Weekly Golf Tip : to make solid contact with the golf ball, do the ‘happy toes’ drill

There are two main reasons why many high-handicap weekend golfers remain high-handicap golfers during their entire playing careers:

1. They read about different tips and tricks, but don’t put in the effort at the practice range; instead, they try new things during their weekend round – only to give up when the tips don’t magically change their golfing abilities.
2. The few who do practice at the range, don’t have a clear plan of what they are trying to achieve; so they end up smashing a few balls with the different clubs in their bags – without learning anything new or unlearning any bad habits.

This week’s tip is a drill that any golfer can do at home, in front of a mirror, without even breaking a sweat. It will teach you proper balance when addressing the ball – which is the key to consistent, solid ball contact.

Here is what you do. Take any golf club, and take your usual stance at address but instead of grounding the club, let it hover a couple of inches above the ground. Now try to tap the ground with your toes – one foot at a time, while keeping both heels firmly on the ground.

Eric Jones, the former long-driving champion calls this the ‘happy toes’ drill:

If you can do the drill comfortably, without changing your address position, you are properly balanced.

If you are like most high-handicap golfers, your address position is either too far forward, or too far back. If your upper body is too far forward – which happens more often, mainly due to anxiety – you won’t be able to lift your toes off the ground. If your upper body is too far back, you will be able to tap the ground with both feet at the same time.

This weekend, try the ‘happy toes’ drill before you go out for your round. But please remember that years of bad habit won’t get cured by one drill. Keep at it, till you understand and appreciate the benefits of proper balance – regardless of your handicap.

Weekly Golf Tip: the correct mental attitude towards sand traps

If you are a typical high-handicap weekend golfer, then you probably have an incorrect mental attitude towards sand traps. Before I proceed any further, a couple of definitions may be in order:

1. High-handicap – anything above a handicap of 9 for an 18 hole golf course. (I’m sure the Captain of the Royal Calcutta Golf Club will agree with that definition; not so sure about fellow members!)

2. Correct mental attitude – every time your ball falls in a sand trap, think of it as an opportunity, and not a problem.

Like most high-handicap weekend golfers with imperfect swings and inability to hit the long irons crisply on target, I tend to hit more sand traps than greens in regulation. Every time I’d fall into one, I would curse my bad luck, grab my sand wedge (regardless of the lie or the distance to be covered) and rush into the bunker in a tearing hurry to some how get the ball out.

The result? Either a skulled shot that would go screaming over the green into much deeper trouble. Or, several swings at the ball without propelling it out of the trap, and then bending down to toss it on the green and saying ‘Your hole’ (as if there was any doubt!).

It was fellow golfer and lovable hustler Harjivan Singh - a team member when we won the Wills Trophy (now ITC Cup) back in 1984 at the Tollygunge Club - who taught me the correct mental attitude towards sand traps.

His logic was simple. For high-handicappers, the opportunities for making birdies are few and far between – particularly in a course as long as the RCGC with only one par 3 and one par 5 in each nine. There were far more opportunities in hitting greenside bunkers – specially if you aimed at them!

Harjivan would actually do that, and then try to get up and down for a ‘sandie’. He made quite a few bucks on the side every round.

The point is: if you approach a sand shot with the correct mental attitude, looking at it as an opportunity to make a ‘sandie’, there are more chances that you will come out close enough to the pin with a single swing.

Of course, it helps to know how to execute different types of bunker shots required for different lies and sand conditions. Stay tuned, and I’ll be happy to share my experiences.

(Notes: Thanks to fellow golfers who have encouraged me to write these weekly golf tips. I look forward to your feedback and suggestions. You can use the ‘comments’ link below the post, or send an email to me.)

Why did India perform so badly in World T-20 Cricket?

There is an old saying - Horses for courses - that applies very well to T-20, or any other form of cricket. BCCI and the Indian selectors knew well in advance that the matches will be held in the West Indies. Some pitches, like those in St Lucia, were slow and low - which helped cricketers from the sub-continent. But the ones at Barbados were fast and bouncy - putting a premium on cricketing skills.

Wonder what kind of practice routine the Indian batsmen followed. I remember about Dilip Vengsarkar practising before a Windies tour by having some one bounce a tennis ball off a concrete surface at CCI and he fended it down off his face.

Who got selected for the Indian team? Murli Vijay - with no experience on the world stage. He played and failed in three consecutive matches, two of them crucial quarter final group matches against Australia and West Indies at Barbados. The more experienced Dinesh Karthik was left to cool his heels till the inconsequential match against Sri Lanka.

The less said about Yusuf Pathan, the better. A technique-less six-hitter if the pitch is low and slow. Completely clueless on a fast and bouncy track. As for his bowling - Geoff Boycott's old mother can bowl better off-spin.

Piyush Chawla is competent at best, with a leg break that turns less than Anil Kumble's, but without Anil's control and variety. Amit Mishra had by far the better record - in runs conceded per over and wickets taken - in the recently concluded IPL-3 but was dropped for the tour. Go figure!

But the biggest fiasco of all was the choice of left-arm spinner. Ravindra Jadeja - who was banned from IPL-3 because he was trying to get a better financial deal for himself. Why was he chosen for the World T-20 without any match practice, while the best bowler in IPL-3 - Pragyan Ojha, who also happens to be a left-arm spinner - had to sit out?

Srikkanth and Ravi Shastri have publicly made a big deal about the 'young legs' theory for the shorter version of the game. They are far more knowledgeable than me as far as cricket is concerned. But what about common sense? Do they have any?

