There is something about the plaudits about Shane Warne becoming the leading wicket-taker in test cricket that I don’t like.<br /><br />1 – He’s not going to have the record very long. As soon as Muralitharan gets a good run, he’ll get the record back. This ping-pong between the two could get tiresome. Do we have to salute both men each time the record changes hands? Yawn.<br /><br />2 – He is a horrid sex-pest drugs-cheat. Warne has a nasty track record. Perhaps he was just misrepresented, but too many stories about him have come out without there being something a bit dark underneath. And the whole “my mum gave me a diuretic by mistake” sham was a sorry excuse for failing a drugs test. He was fast-tracking himself back from injury. But drugs are no way to do it.<br /><br />3 – All the claims that he “reinvented the art of legspin bowling” are, as far as I can tell, nonsense. He is an excellent bowler, of course, but reinventing is a stupid term. He just does it very well.<br /><br />What you can’t deny are his superb figures, which are actually very similar to Murali’s. The problem is, we are looking at a “chucker” vs a drugs cheat. Pity there isn’t a nicer story in there somewhere.<br /><br />Name Mat Balls M R W Ave Best 5 10 SR Econ Team<br /><br />SK Warne 114 31850 1492 13743 537 25.59 8-71 28 8 59.7 2.56 AUS<br />M Muralitharan 91 31124 1380 12165 532 22.86 9-51 44 13 58.5 2.34 SL<br />(stats from <a href=”http://www.cricinfo.com/db/STATS/TESTS/BOWLING/TEST_BOWL_MOST_WKTS.html” target=_new>Cricinfo</a>)
Category: Sport (Page 20 of 24)
Captaincy is a tricky beast. All the attributes of respect, communication and leadership can go to pot if a captain isn’t worth his place on the field. Making someone your captain indefinitely is therefore one of the biggest risks in sport. <br /><br />Some captains are inspired choices. Some are disasters. The disasters in some ways are easier to deal with. Ian Botham, perhaps the greatest cricketer England has ever produced, was a crap captain. His reign was mercifully short (12 matches, 8 draws and 4 losses). Philip de Glanville was a terrible choice as rugby captain, as his inclusion kept apart for a season the best centre pairing England had ever had, Carling and Guscott.<br /><br />Some captains are the natural successor (Michael Vaughn), some step into the void and make it their own (Martin Johnson). So what kind of captain is Jonny Wilkinson? Bit of both, at this stage. He fulfills one key criteria, that he is the first name on the teamsheet. But clearly, he is the best candidate for the job – young, but experienced; talented but modest; fearless on the pitch. <br /><br />Some commentators have queried his media-friendliness, or his supposed introvert nature. But Johnson was equally quiet when he started in the job. Both he and Wilkinson lead the way by performance and ability to handle pressure. <br /><br />Also, there is a clear relationship needed between coach and captain. Think Nasser Hussain and Duncan Fletcher; Beckham and Eriksson. Wilkinson gets along well with the new England coach, Andy Robinson, and their partnership may well flourish. But this raises the ugly spectre of “What happens if the captain loses form and should be dropped?”. All hell can break lose. This is why captains need to know the time to go. Shearer got it right (just). Johnson was almost too early. Hussain knew the writing was on the wall. Others completely outstay their welcome.<br /><br />Beckham may not posses the self-awareness to see a better captain-in-waiting, when clearly the best player for England in the last few seasons has been Gerrard, who would probably be a better leader too. Wilkinson may turn out to be a good or even great captain. He will certainly never be a Botham or a de Glanville. Assuming he keeps his form at 80% or better, his place in the team will never be in doubt. But at some stage, hopefully way in the future, he will have to step aside. I just hope he knows when.
