A quizzical US Open preview

With the 2011 US Open nearly upon us, and the men's singles draw done, it is customary for a tournament preview. But rather than my usual rolling out of docile and ultimately inaccurate opinions on who's on form, who will win and who to watch out for, I thought I'd find out the right answers first, then make you do the work. 

Rafa later regretted agreeing
to do the quiz himself

That's right, it's a US Open quiz (mostly focussed on Djokovic, Nadal, Federer and Murray), combining my geeky love for stats with my obsessive love for tennis, and hopefully producing some vaguely interesting facts to raise an eyebrow or induce a "really?". The real dream for a quiz creator is for the quizee to google (other search engines are available) something because they find it so astonishing that it can't possibly be true. (Not ideal if it turns out to indeed be too good to be true, but I'm sure that won't be the case here). Anyway, I digress. 


Happy being bemused, befuddled, bamboozled, bewildered and ultimately bored bowled over like a Lasith Malinga yorker. Answers at the bottom



1. Last year, Juan Martin Del Potro was reigning champion after his 5 set defeat of Federer in '09 - how far did he get defending his title? (2 points)


2. Which of the top 4 have lost the most number of matches at the US Open? (1 point) How many times has he lost? (1 point)

3. Put the top 4 in order of their all-time winning percentage at the US Open. (2 points or nothing)


4. How many double faults did Djokovic serve during last year's US Open? (3 points if you get it exact, 1 point if you're within 3)


5. This is the first US Open since which year that Federer has been seeded outside of the top 2? (2 points) Who was top seed that year? (1 point)

"Come on Roger, you know this!"

6. How many times in the last 4 years of Grand Slams (i.e. out of 16) have Federer/Djokovic been on one side of the draw with Nadal/Murray on the other side? (2 points - exact answer or nothing)


7. Which of the 4 was in the top 20 fastest servers at last year's US Open? (2 points) BONUS point for the speed of the serve

8. How many times in the Open Era has someone won the US Open without dropping a set? (Wimbledon has been won once, Aus twice, French five times) (2 points)

9. Which of the 4 made most line call challenges during last year's tournament? (2 points) BONUS point for the number of challenges

10. There has never been 8 different nationalities represented at the QF stage of the US Open. Which two countries had more than 1 player in last year's quarters? (1 point for each country)


11. Which player/players have a positive overall head-to-head record against the other 3? (2 points)

"I should have known that
Scotland wasn't the answer to 14."

12. Excluding JMDP in '09, who was the last man to win a Grand Slam other than the top 3? (1 point for the name, 1 point for the year + GS)

13. Which of the 4 won the US Open Boys' Singles title? (2 points) BONUS point for the year

14. After the USA, which country has the most Open Era US Open Men's Singles titles? (2 points)

15. Which is the only of the 4 to have lost more Grand Slam singles matches in a year than he won? (2 points)

BELOW ARE THE ANSWERS - I SINCERELY HOPE YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY SCROLLED DOWN TO CHEAT. 

I'M NOT ANNOYED AT YOU, JUST DISAPPOINTED. SLOW SHAKE OF THE HEAD

Post a comment with your score - if you've not done too embarrassingly that is. Maximum is 32 (35 if you get the bonus points too)




1. He was injured, so didn't compete in the tournament at all.


2. Nadal - he has lost 7 times (from 8 appearances). Djokovic, Federer and Murray have all lost 6 times. ND/AM from 6 appearances, RF from 11


3. Federer 90.32%, Djokovic 81.25%, Nadal 80%, Murray 73.91%


4. He made 28 double faults, the tournament leader was Verdasco with 36 but my favourite has to be Berankis, with 30 from just 2 matches!

