Wimbledon has finally agreed to equal pay. The NY Times reports:

- After years of holding out against equal prize money, Wimbledon bowed to public pressure Thursday and agreed to pay women players as much as the men at the world’s most prestigious tennis tournament.

The U.S. Open and Australian Open have paid equal prize money for years. The French Open paid the men’s and women’s champions the same for the first time last year, although the overall prize fund remained bigger for the men.

My views are pretty much uniform on the equal pay issue which I had expressed in a detailed post about a year back:

I scoff at the idea (of equal pay). The issue is not about women’s rights. The issue is not about equality. The issue is about market worth. If women’s tennis is more sellable, I would not grudge it even paying more than men’s tennis does. I do not like that the other 3 Grand Slams have succumbed to the pressure tactics in one way or another, at one point or the other other.

Women’s tennis and men’s tennis are different sports. So if one has more spectators than the other, one gets more revenue and distributes more to the players.

Equality in pay is not the right answer. If the women attract more money, pay them more; if they attract less money, pay them less. I don’t see why equal pay should ever even come into the equation in the given scenario.

From the look of things, the future looks promising for British tennis. I have spoken on Andy Murray looking good and he has defeated Roddick now to reach the finals in San Jose. Two very important aspects in raising the stature of a game are

1) heroes (which some one like Andy Murray can prove to be), and,
2) the infrastructure and facilities needed for promising young players to develop their games to reach the next level.

Ever since Roger Draper was appointed Chief Executive of the LTA, things have been looking up. A blueprint for British tennis has been prepared and plans have been laid out and are being acted upon in a structured way.

In a piece on tennis-x, Lynn Benerbaum wrote a few months ago:

His first endeavor is to build up a solid leadership team. So he launched a recruitment website for a series of LTA executive positions, including the heads of men’s and women’s tennis. The site attracted more than 25,000 visitors, and thousands of applicants. The association’s goal is to have new names and faces in place by the time the LTA’s new National Tennis Centre at Roehampton opens at the end of February.

A major goal is to import top new coaches to groom young English talent, in what The Times of London called “The LTA’s Foreign Aid Package”. The LTA has already sanctioned a three-year deal for Brad Gilbert worth more than 1 Million Pounds which includes coaching And Murray. Now Draper is trying to persuade Paul Annacone to lead the men’s game. If he accepts the position, he will work alongside other high-profile recruits such as Gilbert and Lundgren, who will put the new restructuring plan of the British game into action.

The investment in Murray with steps like getting some one like Brad Gilbert to coach Murray is starting to reap benefits now. The stern test will come in Wimbledon this year. Some thing like Henmania for Murray wouldn’t be unlikely. It is unlikely that Murray will win Wimbledon this year though and he will have to deal with the expectations and the pressure of fans, media more now than ever before.

Where infrastructure is concerned, looking towards the Monte Carlo Tennis Academy is definitely a step in the right direction. From BBC Sport:

The Monte Carlo Tennis Academy, launched in 2006, is now providing one of the platforms from which British tennis hopes to develop the next Andy Murray and Tim Henman…

…The players spend seven weeks of the year at the Monte Carlo Country Club with the rest of the year spent training and playing in tournaments all over the world, from Australia to Florida, Sunderland to Wimbledon.

Wimbledon lies at the heart of tennis and it is unfortunate that tennis hasn’t had a major champion from Britain for what seems ages. The need for a better system which will be effective in providing champions in the future is being acted upon. Hopefully, it prove effective and reap long term benefits for British tennis and tennis on a whole.

Further reading: Draper answering a few questions of BBC, fans.

Andy Murray has done a lot of things in his young tennis career till now. He won the US Open boys title as a kid, was Great Britain’s youngest ever Davis Cup player, reached the third round of Wimbledon 2005 after being given a wild card, has won 1 ATP title already (San Jose, US beating Hewitt in the final in February 2006) and has been on the improve in his young career - his grand slam career record so far for instance.

In the loss against Nadal today in the 4th round of the Australian Open, Murray had amazing reach and showed great court presence. The serves and the reach exist for many big guys but the court presence is much rarer. Both players weren’t playing to their best and had poor return of serves and committed quite a few unforced errors. Till the middle of the fourth set, Murray was giving Nadal as good as he got and was even hitting more winners than Nadal. After that, Nadal’s fitness and experience was the difference as Nadal won the fourth and steam rolled through in the fifth (even though the games were very close).

