A sports potpourri

A travesty of cricket

When a person stands with his feet close together and makes a full swing with a 9-iron and completely misses the ball, it is called a 'whiff' or an 'air-shot' in golf, and counts as 1 stroke. A similar situation, but on a baseball diamond, is counted as a 'strike'. Three strikes, and the batter is out.

On a cricket pitch, one can go on swinging and whiffing to one's heart's content - and other than making a complete fool of oneself, it doesn't count at all! Neither should the travesty of cricket - as recently witnessed during the 20-20 World Cup in England.

Pakistan won the tournament deservedly, beating Sri Lanka in the final. The country has become a pariah because of its political adventurism that has closed the door to any home engagements in international sports. This victory should be a moral booster for the sports loving public.

Sania vs. Saina

Two young girls from the same town in India. Both participants in different forms of racket-sports. Attractive personalities. Almost identical names. One's star is ascending, the other's descending.

Sania's slam-bang 20-20 version of tennis initially bewildered opponents and allowed her a modicum of success. But a hit-or-miss style used repeatedly without any planning or thinking does not produce results in the long run. No wonder her progress is limited to the 1st or 2nd round in Grand Slam events, and an occasional doubles victory in third rung tournaments.

Saina, an intelligent and thinking player, has shunned publicity, made steady progress up the badminton rankings and has been a top 10 player for a while. Her recent victory at the Indonesian Open against the World No 3, Ling Wang of China was highly commendable. This performance should move her into the top 5 in the world badminton rankings. Hail Saina!

Lucas Glover's US Open Golf victory

At the top echelons of world sports, the margin between defeat and victory is small - often decided by who makes the least errors and not so much by who has the better skills. This was exemplified at Bethpage Black by Lucas Glover and Ricky Barnes. Barnes set the record for the lowest 36 holes total and the 2nd lowest 54 holes total and led by a shot over Glover after the 3rd round.

The final round scores? Glover shot a +3; Barnes a +6 to lose by two shots. It also confirmed my theory, that under Grand Slam final round pressure, the guy with the wonky swing will wilt! Kenny Perry's loopy swing collapsed against the smoother swing of Angel Cabrera at the Masters. Ricky Barnes' off-balance swing went haywire against the more classical swing of Glover.

Oh! The joy of scoring goals!

It was sheer joy to watch the first half of the FIFA Confederations Cup group match between Brazil and World Champions, Italy. It was fascinating, thrilling, exhilarating and exciting.

Italy was kicking the ball around in the mid-field, playing in the European style of possession and distribution. Precise passes, interchanging of positions, looking for a chink in the opposing defence.

Brazil was only interested in scoring. Everything else was only a means to that end. Once they got possession, a wave of yellow jerseys would lash upon the opposing penalty box in the blink of an eye. A feint here, a flick there and one of the players would suddenly be free and taking a shot at goal.

Twice, the woodwork came in the way. Several times, Buffon helped the World Champs avoid the blushes. But it was obvious that the question was when, not if. Two strikes by Fabiano late in the first half was followed by a desperate lunge by Dossena to save a certain third goal, only to guide the ball behind a diving Buffon. 3-0 at half-time. The World Champions were thoroughly outclassed.

Is Federer the greatest tennis player ever?

Roger Federer has won the French Open, finally. He beat an over-awed Robin Soderling, playing his first Grand Slam final. Roger had beaten Soderling on all the previous 9 occasions that they had played. So the result was a foregone conclusion. The monkey is finally off Roger's back. He can now play without a care in the world, and win a few more slams.

Federer has achieved parity with Pete Sampras' 14 Grand Slams - but has the edge because Pete never won at Roland Garros. Neither did Ashe, Becker, Connors, Newcombe, Edberg. McEnroe never won the Australian Open or the French Open. Rosewall and Lendl never won Wimbledon. Borg never won the US Open or the Australian Open. Nadal hasn't won the US Open - yet. Is Federer the greatest ever?

Let us have a quick look at his competition. Only 5 other players have won all 4 Grand Slams in their career: Andre Agassi, Don Budge, Roy Emerson, Rod Laver, Fred Perry. Perry and Emerson can be ruled out because their wins came during the amateur era - when pros were not allowed to participate in Grand Slam events.

Don Budge belonged to the amateur era as well. But he won a Grand Slam in the same calendar year and still holds the record of 6 consecutive Grand Slam singles victories. According to another great, Jack Kramer, the greatest tennis player ever is a toss-up between Budge and Ellsworth Vines.

In the Open era, only Agassi, Federer and Laver have won all four Grand Slam events. Great player that he was, I feel Agassi doesn't quite belong in this league. His base-line only game and counter punching style was not suited to playing well on grass. The fact that he won Wimbledon in 1992 was because his opponent was a very nervous and inconsistent Goran Ivanisevic (who finally won Wimbledon as a complete outsider).

That leaves the last two men standing - Federer and Rod Laver. Did I mention that Laver has won the calendar Grand Slam twice? Once as an amateur in 1962 and once as a pro in 1969. In 40 years, no one has come close to touching that record. There are some other interesting tit-bits.

In 1963, after Laver turned pro, he became an instant whipping boy of the pro stalwarts. Lew Hoad was 8-0 and Ken Rosewall was 11-2 against Laver before he started adapting and asserting himself. He ended the year at No 2, behind Rosewall.

From 1965 to 1967, Laver was undoubtedly the No 1 player in the world. In 1967, he won the unofficial Pro Grand Slam of Wembley, French Pro, Wimbledon Pro and US Pro. In 1968, when the Open era began with only 8 open tournaments, Laver was runner-up to Rosewall at the French Open and won Wimbledon by beating Tony Roche in straight sets. That was followed by the calendar Grand Slam in 1969.

I'm not even including Laver's doubles wins and Davis Cup victories. He won 11 Grand Slam singles titles in all. Wonder how many more he would have won if he was allowed to participate during his 5 years in the pro circuit from 1963 to 1967.  But the two Grand Slams in a calendar year - one during the amateur era and once as a pro - should be more than enough evidence to decide who is the all-time great.

For those who have never had the privilege of watching the Rockhampton Rocket in action here is one final clinching piece of evidence. To be called the greatest ever, a player should have a better win-loss record against his best adversaries. Rod Laver beat every one in sight - whether it was his idol Lew Hoad, or an aging but supremely gifted Pancho Gonzales, or the evergreen Ken Rosewall with the greatest backhand ever. What about Roger Federer? His win-loss record against Rafa Nadal (current rank: No 1) and Andy Murray (current rank: No 3) is in the negative.

I looked up the definition of 'great' in the online Merriam-Webster dictionary. There are 11 definitions, out of which 'remarkably skilled' seems most appropriate for a tennis player. In terms of remarkable skills, there is little to choose between Laver and Federer. Laver was by far the better at serve-and-volley. In fluidity of motion, almost ballet-like in its beauty, Federer tops.