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.

The nominations for the Indibloggies, the annual Indian blog awards, have been announced. Sportolysis - The World Sports Blog has been nominated as well in the sports category!

Do take part in the poll and submit your votes, regardless of whether you think you should vote for this blog or not..

Whom am I kidding? Vote for me!!

PS - Voting closes on the 20th of February (US time).

Ramesh Powar is a glaring omission from the Indian world cup squad. His stats in his international career so far:

Year M-Wkts-Avg-Eco
2004 2-0-undefined-5.20
2006 14-19-27.15-4.50
2007 2-5-19.00-4.75

So, what has he done wrong?

Kumble has been selected for his experience and that, despite his not that impressive record of late, is understandable. However, there is little logic in selecting 5 fast bowlers. Selecting 3 spinners would have been the right way to go about it.

Even if we play 3 fast bowlers in the XI, why do we need more than 1 reserve fast bowler? Selecting two spinners in the XI on a slower Windies pitch cannot be ruled out. Given that, I would have selected a reserve spinner instead of two reserve fast bowlers.

Sreesanth, for all his promise, has been too expensive (economy rate of 5.75) and I would have gone for Powar instead.

We have seen violence in Brazil, the football riot death in Italy, racism in Spain and match fixing scandals in Italy and even smaller football nations like Poland – not items any one would want associated with a beautiful game. Such issues are nothing new in sport, particularly football. If any thing, at least the violence in football has reduced in various countries and the last football world cup went violence free bar a few tiny incidents. However, there still are countries where the violence is deep rooted and the hooligan impact is big. Evils exist in one form or the other in the sport in most places.

Football is the biggest sport in the world and enjoys unparalleled fan base . A die hard fan may keep watching the game despite the evils though he may strongly be against the given evils. However, that does not mean that football or it’s image isn’t affected by the constant negative news we here about the game. Football still has roads to travel – growth in countries like USA, improvement in standards in Asia, Africa being three of many important areas.

Even for a sport which has inelastic demand in countries like Brazil, or is close to achieving that level of fan support in many other countries, a sport holds a responsibility to remove evils from the game. Football has improved in this regard but there is a lot more to be done – some thing which has to be taken far more seriously.

He tries to play too aggressively in one dayers. A strike rate of 96 v 76 may not sound that big a difference but it is actually more than 20 percent more attacking play. That obviously means going out of the areas where Sehwag feels comfortable which means that he plays far more get out shots in one dayers.

Sehwag’s natural game gives him a S/R of 76 while for most players, it would result in a S/R of 40-65. That will give you lower averages in one dayers. This does not mean that Sehwag will not have as many get out shots when he tries to play shots he normally wouldn’t in tests.

Another aspect is that when opening the batting in one dayers, he feels the respnsibility to play shots as soon as possible rather than settling down a bit. If you aren’t adjusted to the bounce of the pitch, there is always a high chance of getting out. Maybe batting in the middle order could be the perfect place for Sehwag. He can play out a few overs and then bat naturally and still play at a strike rate of over 75 - a great option for any team. So a position like number 4 is some thing I wouldn’t have mind trying at. However, he is not reliable/consistent enough and so number 3 seems the better position (some thing like 5 or 6 is too late as he isn’t really a slogger). Dravid’s reliability can be a great asset at 4.

So ideally, (I say ideally because the given is very unlikely) I would have the first five as:

Tendulkar
Ganguly
Sehwag
Dravid
Yuvraj

Sehwag always says that he focuses on playing his natural game in whichever form of cricket he plays. He plays in a systematic way which might appear erratic to a newer watcher of his game. It is true that he plays best when he plays his natural game. It is also true that Sehwag is a rhythm player - a bit like Symonds. On his day, he can be destructive as he has shown so many times.

Again, it is much more evident in tests. 12 50s and 12 100s for Sehwag in tests shows that when he gets going in tests, he goes on to score big. This going on to score runs when he has settled to the bounce of the wicket is not evident in one dayers with only 7 100s compared to 24 50s. The getting out shots trying to play too aggressively which Sehwag does in ODIs is transparent when we look at that stat. He is never at ease in ODIs compared to tests because of the approach he takes in ODIs compared to tests despite seemingly looking the same when he bats in ODIs and tests.

Kesavan is one of my favorite cricket writers. I recommend his new blog and am looking forward to his new book (Men in White). I almost always find myself nodding to whatever Kesavan says. Here too, it is no different and I firmly believe he is right. My thoughts are similar on this and has been for quite a while.

Kesavan says in his latest piece, slow death of Indian cricket:

Most of my son’s classmates find greater pleasure in watching Thierry Henry, a Frenchman who captains a London club, Arsenal, than in watching Rahul Dravid turn out for India. The boys in his class who aren’t fixated on Arsenal are obsessed with Manchester United and someone called Rooney who looks worryingly like an Eighties model skinhead. I could be wrong, my sample could be too small, but I think we’re seeing a shift in the sporting culture of metropolitan Indian schoolboys of a particular class. They’re seceding from international cricket and offering their enthusiasm and loyalty to English league football.

Cricket is no longer the holy sport it once was. We had a half empty stadium at Eden Gardens for India-Windies, even India-South Africa. Cricket has competition now from football not just in the form of EPL but nationally as well. Zee Sports are doing a great job of broadcasting football and there are some very positive steps being taken for the development of the game. Football has strong roots in the country (Bagan-East Bengal sees crowds of over 1,00,000, Goa-Bengal rivalry in the sport is strong) and I do see India improving in due course - upon which the popularity will soar. Then, there are other sports which are being marketed in innovative styles - hockey in the form of PHL, chess is ever so strong among a section and shooting is gaining in profile every day.

