Saturday, August 23, 2008
Friday, August 22, 2008
On networking and worldworking
Life is about bringing people together and seeing what happens. Just because someone is powerful, rich, or famous doesn't mean they are better than you -we are all equal.
Don't think in terms of connecting with people to get what you want; think about how you can help them. Look for people to develop relationships with. How can you be a connector? Where is there an information gap that you can plug? Try to get to know the person you're talking to. Ask them about their business, their ideal customer, or their goals. Ask what they do for fun and find out what they care about. Seek out these stories and you'll gain valuable insights and maybe even lessons.
Don't be afraid to talk to people--simply strike up a conversation. Offer a compliment - be sincere about it. As you meet people, relationships will follow. Find mentors, advisors, and friends to share goals with. By networking, you will be empowered to find the people who can help you achieve a specific goal. The reason to network is so that you can put yourself out there to meet those people. In the end, it's those relationships that matter - they will make the journey worthwhile.
As you network, you will better understand how aspects of the world work, which will result in your ability to effect change, and ultimately your realization that you really can do anything.
Don't think in terms of connecting with people to get what you want; think about how you can help them. Look for people to develop relationships with. How can you be a connector? Where is there an information gap that you can plug? Try to get to know the person you're talking to. Ask them about their business, their ideal customer, or their goals. Ask what they do for fun and find out what they care about. Seek out these stories and you'll gain valuable insights and maybe even lessons.
Don't be afraid to talk to people--simply strike up a conversation. Offer a compliment - be sincere about it. As you meet people, relationships will follow. Find mentors, advisors, and friends to share goals with. By networking, you will be empowered to find the people who can help you achieve a specific goal. The reason to network is so that you can put yourself out there to meet those people. In the end, it's those relationships that matter - they will make the journey worthwhile.
As you network, you will better understand how aspects of the world work, which will result in your ability to effect change, and ultimately your realization that you really can do anything.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
F&N - Is it love, hate or something else entirely?
source: http://tennistalk.com/en/blog/Cheryl_Murray/20080808/Federer_and_Nadal_-_Is_it_love,_hate_or_something_else_entirely_-_Part_1
source: http://tennistalk.com/en/blog/Cheryl_Murray/20080818/Federer_and_Nadal_-_Is_it_love,_hate_or_something_else_entirely_-_Part_2
Federer and Nadal - Is it love, hate or something else entirely?
(part 1) 2008-08-08 08:51:52
I have long been fascinated with the ongoing dynamic between Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. How could I fail to be otherwise? They are inextricably intertwined with each other, perhaps more so than any two single sportsmen ever have been before. I have never witnessed two men that seemed destined to break each others' hearts and steal each others' dreams as Roger and Rafa. Forget about Pete and Andre – they were an appetizer to the banquet that is Federer and Nadal.
Unlike Sampras and Agassi, the appeal is not due simply to the frequency of their meetings. That is far too pedestrian for Roger and Rafa. They've met roughly half the number of times (18) as their rivalry predecessors (34). No, Nadal-Federer is more complex, more subtle and infinitely more interesting than anything we have seen before. It's as though every meeting is a proverbial life or death encounter.
They have already met in six Grand Slam finals, more than any other duo in history. Each time they look across the net at each other, history is at stake. Not every match they play is a great match – in fact, some of them probably don't even qualify as good. Without mincing words, the French Open final this year was a complete embarrassment. For some reason this just adds to the allure. Perhaps it is the ever-present threat of looming disaster that draws us in so completely.
While Rafa hoisted that fourth trophy in Paris this year, I watched Roger. The image that came to my mind distinctly (and quite uncomfortably) was of a man who had come into the match with a half-healed wound; one that Nadal ruthlessly, efficiently and without remorse clawed open again. I thought (not for the first time) that Federer must have hated him just a little bit right at that moment, no matter how much they are reputed to like each other.
Whether it is fabrication or real, we ARE fed a steady diet of Rafa and Roger as the consummate gentlemen, full of nothing but admiration, respect and casual friendliness with each other. And make no mistake, there is plenty of evidence to suggest this to be the case. Rarely are they ever anything but scrupulously polite to each other. Nadal was quick to leap to the defense of Federer this year, when the press began murmuring about a drop in form. When asked which player he would like to see succeed him as the number one player in the world, Federer named Nadal without a moment's hesitation. They have shared a private jet (from Montreal to Cincinnati last year) and formed a united front against the Big Bad Wolf (also goes by the name "ATP President Etienne de Villiers").