Give it a couple of years and the Murray game could mean that he has an edge over many opponents. Murray could do a lot of damage when Wimbledon comes along even this year though I am not sure that he would have it in him to win just yet. If he carries on the way he is developing, there is no reason why Andy Murray will not be a legitimate challenger at Wimbledon for many years to come - he has the perfect game for it. He should also do quite well at other grand slams and tournaments in time as well and is definitely a top 5 material.

Firstly, apologies for the long absence. I have been very busy with work and did not have much time to blog forcing a break of sorts.

Coming back to the topic at hand.. strong and diverse opinions are usually among sports fans and in sports columns on who should be the sports person of the year around this time of the year. for 2006 though, the answer seems obvious as Roger Federer has had a near perfect year with 3 grand slam wins and a dream win-loss record of 92-5. Yet, we find sports awards going to people other than Roger Federer and some people are, as a result, not happy about this. Chris Baldwin of travelgolf.com writes:

…athlete of the year deserves to go to …, the most dominant athlete in any sport. That without question is tennis’ Roger Federer….

Tiger Woods winning AP Male Athlete of the Year only proves how embarrassingly provincial Americans can be. Too bad there aren’t enough U.S. sports fans like Tiger and me who can see the entire sports world.

It is no secret that this is true regarding Americans, particularly where sport is concerned. They focus mostly on US sports and hardly on sports from around the world. However, I do not see why this should be a reason to be agitated about. English football fans focus much more, or in a lot of cases, almost entirely on their own league. Even when we analyse teams sports fans follow, a lot of people only keep indepth track of their own team and not the entire league be it any sport. The basic nature of sport is that you root for you own team and revel in the roller coaster ride following a team provides.

When a sports award does the same, it shouldn’t cause any alarm. The Associated Press has been awarding the Americans for many years now and it is nothing new. BBC gives out a similar award and to compensate, they also gives out the overseas version.

Perhaps it is best that we accept there will be natural bias in awards, one which any group or panel cannot avoid. Even the Laureus award conferred by a very international panel cannot be said to be unbiased. We do not have a nominee from each country in the panel and each member of the panel cannot be expected to know the weightage of each achievement in various sports. If we look at the award winners, they are popular sports persons from more main stream sports. It is arguably the best award out there and yet it cannot be said that it can be bereft of biases.

Awards help celebrate sporting achievements and that should be that. The real trophies have already been won - on the sporting field.

The lights in Netaji Indoor Stadium still shine. The stadium was renovated last year.

The tournament saw a lot of seeds upset early but ended with Martina Hingis winning the singles quite comfortably. She wasn’t stretched at any point in the tournament and was typical Hingis - winning using timing and placement rather than power.

The semi-final versus Mirza was the big attraction from the local point of view. However, the match disappointed at large. Mirza started off with a bit of promise considering her first serves were going in more often than not. However, the aspect where she missed out was going for the placement game versus Martina Hingis. 99 times out of 100, if you try to beat Hingis at her strength, you will end up second best.

Mirza played the waiting game instead of going for her shots - her main strength. When she did go the power route for a couple of games in the second set, she looked far more effective and looked like troubling Hingis, even if it was for a few points. The problem with the service showed up after a few games in the first set itself though and though there has been a marked improvement in Mirza’s service, more power and accuracy is still needed. Mirza did win the doubles as a consolation prize but as Hingis said, the promise is there for the future.

Over all, the tournament was dampening because many of the top seeds went out early. The novelty factor present in the inaugral Sunfeast Open wasn’t there as well. The tournament is still in it’s infancy and bringing Hingis to play in only the second year of the event is a huge achievement in itself.

The following are a few more pictures my friends and I took. Hope you like them:

The chair umpire checks that the measurements of the net, sidelines are perfect before the match starts.

(more…)

I have very good memories of the inaugral Sunfeast Open held in Calcutta last year. I visited most days and loved the international standard atmosphere Netaji Indoor Stadium provided. This year, I haven’t been able to go even once but the Sania Mirza versus Martina Hingis semi is not one to be missed and needless to say, I will be there and am looking forward to it.