5. 2002 - Lleyton Hewitt was top seed. Federer was 13th seed. Pete Sampras, seeded 17, was victorious

6. 15 of the last 16 Grand Slams have had that pattern. Roland Garros 2010 is the only time that it hasn't been Murray/Nadal on one side of the draw and Djokovic/Federer on the other side, despite constant variations in seedings

7. Andy Murray, with a 136mph serve.

8. Never - the US Open is the only Grand Slam to have never been won without the loss of a set

"I was right with all 23 challenges,
Hawkeye got the other 14 wrong"

9. Djokovic, with 23 (9 of which he was correct. Their successful challenge percentages were Nadal 46.67%, Djokovic 39.13%, Murray 35.29%, Federer 25%)

10. Spain and Switzerland with Nadal/Verdasco and Federer/Wawrinka respectively

11. Only Nadal. His record against the others is 45-24. Djokovic is 27-34, Federer 28-34 and Murray 16-24

12. Marat Safin - 2005 Australian Open. (not Gaston Gaudio at Roland Garros 2004 as I put first!)

13. Andy Murray 2004 - incidentally, Gael Monfils won all 3 of the other boys' Grand Slam titles that year 

14. Australia, with 6 (USA have 19 titles, Switzerland are third with 5, all Federer) 

15. Federer, in 1999, lost in the first round of Roland Garros and Wimbledon, while not playing in Aus/US

PS If you hated my quiz and thought it terribly dull or boring, please try this one then come back to me.

The Greatest Test side ever (in 2011 at least)

So that's that. Perhaps telling that a match in which India supposedly put up a bit of fight and showed some determination was still won by an innings and 8 runs, after an England declaration only 6 wickets down. Who knows how many England would have scored if Bresnan (series average 77), Broad (61) and Swann (18) had been let loose as well. Fortunately for India, we'll never know. A dramatic final day that just about summed up how India performed all series, OK in patches, generally dismal.


Lots of discussion about whether this series was more about England's awesomeness or India's awfulness. The reality is probably a bit of both, with all the usual stuff about thorough preparation, injuries etc. playing their part too. I believe that there are a few (billion) people in India who take a passing interest in cricket, and are a lot better placed to analyse their shortcomings currently, so I'll instead revel in England genuinely being the best at a major sport perhaps since Rugby Union in 2003. Full video here - WARNING: it is physically and emotionally impossible to ever get tired of watching this video.


And what better way that to get carried away and start making comparisons with the Aussies of the 90s/early 00s? And while I'm at it, I might just see how we'd get on against a World Test XI, as that's the great compliment paid to McGrath & co back in 2005. I've used the current ICC test player rankings but "massaged" my selection, to make it match up as a good player by player comparison, hopefully no controversial choices though! It is also quite difficult to just use the rankings as so many of the positions are taken up with Englishmen. For the Australian team, I've taken the 2006-7 Ashes squad because that is when I remember them being so utterly dominant and delivering a thrashing the like of which we've not seen since, well, today.


So the teams are: (I know I did a table, if you've read even a single blog post before you'll know I'm geeky, get over it)

	England 2011	Aussies 90s/00s	World XI 2011
1	Strauss (c)	Langer	De Villiers (SA)
2	Cook	Hayden	Watson (Aus)
3	Trott	Ponting (c)	Dravid (Ind)
4	Pietersen	Martyn	Kallis (SA)
5	Bell	Clarke	Tendulkar (Ind)
6	Morgan	Hussey	Chanderpaul (WI)
7	Prior (wk)	Gilchrist (wk)	Sangakkara (SL) (wk)
8	Bresnan	Lee	Johnson (Aus)
9	Broad	Clark	Morkel (SA)
10	Swann	Warne	Shakib (Ban) (c)
11	Anderson	McGrath	Steyn (SA)

My backside hurts. To be entirely honest, as I was putting together the Aussie team I came back to earth with an almighty bump. Stupid comparisons. I think a composite team made up of the 3 would probably look remarkably like the middle column *I don't actually think this, I'm just sulking cos Cloud 9 proved unaccommodating