And if there is something odd (read – not 100% genuine) about Nadal claiming that Federer is "still number one on clay" we give it a pass - despite the fact that Federer has beaten Nadal once in nine tries on the dirt. Such statements are attributed to the fact that he is a humble champion, a nice guy and a host of other things that are probably true. Rest assured that the condescension which licks at the edges of those statements is not lost on Federer, though. I don't necessarily think that Nadal does it on purpose, but the net effect is the same. Tomorrow I will continue the article. We'll look at the patented Federer Thinly Veiled Insult and how this year's Wimbledon has now completely thrown the relationship off-balance.
(part 2) 2008-08-18 17:38:43
Roger Federer always seems to be at the giving end of… we'll call them "less than gracious" comments between the two men. To my knowledge, in fact, Nadal has never said anything uncomplimentary about his rival. Federer? Not so much. There will be some who claim that Roger is simply more candid in interviews than Rafa. And that's true to some extent – Nadal is hardly known for laying it all out there when he talks to the press. On the other hand, I recall Roger claiming that Lleyton Hewitt and Andy Roddick were his biggest competition – at a time where he had beaten each of them upwards of nine times in a row. He must save his honest moments for Rafa.
And what moments they were. My own personal favorite was Roger calling Rafa one-dimensional throughout the clay court season in 2006. The first incidence was before they played the final in Monte Carlo (which Nadal won). Roger said it several more times and lost several more times. Later, Roger claimed that he was actually COMPLIMENTING Nadal, because he executed his single dimension so well. It's amazing how a round of consecutive losses can change one's perspective... That still makes me chuckle.
The "big one", of course, is the accusation of cheating Federer issued after losing that heart-breaker in Rome (also in 2006). Federer had two match points in the fifth, but couldn't convert. Nadal went on to win in a tie break and Federer, incensed at losing, claimed that Toni Nadal was coaching his nephew during the match. Several US commentators claim they saw nothing untoward from the Nadal camp; either way sour grapes was not a good look for Roger. Since then, Federer's barbs have been more carefully concealed, so that they are more back-handed compliments than anything else. After his loss at Wimbledon this year, the Swiss man was full of compliments for his opponent – until somebody asked him about the playing conditions. There Federer said "It's rough on me, obviously, to lose the biggest tournament in the world over maybe a bit of light." He must have forgotten that the guy who won played in the same conditions.
In the end, though, Federer's position is understandable. He's the one who has been on the losing end of this rivalry. The clay season has been Nadal's for four years and Roland Garros, the only Grand Slam to elude Federer, is slipping further away from Federer, not getting closer. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, Federer took Nadal to four sets – this year he took four GAMES. His claims that he has "figured out Nadal's game" on clay is not much more than posturing at this point.
Nadal has been gracious, but then again he has been given little reason not to be. Except for the 2006 and 2007 Wimbledon losses, Federer has not taken anything from Nadal. Roger's held that number one spot, but there has always been a sense that Rafa would get there eventually anyway. It has been Nadal's own hard court form that has been his biggest issue, so why wouldn't he gladly shoulder the role as "the good guy"?
The balance of the relationship has been maintained up until this point because, although Nadal has won most of their matches (12-6), Federer has followed up his Roland Garros loss with a Wimbledon victory. They basically took turns stealing the other's dreams. And Nadal could maintain his sense of humility by saying "Roger is still the number one player in the world, so he's the favorite". None of those things is true anymore; the dynamic as we've known it for three years now is in shambles and Federer is at the bottom of the rubble.
source: http://tennistalk.com/en/blog/Cheryl_Murray/20080818/Federer_and_Nadal_-_Is_it_love,_hate_or_something_else_entirely_-_Part_2
Federer and Nadal - Is it love, hate or something else entirely?
(part 1) 2008-08-08 08:51:52
I have long been fascinated with the ongoing dynamic between Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. How could I fail to be otherwise? They are inextricably intertwined with each other, perhaps more so than any two single sportsmen ever have been before. I have never witnessed two men that seemed destined to break each others' hearts and steal each others' dreams as Roger and Rafa. Forget about Pete and Andre – they were an appetizer to the banquet that is Federer and Nadal.
Unlike Sampras and Agassi, the appeal is not due simply to the frequency of their meetings. That is far too pedestrian for Roger and Rafa. They've met roughly half the number of times (18) as their rivalry predecessors (34). No, Nadal-Federer is more complex, more subtle and infinitely more interesting than anything we have seen before. It's as though every meeting is a proverbial life or death encounter.
They have already met in six Grand Slam finals, more than any other duo in history. Each time they look across the net at each other, history is at stake. Not every match they play is a great match – in fact, some of them probably don't even qualify as good. Without mincing words, the French Open final this year was a complete embarrassment. For some reason this just adds to the allure. Perhaps it is the ever-present threat of looming disaster that draws us in so completely.