At the end of the day, sports requires skills. In cricket, the three most important ones are batting, bowling and fielding. The 'young legs' theory is great for fielding - but totally useless in batting and bowling. Just check the names of the top three batsmen in the recently concluded IPL-3. Sachin Tendulkar, Jacques Kallis, Sourav Ganguli.

If jumping and diving around in a cricket field are all the skills required to win a T-20 cricket match, then 11 trained chimpanzees would have sufficed. The cost to the country's reputation and BCCI's coffers would have been a lot less.

By the way, the already overpaid Indian cricketers were given individual bonuses of Rs 80 lakhs when they won the inaugural T-20 World Cup in 2007. Since they failed so miserably this time, losing all three quarter final group matches by big margins, how about fining them Rs 40 lakhs each? That may just motivate them to learn the basic skills of playing cricket.

Of all the money collected from the cricketers as penalties - half should go to the district and zonal cricket associations for teaching youngsters the basic skills of cricket.

The other half should go to Chess World Champion Vishwanathan Anand, for being a true champion and great performer over the years.

Tom Watson - sports is also for the young at heart

The British Open golf championship has produced several dramatic final round melt-downs. The two that stand out from recent history are:

Frenchman Jean Van de Velde's disastrous triple bogey on the final hole at Carnoustie in 1999 to hand the title to a relatively unknown Paul Lawrie.

Dane Thomas Bjorn needlessly attacked the pin at the 16th hole at Royal St George in 2003, leaving himself stranded in a deep greenside bunker from where he failed to get out in his first two attempts. The eventual winner, American Ben Curtis, was unknown even in his home country!

Stewart Cink, this year's Open winner, is better known and definitely a more consistent player than either Lawrie or Curtis. It wasn't just Tom Watson's missed 8 footer that enabled him to win. He applied the heat on his older countryman when he courageously birdied the 72nd hole to become the leader in the clubhouse. Lee Westwood should have learned a lesson or two from that.

I still can't get over the off-the-green putt that Watson knocked 8 feet past the pin. Was it bad luck that the perfectly struck rescue approach didn't stop on the green? I think it was Nicklaus, who famously said: There is no good luck or bad luck in golf, just good shots and bad shots.

Putting from the fringe is always dicey if the ball has nestled down in the grass. Solid contact isn't possible. More often than not, the ball will jump up and roll farther than you intended. The two shot swing on the 72nd hole sealed Watson's fate.

Under pressure of defending a final round lead, adrenaline plays a negative role. Where calmness and deliberation is required, one ends up rushing and making a jerky swing. Padraig Harrington's pitch from behind the 16th green squirting into the water under pressure from Tiger's fantastic birdie at the Bridgestone Open at Akron, Ohio is the most recent example.

To be leading a Major Championship at age 59, till the final stroke on the 72nd hole, was an achievement that warmed the cockles of the heart of every elderly person who has ever played any competitive sport. Even for youngsters, it was an example of what a combination of skill and will power can achieve.

Why didn't Tom Watson win? Why couldn't he become a 'Cinderella Man'? Because that is life. Some times, dreams do come true - just look at it from Stewart Cink's perspective!

(Note: Another Tom has written an excellent piece about the tragic end to Watson's run at becoming the oldest person to ever win a Major championship. Read it here.)

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.

Gunners gunned down

The Emirates stadium was full of colour and expectations on a brilliant spring evening. Thousands of happy Arsenal fans were waving myriad red and white flags in what looked like a pre-victory celebration.

Almunia's brilliant 'keeping had kept the marauding Reds at bay in the 1st leg semi-final at Old Trafford. Only O'Shea's opportunistic goal separated the two teams. A 1-0 victory at home would give Arsenal a chance to go through to the final of the European Cup (or is it the UEFA Champion's League?) via a penalty shootout.

11 minutes into the 2nd leg semi-final, the collective hopes and aspirations of Gunners fans at the stadium and in front of a live telecast lay tattered in shreds.

Manchester United scored the first goal after 8 minutes on a counter-attack. Gibbs - a far-from-adequate substitute for the exceptionally talented but injured Clichy - had left the slippery Park unmarked. Rushing to foil him inside the box, he slipped and fell. Park quickly bulged the net with a sharp right-footer above an advancing Almunia.

Barely had the fans recovered from the away-goal shock when Van Persie needlessly brought Christiano Ronaldo down. From the resulting free kick, Ronaldo hit a right-footed pile-driver past the wall and a diving Almunia who was beaten by the sheer pace of the shot.

The glazed look on Almunia's face was priceless. Memories of the Foreman-Frazier title fight at Jamaica in 1973 came flooding back. Frazier had a look like that after Foreman knocked him down for the fifth time early in the second round. The fight was called off soon after.

The second half saw Ronaldo score another goal after an exquisite one-two counter attack with Rooney. A late penalty score by Van Persie was little consolation for Arsenal - after an unfortunate red card was shown to Fletcher on what looked like a fair tackle on TV replays.

The Gunners fans badly wanted a trophy. The last one had come 4 years back. The charismatic Arsene Wenger's talent spotting ability had landed several brilliant ball players - Walcott, Nasri, Song, Sagna, Vela, Fabregas. They are young, skilled, enthusiastic and fast. Ideally suited to Wenger's style of crisp one-touch passing, finesse and all-out attack that turns bruising body-contact football into beautiful, flowing, mobile works of art.

There are a couple of problems with this style. Defenders moving up the flank to help the attack often leave large territories uncovered and susceptible to quick counter-attacks. And the talent and vibrancy of youth is difficult to sustain through a grinding season of the English Premier league.

No wonder Arsenal is in 4th place while Manchester United is on top. The 4th place is no guarantee for an automatic entry into the European Cup next year. The rules have been tweaked. Only the top three go through. The 4th placed team will need to play a qualifying round.