Any reader who has more than a passing acquaintance with the game of golf will quite easily tell that the writer of this article knows very little about the sport. Calling golf a sport is likely to cause many of the non-golfers reading this to laugh at such a label. To those who do not play or follow golf, it may seem no more sporty than darts or tiddlywinks (although the writer would like to say that the former of these is definitely a sport of kings while the latter, well, he is unsure if he has even spelled it correctly.)
And with that somewhat bizarre introduction, I would like to put forward the following argument; golf can be one of the most exciting sports on the planet.
The only golf tournament in the calendar which I watch in its entirety, or at least as much as I possibly can, is the Ryder Cup. The Europe vs USA rivalry, with its tactics, choice of pairings and captain's press conferences has me hooked. But when it comes to the other tournaments, even the Majors, as they are called, I only watch a few hours if any. But these few hours are often gripping.
And so, as I sat down in front of the TV on Sunday night, I switched on BBC Two, relatively uninformed as to what had gone on in the first 3 1/2 days of the 4 day Masters from Augusta in the US. The first scene was Tiger Woods, paired with his arch-rival Phil Mickelson, both of whom were making a strong push up the leaderboard. It looked like Chad Campbell, leader for a good portion of the tournament, Angel Cabrera and 48 year old Kenny Perry might be pipped at the post by Tiger or the left-handed Mickelson.
But a couple of dropped shots by both Woods and Mickelson on the final few holes, meant that the race was down to three; Perry, Cabrera and Campbell. And as for me, I was hooked. The demise of Woods may well have had the lukewarm golf fans switching off, but I was in for the long haul. I knew it would be midnight before this contest was sorted out.
Cabrera and Perry were the final pair, meaning they would be the last to finish, so Chad Campbell would be back in the hut by the time the other two were finishing. When Kenny Perry holed his putt for a birdie at the 16th hole, I was ready to go to bed. It was over. Perry had a two shot lead with two holes to play.
But it is not as easy as that as I have discovered on a number of occasions. Golf has the habit of creating Zeros out of Heroes at the swish of a club. Almost unlike any other sport, the man at the top of the leaderboard in a big golf tournament, can, with one bad shot, undo all of his hard work in the previous 15 hours spent on the course (or more like 20 hours the rate some of the golfers saunter around the course these days).
And so, Kenny Perry, with an inevitability that still does not detract from the tension created, proceeded to drop shots at the final two holes, handing his playing partner, Angel Cabrera, who had held his nerve superbly on the last couple of holes, as well as Chad Campbell the chance in a three way play-off. For those unfamiliar with golf, this is a sudden-death penalty shoot-out style finish, where extra holes are played until someone comes out victorious. Cabrera held his nerve, and the Argentinian denied what had been a leaderboard full of Americans on the final day.
Great finishes are possible in all sports, whether it is a team sport or an individual one. But the latter stages of golf tournaments are truly gripping. One can watch the back nine of the final round of the Masters without having seen the previous 63 holes, and it still makes for exciting, edge-of-your-seat stuff. Sometimes in other sports, missing over three-quarters of the action is a serious hindrance. But not here. If you have never watched the final couple of hours of a major golf tournament, then look out for one in the future; you will not regret it.
Monday 13 April 2009
Thursday 9 April 2009
FOOTBALL: Barcelona are brilliant but not unbeatable
As Thierry Henry slotted in Barcelona's fourth goal at Camp Nou on Wednesday night, their opponents, the German champions Bayern Munich, must have thought it could not get any worse. 4-0 down after 43 minutes. But it could have been worse.
As Henry peeled away to celebrate the 51st Champions League goal of his career, his teamate Lionel Messi was lying on the floor just outside the 'D' of the penalty area, face in his hands. In the build-up to the goal, Bayern captain Mark van Bommel had thrust his shoulder at the oncoming Messi, who seemed to connect face-first. It was a red card offence, but English referee Howard Webb, who had called play-on to allow the advantge and the subsequent Henry strike, chose not to take any action.
Had the Dutch international van Bommel seen red, or had Barcelona been given a penalty kick earlier in the half when Christain Lell felled Lionel Messi, it could have been much worse for Bayern. As it was, Bayern goalkeeper Hans-Jorg Butt, who had taken a boot in the face from Henry in the first half, pulled of a couple of good stops in the second and Bayern's heaviest Champions League defeat is only 4-0.
