quantumofsport.com

Murray’s worries for 2011 – or Who can stop Nadal?

Andy Murray has said that he needs to get ‘physically stronger’ and to ‘improve his game’ if he is to challenge world number one Rafael Nadal. That seems a worryingly broad (if honest) prescription for a man who harbours hopes of winning a slam title. I do declare that the Scot must break his slam duck in 2011 or I fancy that his chance will have passed – age will increasingly become an issue with every year that passes, as will a building sense of unfulfilled expectation. Is Murray gradually running out of things he can change as he tries to make the transition to slam winner? Murray does appear to have the credentials to pick up a slam, but he needs to find himself in the right place at the right time and make sure he capitalises. Unfortunately for him, there are a number of reasons why 2011 could be a tough year to make the breakthrough. I offer three:

- Nadal: At the time of writing, odds of 11-1 to 16-1 were being given for Nadal to win all four slam tournaments in 2011. Those are pretty short odds in my book for a feat as great and improbable as the season Grand Slam, reflecting the Spaniard’s exceptional form. Could he pull it off?
- Djokovic: His fine run at the US Open appeared to confirm the Serb as the man most likely to pose a threat to the Nadals and Federers of this world – Djokovic, as things stood at 20 September, was ranked world number 2, one spot above Federer. Murray, ranked 4th, was much further behind Federer in terms of the points-gap than he was ahead of the dangerous Robin Soderling in 5th.
- Del Potro: Let us not forget the injury-hit Argentine. If fit, as one observer not unreasonably puts it, “Juan Martin Del Potro, more than Robin Soderling, Roger Federer, Andy Murray, or Novak Djokovic, is the player on tour that could challenge Rafael Nadal for Slams”.

John Higgins: A fitting punishment?

As snooker chalks its cue for the new-look World Open running from September 18 to 26 in Glasgow, we know that one man will not be taking part – three-time world champion John Higgins. The Scot – still officially ranked world number one at the time of writing – has been suspended and fined following an enquiry into match-fixing allegations and News of the World revelations about a meeting in Kiev at which an approach was made to discuss throwing frames for money (see BBC report here). The Higgins verdict makes for an interesting (if intricate) case study and may be of interest to other sports that are trying to stamp out the threat of links to illegal betting activities. The question, in particular, is whether the punishment handed down to Higgins fits the crime.

A statement from the WPBSA (World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association) said that there had been “no dishonesty on the part of John Higgins” and accordingly the match-fixing allegations had been withdrawn. Higgins was however disciplined for “intentionally giving the impression to others that he was agreeing to act in breach of the betting rules” and for “failing to disclose promptly to the Association full details of an approach or invitation to act in breach of the betting rules”. Higgins was banned for six months (starting from the initial suspension on May 2, 2010) and was fined £75,000 plus costs of £10,000. He also agreed to play a leading role in a new educational programme for snooker players, which will form part of a planned Integrity Unit.

The fine may not sound very big for a man at the top of his trade. Yet when you think about it there is not all that much money sloshing around in snooker compared to other sports. The World Snooker website shows that Higgins won a little over £150,000 in Tour prize money for the 2009/10 season. He may, I speculate, have earned more than that taking into account other appearance/sponsorship money. But from that one must deduct taxes and costs – a bill of £85,000 probably represents a significant proportion of his net income. The suspension may have an even greater overall impact career-wise, in terms of loss of prize money and ranking points, and potential longer-term consequences for match form and reputation. It may be noted – albeit in different circumstances (as recounted here) – that a season-long ban ultimately put paid to the career of the late snooker legend Alex Higgins (no relation of John). A downward trajectory can be difficult to reverse.

I do not take it upon myself to pronounce on the appropriateness of Higgins’ punishment. Some will be critical of tabloid meddling; on the other hand some may feel that absolute zero-tolerance is required for a sport to be seen to be beyond reproach, to retain its credibility. I merely observe that, had the punishment been any more severe (if, in particular, a longer ban had been imposed), it would not be implausible to argue that Higgins’ career had been dealt a serious, possibly even fatal blow. As it is, he has suffered a blow, but it looks like the way is clear for the Wizard of Wishaw to be back on the baize sometime soon.

DEAR BERNIE: re Italian GP 2010 – Alonso’s red letter day

Dear Bernie,

Ernando Falonso’s victory for Prancing Horse today at Monza thrusts the Spaniard back into contention for the 2010 F1 title. But I think it could have even deeper, longer-term significance for the F1 landscape. In my humble opinion, Falonso had disappointed thus far in the F-squad hot-seat, appearing error-prone and whiney. Had things continued that way, I wonder at what point his employers and the demanding Italian fans would have started to grow uneasy, given the high expectations he brought to the team. But this win should cement his place in the hearts of the tifosi, giving him additional confidence and galvanising the Horse. Ultimately history may show that this was a key moment in Falonso’s Ferrari career – confirming him not just as a contender for this year but perhaps even as the main F1 danger man for the years ahead. That sounds like a bold statement to make on the back of a single race, in the midst of a highly competitive season. Yet in due course I fancy there could be scope for an alpha male to stamp his authority on the current crop of drivers, to establish a durable aura of invincibility – to be the Total Package. Who could occupy that sort of space? Hewis Lamilton has always had the talent and speed but the rashness of youth resurfaced in Monza with his early self-inflicted exit. Among other notable names, Vebastian Settel is quick but not the finished article. And legendary old-stager Schumi increasingly looks past it. Others – Jutton, Nosberg, Mebber – are useful, certainly. A Rubica may one day have his chance. But, I wonder, will they be challengers without fail year after year? Like it or not, Falonso might just have become the Man Most Likely...

US Open tennis: Clijsters v Zvonareva – a match not to stay up for

When this website last carried an item on ladies’ tennis, from the 2010 French Open, the title was Schiavone v Stosur – a match to love. Regrettably the 2010 US Open final was nothing like as entertaining, as a decidedly one-sided encounter saw the impressive Kim Clijsters of Belgium dismantle Vera Zvonareva of Russia in barely an hour of play, 6-2 6-1. Even more regrettably, out of some kind of odd devotion to the ladies’ game, yours truly actually stayed up into the small hours (European time) to watch it. File under: “I stayed up so you didn’t have to”. It did not look such a bad call as both players appeared to settle into an early rhythm. But the weight of the Clijsters shot soon began to take its toll as the error count and frustration started to build on Zvonareva’s side of the net. Zvonareva is an entertaining player to watch and a player of no little talent, but she was comprehensively dismissed here. A brief dip in Clijsters’ concentration prompted a spirited fight from the Russian for the fifth game of the second set, but it was in vain and the inevitable conclusion was mercifully swift. In hindsight, the Belgian’s three-set semi-final victory over Venus Williams was every bit the de facto final in this tournament. Clijsters now possesses three Grand Slam singles titles (all at the US Open) and must take great credit for her successes on the hard courts of Flushing Meadows. But frankly this mismatch was a disappointing advert for the ladies’ game, a disappointment merely accentuated by the reminder of glories past provided by the pre-match appearance on court (to assist with the coin toss) of Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova. Or was that just some kind of bizarre fatigue-induced hallucination?

Sport: an era without eras

We are living in a time in which the sun is setting on some mighty eras of sporting dominance. Several great champions whose achievements have dominated the record books year after year have now had their day, or at least their best days appear to be behind them. All the while, mythical epochs of the past in which earlier legends reigned supreme are becoming an ever more distant memory, leaving us to grapple with the uncertainties of the present. This, at least, is the conclusion I am coming to as dusk descends on this grand summer of sport. And, with big stars on the wane, I am wondering whether we might become disoriented...