eastern Conference Final, took on a lower seeded miracle run team from the West, and though the East team won each time, it took 7 each time. In '03, the 2-seed Devils beat the 1-seed Senators in an excellent Eastern Conference Finals (that oddly featured the same game progression as this one did, with teh Devils blowing a 3-1 lead before winning Game 7 on the road), then needed 7 to dispatch the Ducks. The Lightning did the same in '04, and Carolina in '06. Physicality takes a toll, but also teams in the NHL, a low-scoring sport, are never all that far apart. No team in the NHL wins 70% of its games. Big win-loss disparities are rarer in Hockey. Just look at recent Finals, only one since the Lockout has ended before six games (2007).


4.) The Rangers are Faster

Speed doesn't tire as easily as  Size. Case in point was last year's Cup Final, when the speedier Blackhawks kept their speed the entire series while the bigger, stronger Bruins seemed to tire, most notably in Zdeno Chara. The Rangers have ridiculous team speed. They might have the three fastest skaters in this series. They can roll lines and skate at the Kings in all of them. The Kings size will neutralize some of this, and the Kings should win most battles in the corners, but the Rangers can skate past the Kings often enough to win the series. The Rangers can roll lines at the depth of the Kings, something no team has been able to do so far against them. Admittedly, this isn't a strong point because size does matter as well, but it is nice for the Rangers to have one clear area with an edge as the way people are speaking it doesn't seem like the Rangers should have nay.


5.) The Kings really aren't That Much Better

In the regular season, the Kings got 100 points while the Rangers got 96. You can claim the Rangers were in teh easier conference, but oddly the Rangers did very well against the Western Conference this season. There's also an interesting quirk behind those 96 points in that the Rangers started the season with 9-straight road games, in which they went 3-6. They went 42-25-6 in the other games, which is a better representation of what they are. They've also done far better in the playoffs. The Kings have been clutch in getting to the finals, but winning three Game 7's obscures the fact that they had to play three Game 7's. Now, the Rangers have played just one fewer game so far, needing 7 games in each of the first two rounds, but that also brings up another point,. For the first time, the Kings sterling record in Game 7's have met their match. Henrik Lundqvist's stats in Game 7's are better than Quick's. They've only lost 1 game 7 since Lundqvist arrived, and won a bunch in that time, including 5 in the last three seasons. They have enough ability and enough experience to match the Kings, apart from the Kings once-in-a-lifetime roll in 2012.


The Kings are probably better, but nowhere near the amount they are made out to be. I think the Rangers have a very real chance to win this series, and I think they will.

Rangers in 6