UNITED PLAYING CATCH-UP WITH BARCA.

As an avid United supporter for years so many, it was quite painful to watch the Champions League Final the way it manifested itself. On a splendid saturday night, Wembley The Beauty shone bright, as it hosted two teams. United, trying to avenge the 09 defeat to Barca, and Barca, trying to inflict misery again on United. As it all played out, the performance from Barca was nothing short of surreal, dismissing United 3-1. As for United, the ghosts of 2009 only got bigger.

Barca and United adhere to two different schools of footballing mentality. United, as aggressive a team as they are, like to exercise caution in play, with a strong sense of defensive minded protocols. Barca on the other hand, showcase "ideal" football all about the unselfish extra pass. Every player sees himself as an entity contributing to the movement of the ball and no one player ever tries to hold the ball. The onus is also on the neighboring players to take open positions to receive the ball. This principle of behavior permeates the team. What transpires is Class. What we witness is Classic. To some, it brings tears of joy.

As the Final wore on, it seemed like United had conceded to this class to rely on counter attacks. As much as an attacking midfield could help in this Operation, a stabilizing midfield in the form of holding/defensive midfielders is a necessity. I thought United should have started with Scholes and Fletcher. 4-1-4-1 would have been perfect with a lone striker. It could have provided United with more stops, counter attacks in the form of long range passes which is United's strength, Barca frustration and delayed the inevitable. Instead, United were chasing shadows for 90 mins. The outcome itself could only have been otherwise if and only if football demigods had decided to shower every bit of luck and fortune on United, a fact later conceded overwhelmingly by United players themselves.

Now, could the result open doors for a new brand of players this summer at United ?. A resounding Yes.

FED,RAFA,DJOKER

This has been in the works for quite some time now. The time just about feels right. Pondering thoughts spanning over 30 grand slams and here I am, breaking it all up ---- Federer,Nadal and Djokovic and the jinx they've presented to each other.

Splitting it all up by personalities cannot be justified as one is not complete without the other. In the interest of just covering the technicalities as much as possible, I'd like to keep this abstract and hope that it evolves alright.

Tennis is as much a physical sport as any other. Energy conserving Serve and Volley has become extinct ---- Boy it was good watching Edberg, Becker and Sampras back in the day. And the fact that an individual has no one to fall back on makes it mental agony for some. It truly is a sport for people who cherish and long for independence. In the Now, that independence starts with exhibiting a staggeringly high level of physical exuberance, which later translates to mental calm and comfort. That said, Federer is an exception, Djoker has arrived, Nadal has remained Nadal.

30 grand slams ago, Djoker was a boredom, Federer had already reached stardom and Rafa had just been baptized King of Clay. Back then, demons had cast a spell on Djoker's physical and mental ability to rot after couple hours into the game. His match-span was 3-4 sets at the max. Djoker was a kid, trying to neutralize quarterfinal curses. Since then, Djoker has played good catch up. His essential tennis today needs no elaborate explanation. Yes, he can brag about his record this season as much as his improved physical and mental capacity. All good despite his loss to Fed the other day.

Movement and positioning largely go unnoticed by Tennis skeptics. One of the first lessons taught to a kid, is to move in triangles ---- Focal point is usually a foot away from the baseline at the center. The intention is to attempt, to put to rest, a bad ball on either side by moving forward to take the ball on the rise. Returning to the focal point after every pass creates a triangle. The result is short points with either winners or unforced errors and the idea is to maximize winners. Federer and Djokovic are no strangers to this modus operandi, with their rare ability to put away good balls as well. They've been able to reap the benefits of this "old school" baseline tennis on faster surfaces.

Clay is a completely different story. Nadal, the physical intimidating beast that he is, can slide and glide with ease on clay till the sun goes down. There is no triangle. His philosophy is very simple : Be faster than the ball, chase down every ball, wear the opponent down and start creeping into his mind as the game goes on. This has precisely been the case with every Nadal-Federer French Open game.

During the good old nascent rivalry days, Federer played the triangle and Nadal didn't know one existed. Nadal was quick to realize that for the beast that he was, clay court ethos weren't completely alien to synthetic surfaces as the tennis critics would have it . Instead, he chose to chase down balls and come up with incredible angles for passing shots when possible. Add to this, the quality of his killer top spin which is directly proportional to his squeaks. Higher the db level, higher the kick. People who've taken to the sport can relate. Others can take this as a rule of thumb.

As much as his game takes a toll on Nadal, it takes a bigger meat out of the opponent. Federer, Djoker have been victims. The biggest victim of course has been Nadal himself. The slump and lows in his career can be attributed to this reverse phenomenon. If he remains a beast, he remains an enigma. If not, he becomes mundane.

As for Federer, he is class personified ---- Text book tennis that he has been bestowed with from heavens above. Graceful to watch, even in defeat.

Nadal is all but Text Book. He has evolved.

Djoker is a bit of both, but not 100% one.

Who wins in the end?. I'll go with Nadal. I prefer evolution to inheritance.