A very significant factor is that it is impractical to follow 5 days of test cricket. If some one has 35 hours of free time in a week, he will much rather go on a holiday than sit in front of the tv. Cricket is still a spoilt son because it enjoys monopoly but I see genuine competition because of football - signs of which we are already seeing.

It isn’t a death for Indian cricket though the way I look at it. It is competition which is always a good thing because competition improves standards and gives people kicks in the backs like little else can manage to. Test cricket though it seems, is losing out and will lose out further in this fast paced world - some thing which did not seem to effect the crowds 10 years ago in Indian grounds. As a lover of test cricket and a fellow cricket tragic, I do moan the slow death as well.

Four bowlers is some thing the Indian management might be consdering or might do well to consider. Just a couple of days ago, Chappell mentioned that Tendulkar should bowl more. Ganguly, Sehwag and Tendulkar can definitely fill in 10 overs. We didn’t do too badly in World Cup 2003 playing 7 batsmen.

Another aspect is that when we play Powar, he might add some thing to do tail batting but it would be just that and not much more. He is not some one who is that strong with the bat to rely upon that much. His List A batting average is 18 or some thing after 75 plus matches - not that great.

So, playing 5 bowlers with Pathan and Powar filling in the role of the extra batsman is not a very reliable option. I would go in with 4 bowlers myself even if we do not have Sehwag (he shouldn’t be selected just because he can bowl) with Tendulkar and Ganguly filling in the 5th bowler’s role and Yuvraj Singh bowling where necessary.

Sehwag, Pathan were poor but weren’t dropped till very late and after Pathan was brought back, we might bring back Sehwag as well. The selection committee under More had erred while picking the teams. Indian preparation for the world cup has been left till too late.. We have to resort to try out Uthappa right now and even if he has a few good innings and a few bad ones, we cannot assess his reliability as we would like. Then there is Gambhir of course.

That many players were pretty poor in the last 18 months holds little weight because the team management and selectors were pretty rigid regarding specific players (Ganguly comes to mind instantly as does Kumble) when they should have tried the players who had been too good to ignore in the past or who looked promising enough. Australia rested a few players for the Champions Trophy for instance to get their team right as they approached the world cup.

Now, we have this situation where two players - Pathan is being tried again and Sehwag might be played as well just because we do not know how x y z players are because there isn’t much time to give x y z players a proper run. The Indian selection policies over the past 18 months or so have been a joke. I am blaming the Kiran More lead committee and not the Vengsarkar lead committee here.

The Vengsarkar lead selection committee are fixing the damage as much as possible and have done a good job of it. They brought back players, have tried people (even Jaffer in South Africa was at least an attempt to get things right). Some things have clicked while others haven’t and that is fair enough. What isn’t fair though is that crucial world cup spots like who will open will be decided based on what pans out in the next four games versus Sri Lanka.

It is an emotional roller coaster the youngsters particularly could have done well to do without because such shorter runs harm more than build players. That the moves of the new selection committee seem to be working is a very good sign though and augurs well for India for the world cup. It is a circus Indian cricket would have done well to avoid.

Here’s what my team would look like -

AC Gilchrist
SR Tendulkar
IVA Richards
BC Lara
RT Ponting
MG Bevan
Imran Khan (c)
RJ Hadlee
CEL Ambrose
J Garner
Murali

Some spots were easy to fill in while others had close competition. Gilchrist and Tendulkar opening is a dream pairing at the top. Richards at number 3 has extra ordinary stats and he walks into the team as well.

Lara is a much better batsman statistically at number 3 and Ponting bats higher up as well. However, some accommodations have to be made given that it is a world XI and all the best players cannot bat in their favorite positions. Dean Jones just misses out.

Bevan at six walks right into the team as well. Maybe Hussey will challenge Bevan for this spot after a few years (or some one else in the all-time XI) but right now, it is too early to consider Hussey.

For the all rounder of the team, Imran Khan brings much more to the table compared to a Kapil Dev, Chris Cairns or even some one like a Lance Klusener. That he was an inspirational leader and would be the automatic choice to captain the team adds further weight to his selection.

The bowling spots provided a bit more stiff competition. I went for Hadlee, Ambrose, Garner and Murali ahead of McGrath, Akram, Warne and Saqlain. I cannot look past Ambrose and Garner. The mean and tall bowlers would never give an easy run (as evident by their economy rates). Bowling together, they would be capable of causing problems to most opposition.

Then, there is Hadlee v Akram. Hadlee’s ODI bowling is phenomenal as is Akram’s. Hadlee’s stats: Ave of 21.56 and eco of 3.30. Now even in an era where runs were not scored that fast, an economy of 3.3 is amazing, not to forget the average. Add to that, the batting of Hadlee is stronger (batting average - 21.61). Hadlee offers more than Akram for me. Given also that the tail of my team is pretty weak batting wise (Ambrose, Garner, Murali), some one like Hadlee at 8 is a better option.

Where the spinner’s spot is concerned, Saqlain could have been in with a real chance had he played much more. Where Murali v Warne is concerned, it is a close call. Warne brings in more to the team in the batting department. However, Murali’s bowling average (23.07) compared to Warne’s (25.73) sneaks it for Murali.

The one possible weak aspect of the team is less variation in the fast bowling department. Akram could make the ball talk even on the flattest of wickets while McGrath could test the best of the batsmen not just because of pace. I decided to go in with what I thought would be the most dangerous bowling attack. The Windies of the 70s and 80s didn’t have that much variety in their attack but they did the job.

However, on a subcontinent or a flattish wicket, where tail batting would not be needed as much, I could probably replace Hadlee and bring in Akram and McGrath for Hadlee and Ambrose respectively. Similarly, on a pitch where quite a few wickets are likely to fall and where a bit more spine in the tail is needed, Warne could replace Murali.

There would always be Jonty Rhodes as the 12th man of course.