Looking at their head to head, the only time they faced each other in Dubai earlier this year ended up in a close enouncter with Hingis prevailing 6-3 7-5. Since then, Hingis has had more exposure and she is deep into her come back now. The big wins haven’t come yet for Hingis and she is unlikely to be fazed by a loud Calcutta crowd. Mirza will have to go for the win rather than expect Hingis to hand the match to her via unforced errors.

Mirza has also left the ankle injury in the past. The injury had meant that she has had an ordinary year but things started looking up around the US Open. A few weeks ago, Mirza tried to reduce the hype around her and the negative attention the media was giving over her not improving in rankings saying that winning a grandslam wasn’t one of her primary goals. It is an intellegent strategy as expectations reduce to some degree and Mirza can focus on her game much more.

We do not know if Mirza is back to 100% fitness. However, she seems much improved of late. A WTA title to end the year will be just perfect to end what seems a disappointing year. However, people should not make too much out of 2006 for Mirza because of the injuries she had. She has made tremendous progress over all in her career if we look at the time period and the ranking she has achieved in the given period. 2007 should be a much better year where we will should see another marked improvement.

For now, I will just enjoy the tennis and hopefully witness a Mirza double win - in singles and doubles.

[CNN report]

Picture: Fred Savage in The Wonder Years

Many years ago, I got my first cricket bat - a yellow plastic bat. As time went by, I got my cheap quality wood bat and then the Kashmir Willow which was every kid’s dream. However, I kept that plastic bat with me for a number of years. I still feel a rush of blood when I see a photograph of me holding that plastic cricket bat. Some how, I never felt the same with the cricket bats I got later although, without doubt, they were of a much higher quality.

The same goes for sports persons we idolise. We might see many over our life time – some of who will be unquestionably better. However, the newer sportspersons will never leave the same impression on our minds. You forge a bond with the player you see on the television set and the bond inspires you in many multifarious ways in those impressionable years. The sports person becomes a part of you sooner than you can realise.

It is obvious that we will feel sad when the group of sports persons we grew up idolising start retiring one after the other. Nanda Kishore, a sports blogger I love reading whenever he does write, after reading an interview of Sandip Patil says this:

The interview is a routine one, but it is so easy to forget people like Sandip Patil. One of my great regrets is not having watched him at his peak, when he famously took on the likes of Len Pascoe and Bob Willis. Like most Indians who grew up in the eighties, I have watched clips of the 1983 World Cup semis and finals over and over again, and Patil remains a dashing, enigmatic hero, a Jim Morrison kind of figure. Watching that disdainful hoick off Bob Willis that sails over deep square leg gives me the goosebumps everytime…

… So Sandy (Sandip Patil) is 50. Steve Waugh has retired. Boris Becker is in the commentary box or on the Laureus foundation panel. In a couple of weeks or so, Andre Agassi will be just another suburban Dad. I feel old. Actually, I feel fucking ancient.

Why does Nanda Kishore feel old, ancient and disgusted? One by one, he has seen the sports persons he grew up with hang up their boots. So, he is all familiar with this horrid feeling. With the realisation that with Agassi, the last of the pack would have gone, the feeling is painful. Agassi played a large part of his tennis when I grew up as well and with him, the last of the tennis players from my era is gone. I won’t see Sampras, Monica Seles or Andre Agassi play professional tennis live again. I might feel sadder even when Kumble, Lara and Tendulkar finally call it quits because I would have no one from my wonder years playing.

Why do feel so sad? A part of us dies with the retirement of these heroes. That’s why.

On a related note, my remembrances of Agassi and a take on Sampras and the greats can be read here and here respectively.

What made Andre Agassi so special? If we speak regarding the achievements, they are astounding. Wimbledon champion in 1992. Super star. Then, ranked 141 in the world back away to play challengers. He didn’t go via the easy route of wild cards in his rise back and grinded his way up. The crowining glory has to be the 1999 French triumph which made him only the 5th man to win all four grand slams.

He has been an immense talent which is why, perhaps, a few people feel he achieved less compared to a Sampras. Agassi held his own even against Sampras and was the only opponent Sampras felt could defeat him even when Sampras was playing to his best. Agassi has had his roller coaster ride and it wasn’t as smooth as the Sampras career but he is a great in his own right and that should be that.