While Rafa hoisted that fourth trophy in Paris this year, I watched Roger. The image that came to my mind distinctly (and quite uncomfortably) was of a man who had come into the match with a half-healed wound; one that Nadal ruthlessly, efficiently and without remorse clawed open again. I thought (not for the first time) that Federer must have hated him just a little bit right at that moment, no matter how much they are reputed to like each other.
Whether it is fabrication or real, we ARE fed a steady diet of Rafa and Roger as the consummate gentlemen, full of nothing but admiration, respect and casual friendliness with each other. And make no mistake, there is plenty of evidence to suggest this to be the case. Rarely are they ever anything but scrupulously polite to each other. Nadal was quick to leap to the defense of Federer this year, when the press began murmuring about a drop in form. When asked which player he would like to see succeed him as the number one player in the world, Federer named Nadal without a moment's hesitation. They have shared a private jet (from Montreal to Cincinnati last year) and formed a united front against the Big Bad Wolf (also goes by the name "ATP President Etienne de Villiers").
And if there is something odd (read – not 100% genuine) about Nadal claiming that Federer is "still number one on clay" we give it a pass - despite the fact that Federer has beaten Nadal once in nine tries on the dirt. Such statements are attributed to the fact that he is a humble champion, a nice guy and a host of other things that are probably true. Rest assured that the condescension which licks at the edges of those statements is not lost on Federer, though. I don't necessarily think that Nadal does it on purpose, but the net effect is the same. Tomorrow I will continue the article. We'll look at the patented Federer Thinly Veiled Insult and how this year's Wimbledon has now completely thrown the relationship off-balance.
(part 2) 2008-08-18 17:38:43
Roger Federer always seems to be at the giving end of… we'll call them "less than gracious" comments between the two men. To my knowledge, in fact, Nadal has never said anything uncomplimentary about his rival. Federer? Not so much. There will be some who claim that Roger is simply more candid in interviews than Rafa. And that's true to some extent – Nadal is hardly known for laying it all out there when he talks to the press. On the other hand, I recall Roger claiming that Lleyton Hewitt and Andy Roddick were his biggest competition – at a time where he had beaten each of them upwards of nine times in a row. He must save his honest moments for Rafa.
And what moments they were. My own personal favorite was Roger calling Rafa one-dimensional throughout the clay court season in 2006. The first incidence was before they played the final in Monte Carlo (which Nadal won). Roger said it several more times and lost several more times. Later, Roger claimed that he was actually COMPLIMENTING Nadal, because he executed his single dimension so well. It's amazing how a round of consecutive losses can change one's perspective... That still makes me chuckle.
The "big one", of course, is the accusation of cheating Federer issued after losing that heart-breaker in Rome (also in 2006). Federer had two match points in the fifth, but couldn't convert. Nadal went on to win in a tie break and Federer, incensed at losing, claimed that Toni Nadal was coaching his nephew during the match. Several US commentators claim they saw nothing untoward from the Nadal camp; either way sour grapes was not a good look for Roger. Since then, Federer's barbs have been more carefully concealed, so that they are more back-handed compliments than anything else. After his loss at Wimbledon this year, the Swiss man was full of compliments for his opponent – until somebody asked him about the playing conditions. There Federer said "It's rough on me, obviously, to lose the biggest tournament in the world over maybe a bit of light." He must have forgotten that the guy who won played in the same conditions.
In the end, though, Federer's position is understandable. He's the one who has been on the losing end of this rivalry. The clay season has been Nadal's for four years and Roland Garros, the only Grand Slam to elude Federer, is slipping further away from Federer, not getting closer. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, Federer took Nadal to four sets – this year he took four GAMES. His claims that he has "figured out Nadal's game" on clay is not much more than posturing at this point.
Nadal has been gracious, but then again he has been given little reason not to be. Except for the 2006 and 2007 Wimbledon losses, Federer has not taken anything from Nadal. Roger's held that number one spot, but there has always been a sense that Rafa would get there eventually anyway. It has been Nadal's own hard court form that has been his biggest issue, so why wouldn't he gladly shoulder the role as "the good guy"?
The balance of the relationship has been maintained up until this point because, although Nadal has won most of their matches (12-6), Federer has followed up his Roland Garros loss with a Wimbledon victory. They basically took turns stealing the other's dreams. And Nadal could maintain his sense of humility by saying "Roger is still the number one player in the world, so he's the favorite". None of those things is true anymore; the dynamic as we've known it for three years now is in shambles and Federer is at the bottom of the rubble.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