Well, Henman and Rusedski will languish for another year in the level below the world group of tennis. For all their talent, both in in singles and as a doubles team, they have never won a match in the top tier of the Davis Cup. Frankly, this is an anomaly. Teams with far less talent have got to the final and even won it.<br /><br />Why? There is the sporting fluke at work here. More of an anti-fluke, in effect. They have always come up against the schedule of 3 matches in 3, or an inspired performance, or a hostile crowd/surface. But there is also the nearly-men aspect. Both Greg and Tim are, without wanting to be cruel, occasionally chokers. I hate to say it. But look at the results, both in their careers and the Davis Cup. The recurrent theme is “close, but no cigar”. Don’t say the name Lapentti anywhere near Rusedski. Or Canas to Henman. <br /><br />The problem is, who else and when? Andrew Murray may have won the junior US Open, which bodes well, and talks with confidence about his future, which bodes even better, but he is a long way off the top 100. Alex Bogdanovic just looks lost. Arvind Parmar has had a couple of Davis Cup shockers and is not a man to bet the farm on. Tim and Greg are both in their 30s. Britain can expect to bounce around the Euro-Africa Zone for a few more years yet.
There is something wonderful about the format of the Davis Cup. It shares two qualities with the Ryder Cup that make both events stand out. There is the team element that is otherwise absent for a sport of individuals; and there is the likelihood that the crucial match may not fall to a big star, but a more lowly-ranked player who might otherwise not feature in a major event. 2002: for Paul McGinley, read Mikhail Youzhny.<br /><br />The other factor in the Davis Cup is that the doubles is crucial. Doubles will never have the same attention on the tour as singles, but it’s position as the third rubber makes it compelling viewing. <br /><br />This weekend is the Davis Cup semis, plus the relegation playoffs. It’s the biggest weekend for team tennis on the calendar. But this is the problem with the format. The Davis Cup is spread out over the year, and consequently fails to capture the public’s imagination like the Ryder Cup does.<br /><br />The format, however, does not lend itself to a single event at the end of the season. One player might have three five-setters in three days – a punishing schedule. Perhaps holding it every 2 years, and on sucessive weekends might improve things. But until tennis sorts out the bloated calendar of events, that will never happen.<br /><br />Lleyton Hewitt deserves a special mention here. At only 23, he has just broken the record for most Davis Cup wins for Australia. When you think of the history that the Aussies have in the cup, that is one big achievement.
Increasingly, I just don’t get advertising. Not in a “I’m not cool enough” way. Some campaigns just leave me completely baffled. Examples:<br /><br />On the side of London buses are ads with phrases such as: “Wake up and smell the broccoli. Coffee – irreplaceable.” Ok, I like coffee. Who doesn’t? Not many people, if the number of Starbucks is any guide. But why advertise a substance? Who does this benefit? Can we expect more ads like “When you leave the house, wear shoes.”? At least advertise a sodding brand. <br /><br />Another ad (this time in the tube) which leaves me puzzled is a picture of a shark with the caption “Have you seen him? I’m hungry.” Who is “him”? Who is hungry? I have eaten shark. Sharks have eaten people. Who is eating who here? Can sharks talk? What the HELL is this an advert for? The shark looks half-dead anyway. If this is advertising the aquarium, it’s a very poor effort.<br /><br />And what is up with the rugby players promoting the Zurich Premiership? This features Will Greenwood stiching up Lawrence Dallaglio by making him back his car into a row of hell’s angels bikes, then ordering a pint. So far, so good. But at the end of the ad, outside the pub window, we see Dallaglio in some messiah-like weird pinch-hold with the bikers. Surely they would just have a fight. It looks so wrong, I have no idea where to begin. <br />
Towards the end of his career, whenever Pete Sampras was beaten by some young buck he would declare them “the future of tennis”, thereby somehow legitimising his defeat. Or so the legend goes. In fact, Pete only said this about 4 players as far as I can recall. And who were they? Marat Safin, Lleyton Hewitt, Andy Roddick and a certain Roger Federer.<br /><br />Look at the Grand Slam finalists this year, and its the four above plus Coria and Gaudio (well the French is always a bit random). It seems Pete was onto something. Aside from Safin, who has the talent but not the application, they will be carving up the big titles for years to come. <br /><br />Hewitt will certainly bounce back from the Federer drubbing. He, and many other players, will just have to get used to the fact that if Roger is on song, no-one on the circuit can stay with him. Perhaps no-one of all time, but we can only speculate.<br /><br />What is undoubted is that Roger has lifted the game to new heights. One player every so often sets a new standard, and it is for the others to catch up. Still, Sampras had 5 slams by Roger’s age. He has a way to go to break THE record of 14, but I wouldn’t bet against it. Pete might not have predicted that.