Barcelona's front three- Samuel Eto'o, Thierry Henry and Lionel Messi- were sublime. They carved open Bayern's defence, even if it was a makeshift one lacking Lucio, Phillip Lahm and Daniel van Buyten and consisting of a Brazilian named Breno who has played only a few games all season. The Barcelona trio are capable of slicing open any defence; should Terry, Ferdinand or Carragher, to name a few, face Messi and co. later in the competition, it is likely to be how few goals they concede rather than keeping a clean sheet.
However, Barcelona are not unbeatable. Their midfield (Xavi, Iniesta etc.) and their forwards are among the best, but their defence is not in the same league as those of the English sides (although William Gallas' injury, that puts him out for the rest of the season, seriously weakens an Arsenal defence that is certainly the weaker of the four). Carlos Puyol, Barca's experienced centre-half, was forced to play at full-back and the Mexican Rafael Marquez played in the centre. Marquez is not a naturally defensive player and his forward wanderings leave holes in Barcelona's backline.
Barcelona are surely favourites to win the competition. When they are on form, it is difficult to see how they can be beaten. Nevertheless, if one of the English sides is organised in defence, particularly not allowing Henry or Messi to cut inside as they flow forward, keeps close tabs on the string-pullers Xavi and Iniesta as well as poking holes in Barcelona's less-than-secure defence, then Josep Guardiola's men will be denied.
As Henry peeled away to celebrate the 51st Champions League goal of his career, his teamate Lionel Messi was lying on the floor just outside the 'D' of the penalty area, face in his hands. In the build-up to the goal, Bayern captain Mark van Bommel had thrust his shoulder at the oncoming Messi, who seemed to connect face-first. It was a red card offence, but English referee Howard Webb, who had called play-on to allow the advantge and the subsequent Henry strike, chose not to take any action.
Had the Dutch international van Bommel seen red, or had Barcelona been given a penalty kick earlier in the half when Christain Lell felled Lionel Messi, it could have been much worse for Bayern. As it was, Bayern goalkeeper Hans-Jorg Butt, who had taken a boot in the face from Henry in the first half, pulled of a couple of good stops in the second and Bayern's heaviest Champions League defeat is only 4-0.
Barcelona's front three- Samuel Eto'o, Thierry Henry and Lionel Messi- were sublime. They carved open Bayern's defence, even if it was a makeshift one lacking Lucio, Phillip Lahm and Daniel van Buyten and consisting of a Brazilian named Breno who has played only a few games all season. The Barcelona trio are capable of slicing open any defence; should Terry, Ferdinand or Carragher, to name a few, face Messi and co. later in the competition, it is likely to be how few goals they concede rather than keeping a clean sheet.
However, Barcelona are not unbeatable. Their midfield (Xavi, Iniesta etc.) and their forwards are among the best, but their defence is not in the same league as those of the English sides (although William Gallas' injury, that puts him out for the rest of the season, seriously weakens an Arsenal defence that is certainly the weaker of the four). Carlos Puyol, Barca's experienced centre-half, was forced to play at full-back and the Mexican Rafael Marquez played in the centre. Marquez is not a naturally defensive player and his forward wanderings leave holes in Barcelona's backline.
Barcelona are surely favourites to win the competition. When they are on form, it is difficult to see how they can be beaten. Nevertheless, if one of the English sides is organised in defence, particularly not allowing Henry or Messi to cut inside as they flow forward, keeps close tabs on the string-pullers Xavi and Iniesta as well as poking holes in Barcelona's less-than-secure defence, then Josep Guardiola's men will be denied.
Monday 6 April 2009
CRICKET: Strauss' Twenty20 exclusion may hinder England's overall progress
The omission of captain Andrew Strauss from England's provisional 30-man squad for the ICC World Twenty20 tournament in June was not a surprise. National selector Geoff Miller has said that Strauss accepts he is "not comfortable" in the super-short format of the game.
Like it or not though, Twenty20 cricket now makes up a substantial part of the cricket calendar, both in the form of internationals and in domestic competitions like the Indian Premier League. Is there any place in the game these days for an England captain who is "not comfortable" with the twenty-over game?