There was much more to Agassi than the achievements and the Sampras rivalry. Agassi was first the rebel and the enigma. Then, he became the super star. Then, he cut his hair off. I remember seeing this bald man with a frenchie playing tennis one fine day and thinking - ‘hmm good ground strokes and promising player. How have I not heard of him before.’ Then, the score board flashed Andre Agassi and it was a shocker. Apparently, balding gave Agassi a lot of tension for a long time and it was a huge relief for him when he cut off the famous hair.

The ground strokes were as good as that of any and the service return was the best in the world. All the while, the determination was inspirational. What I liked a lot about Agassi was the class with which he carried himself every where. The best parts were not his play but the way Agassi answered questions. He would always smile. He would never get abrasive. He would reply with a lot of respect to the question and always gave the perfect answer. Agassi was as good as the best diplomat in the world with words. Except, he didn’t use diplomacy.

When Sampras retired, Agassi said this:

You grow up with a guy, you compete against him for so long, he’s such a big part of your career, something that’s pretty special, so you do have that sense of personal regret that he’s not around any more. You miss having that around.

Many people are having the same feeling right now. Soon, we will say bye bye to the heart of tennis in the 90s and shouts of Agassssi between points will be heard no more. Thanks for the memories.

I have seen Sania Mirza on t-shirts but was surprised to see her on a rakhi. Now rakhi is a hindu festival between brothers and sisters which I like a lot. It is a simple and yet beautiful festival. For people who don’t know regarding rakhi, wikipedia sums up the festival in a few words thus:

The festival is marked by the tying of a rakhi, or holy thread by the sister on the wrist of her brother. The brother in return offers a gift to his sister and vows to look after her. The brother and sister traditionally feed each other sweets.

Coming back to Sania and rakhi.. Firstly, Sania Mirza is a muslim and isn’t related to hinduism in any way. Secondly, Mirza is hot property in India like Sharapova is in the world at large where tennis is concerned - not exactly sister material.

So how can we explain Sania Mirza on a rakhi? Sport transcends boundaries and once a star, you do not remain of a particular religion or even a particular country. Every one cherishes a spark of brilliance from Tiger Woods and such petty thoughts like caste, religion and country are insignificant.

So you can find a Sachin Tendulkar poster in the home of a Pakistani or a Shoaib Akhtar poster in the home of an Indian. Barriers are broken and hearts won by sport like few mediums can even hope to achieve.

Barry bonds is in the news again. I didn’t care. Neither do you I am sure. The reason is not because you may not be an American and thus not interested in a lot of what goes on in US sports. Even Americans don’t care as this poll shows. [Via Blogcritics]

The Barry Bonds don’t care maybe due to the constant over coverage in the media during his home run chase. Each time Bonds hit a home run, ESPN cut regular programming to cover it. The result was that people went numb when they heard the words Barry Bonds. The senses system told them - shut every thing or your brains will burst.

We saw some thing similar in India not long ago during the Ganguly-Chappell controversy. First, people were either in favour of Ganguly or Chappell. The issue dragged and the media dragged it along. By the end, people didn’t care any more. They just wanted to hear no more of the Ganguly-Chappell issue. Tendulkar is back once again in the Indian team. Got the don’t care feeling? I guessed so.

Constant repitition maybe cause this numbness. For example, how many of you got excited when Roger Federer won Wimbledon again this year? Even against a promising Nadal, most people new Federer had little chance of losing. Had the opponent in the final been some one else, the Wimbledon final would have recieved much lower television ratings. The don’t care phenomena would have been much more evident.

Some how, flawed geniuses excite us and help us avoid the don’t care phenomena. So, a Kobe Bryant will never fail to bore us. One day, he scores truck loads of points and we can’t get enough of his talent. The next day, we wonder if he failed. Breaks in successful performances avoids repitions. Would we have got as excited for the second Jordan three peat had he not had the gap to try baseball despite scenario in which he achieved the second three peat very different?

We care about our sports but only that much and no more. For, the don’t care stage isn’t too far off.

Update: Read Ravi Gurnani’s flawed sporting idols here.