Federer-Henman, Hewitt…. Johansson? Not many saw that coming. Beating Andy Roddick in 5 in NY is not something many people are ever going to do. I still think Hewitt will go all the way, though. Especially if Henman takes out Federer. The <a href=http://www.atptennis.com/en/players/headtohead/head2head.asp?player1=Hewitt%2C+Lleyton&player2=henman>Henman Hewitt</a> head to head is not pretty reading. <br /><br />Fingers crossed for a Capriati – Davenport final. No offence to the Russians, Kuznetsova and Dementieva, but no-one wants to see them in the final. It’s possibly the last chance for US Open glory for both Americans, and with the match on 9/11 Flushing Meadow might be in for a very emotional night.
If you have been as unlucky as I have to be stuck in a hotel with only CNN for company, you will probably know <a href=http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/quest.richard.html target=”_new”>Richard Quest</a>. He is the presenter with a voice that sounds like he is gargling vomit, and looks like a bullied child. <br /><br />Being hopelessly unsuited to broadcast journalism has not held Quest back, and he is now on some CNN election-special roadtrip around the US which has been dubbed “American Quest”. How fortunate that he has such a perfect name. I am reminded of the helicopter-bound weather reporter in the Simpsons, Arnie Pie with “Arnie in the Sky”. <br /><br />Anyway, back to Richard. Why am I having a go at him? Because, sad to report, his musings on the American political landscape have found their way into Metro, thereby ruining my tube journey for two reasons. One, he looks far too pleased with himself. Two, his reports are a joke. I thought that the full version on the <a href=http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2004/american.quest/index.html target=_new>CNN site</a> would have some more perceptive comments, but no. Here is an extract:<br /><br />”Asking most Americans what they want from a president pretty much elicits the same formula wherever you are: A strong economy. A strong homeland. And someone who is at the helm. Simple, really.” Yup, case closed. We can all go home now.<br /><br />Or this gem about voters: “those deeply committed to one side or the other are unlikely to suddenly change sides”. Such insight.<br /><br />Or perhaps this: “it is worth remembering what these politicians are fighting for. They are vying to be president of the United States, and thereby the leader of the free world.” Straight to the heart of the matter.<br /><br />Meanwhile, in his gentle way, Quest goes fishing, pops in on small towns and chats to “the people”. He even had time to file two (Two!) reports from Vegas, one all about his huge buffet meal and ensuing guilty conscience. And this week it’s the turn of his cameraman to add to the swill of pointlessness while Richard presumably takes a break from all the hard work.<br /><br />Roll on November.
Back to tennis. Well, at the US Open it’s the usual story – the male/female contrast is huge. Easy matches, lots of 6-0 sets in one draw, and a tough first week in the other event. Only this time, it’s the men with the stroll for the top seeds, and the women with all the last set showdowns.<br /><br />Why the turnaround? One reason is that, right now, Roddick, Federer, Hewitt and Agassi are all just streets ahead of the rest. The chasing pack are going down injured, tired and just plain out. I’ve said it before, but who needs the long-distance hop to Athens? Andre and Lleyton have benefitted from skipping the trip, and Rod / Fed are just too good to not hit top gear in the slams.<br /><br />But the women? It’s a shift in the game. Williams sisters have faded, the Justine H-H has had a mixed year, Capriati and Davenport are just staying in the mix, and the Russians are all over the place. It’s another wide-open event, and it SHOULD (God I hate saying this because I know I’ll jinx her) be Mauresmo’s to win. <br /><br />You can basically pencil in the men’s semis now. It will almost certainly be Federer-Henman, Roddick-Hewitt, the latter two being complete certs. Henman is the best left in his section, and Roger should be too good for Andre.<br /><br />On the Women’s side, Davenport-Venus should go Lindsay’s way, and if Capriati plays well we could have no Williams in the semis, which would be weird. So, I pick a France-US final, Davenport-Mauresmo. Possibly the nicest women on the tour, apparently.
Google’s News site has a list of people in the news. Today it is: Kobe Bryant, Anwar Ibrahim, Clive Woodward, Slobodan Milosevic, Dick Cheney, Zell Miller, Kieren Fallon. What a fascinating dinner party guestlist.