Twenty20 cricket is taking over. All the big money is in the IPL, and the ICC seems intent on fitting as many Twenty20 matches and tournaments into the calendar. The argument that having a different captain in the 50-over game to the Test arena causes problems, as neither can truly stamp his authority on the team, may well become increasingly relevant to the 20-over format as well.
The foundation of success, not just in cricket but in any sport, is continuity in selection. Since 1985, the very successful Australia have had four permanent captains- Border, Taylor, Waugh and Ponting- and although they have had some periods where the captain of the ODI team has been different to the Test captain, there has always been a sense that the next captain is being groomed.
England's history of captains in the same period is very different and it is commendable that England have now decided to choose Andrew Strauss as captain in both Tests and ODIs, rather than attempting to juggle two captains. It is true that the Twenty20 window in the cricket calendar offers Strauss some respite from the stressful job, and England are not alone in making huge changes to their sides for Twenty20 competitions.
However, Ricky Ponting, captain of Australia, skippers the side in all three forms of the game. There is absolutely no confusion as to who is the leader and when Michael Clarke is forced to deputise, Australia are something of a different team. Conversely, Graeme Smith, captain of South Africa and who captained in his country's first few Twenty20 games, has not skippered the side in the super-short format for the last 15 months and in that period South Africa have nearly knocked Australia off their perch as the number one Test nation.
So is it just a case of Ricky Ponting and MS Dhoni being suited to the Twenty20 game, while other Test and ODI captains are simply "not comfortable"? It is hard to believe that Mike Atherton or even Nasser Hussein would have been good Twenty20 players, so perhaps one should not make a big deal of who is Twenty20 captain.
It has been shown in cricket history that it is not essential for an international side to have the same captain for all forms of the game, but there is a strong case that the same figurehead and leader across the board can improve the chances of success. The question is, should Andrew Strauss, who is "better suited" to longer forms of the game, captain the England Twenty20 side, not necessarily on merit but for the greater good?
Like it or not though, Twenty20 cricket now makes up a substantial part of the cricket calendar, both in the form of internationals and in domestic competitions like the Indian Premier League. Is there any place in the game these days for an England captain who is "not comfortable" with the twenty-over game?
Twenty20 cricket is taking over. All the big money is in the IPL, and the ICC seems intent on fitting as many Twenty20 matches and tournaments into the calendar. The argument that having a different captain in the 50-over game to the Test arena causes problems, as neither can truly stamp his authority on the team, may well become increasingly relevant to the 20-over format as well.
The foundation of success, not just in cricket but in any sport, is continuity in selection. Since 1985, the very successful Australia have had four permanent captains- Border, Taylor, Waugh and Ponting- and although they have had some periods where the captain of the ODI team has been different to the Test captain, there has always been a sense that the next captain is being groomed.
England's history of captains in the same period is very different and it is commendable that England have now decided to choose Andrew Strauss as captain in both Tests and ODIs, rather than attempting to juggle two captains. It is true that the Twenty20 window in the cricket calendar offers Strauss some respite from the stressful job, and England are not alone in making huge changes to their sides for Twenty20 competitions.
However, Ricky Ponting, captain of Australia, skippers the side in all three forms of the game. There is absolutely no confusion as to who is the leader and when Michael Clarke is forced to deputise, Australia are something of a different team. Conversely, Graeme Smith, captain of South Africa and who captained in his country's first few Twenty20 games, has not skippered the side in the super-short format for the last 15 months and in that period South Africa have nearly knocked Australia off their perch as the number one Test nation.
So is it just a case of Ricky Ponting and MS Dhoni being suited to the Twenty20 game, while other Test and ODI captains are simply "not comfortable"? It is hard to believe that Mike Atherton or even Nasser Hussein would have been good Twenty20 players, so perhaps one should not make a big deal of who is Twenty20 captain.
It has been shown in cricket history that it is not essential for an international side to have the same captain for all forms of the game, but there is a strong case that the same figurehead and leader across the board can improve the chances of success. The question is, should Andrew Strauss, who is "better suited" to longer forms of the game, captain the England Twenty20 side, not necessarily on merit but for the greater good?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