Strauss/Langer/AB: Fairly evenly matched really, JL performed consistently for years, but Strauss adds something with the captaincy prowess. Difficult one to call. 
Cook/Hayden/Watson: Two destructive Aussies against one accumulative Englishman. Although Shane's bowling is a factor to consider, Hayden struck fear into any attack, especially on hard bouncy Aussie wickets.
Trott/Ponting/Dravid: A punter between two walls. Perhaps the most marked difference in styles of all our comparatives. Frankly absurd averages all 3 of them. I can't choose between the latter two but I guess Richard is a more entertaining choice
Pietersen/Martyn/Kallis: KP and Damien are both class but someone who averages 57 with the bat and only 32 with the ball in nearly 150 test matches gets into any team in history. That's Kallis by the way.
Bell/Clarke/Tendulkar: The poor guy only needed 9 more runs. I've little doubt that Sachin will get there one day but a testament that virtually every England fan seemed to want an opponent to score a century today.
Morgan/Hussey/Shiv: Not sure Eoin stands a lot of chance in this company. If you had Hussey and Chanderpaul in the same team it is possible they would simply never be bowled out.
Prior/Gilchrist/Sanga: Gilly was really the first wicketkeeper-batsman that seems to be so important in modern test cricket. Only a few genuinely class batsmen can combine the two skills, England have the very best in "the Sussex gloveman" (try finding any story about MP without that phrase) but AG was the first and best.
Bresnan/Lee/Johnson: Lee was (and to a lesser extent, is) class. Sheer pace, aggressive batting but top class sportsmanship. Bresnan may be yet to taste defeat (or even a draw), and Johnson has his days where he only bowls 2 wides an over but Brett wins this hands down.
Broad/Clark/Morkel: A bit of a weaker 3 and an opening for the English team. Is Broad finally developing into the top performer he promised to be in the 2009 Ashes? It could go a long way to helping us stay on top if he is.
Swann/Warne/Shakib: In my opinion Shane Warne is the best spin bowler ever. I know Murali took more wickets etc but the only bowler in the Wisden 5 cricketers of the century does it for me. He's also good fun in the commentary box.
Anderson/McGrath/Steyn: Jimmy and Dale are unbelievable bowlers, and would lead any attack they played in. But Glenn McGrath is another league altogether. So another one from the Aussies I'm afraid.


It looks like this then: Strauss, Hayden, Ponting, Kallis, Tendulkar, Chanderpaul, Gilchrist, Lee, Broad, Warne, McGrath.


I never liked cricket anyway. When does the tennis start again?

Typical England, we're so frail and inconsistent... Oh wait

It is clear that England are a weak, vulnerable and inconsistent team, relying on a few star players, most of whom aren't even English. That's why, after they scrape a win at Lord's purely by virtue of injuring their opponents, they just collapse in the face of a bit of pressure.


Put into bat in ideal conditions (a heavy cloud cover and irregular bounce), they can't even get to 125 without losing 8 wickets. A few lucky slogs and they scrape to a meagre 221. So much for challenging to be the best team in the world!


It was highly fortunate for England to be bowled out at that time, leaving India a difficult period in the evening on Friday. Mukund's wicket was a joke really, England using such gamesmanship like warming up before bowling, putting fielders in places where they could catch the ball and bowling quicker than 75mph. Just not on really.


Dravid & Laxman showed them how to bat - these are two class batsmen who know how to perform under pressure, not like Ian Bell or someone! There's no way he'd cope with being moved to a different position in the order during a match and having to overturn a deficit in classy style and go onto score big runs. Not a chance.


So then Stuart Broad managed to get a few tailenders out, conveniently taking advantage of the lack of DRS for LBW decisions. Frankly I'd rather not get a hatrick if it was achieved in such a manner. He should be ashamed of himself. How can you expect India to score 300+ in those circumstances, or any circumstances indeed?

Alastair Cook showing his true colours with another performance you'd expect from the so-called run-machine. I think he may require an MOT. 
Trott's wimpish injury (dislocated shoulder! I've had worse playing pro-evo) meant that Bell came in at 3, where we all know he can't bat. Fortunately he hardly scored any runs, and most of the runs he did get he did so by just wandering down the pitch as he felt like it and then crying to Mummy Flower when he was run out. Luckily for him, MS appears to stand for Majorly Soft or possibly Massive Sucker. There's been a lot of talk about how good it was of India to let Bell back into bat but there's a couple of things about that:


1) we always gave our younger brother two lives (*also, if he was out golden duck it "didn't count") - surely similar rules apply to such a diminuitive fella like Ian.
2) The overlooked but more significant demonstration of thoughtfulness came from the Indian bowlers, who, aware that Bell/Morgan probably didn't get much to eat during tea cos of the stress, dished up some lovely buffet bowling, on which the English(/Irish) feasted.

As well as the after-tea nutrition, there was a healthy and decidedly ample breakfast laid on for Bresnan and Broad. Despite this, England were only able to set a target of 478, which was really very get-able, after all, 3 times in test match history teams have chased down more than 200 runs at Trent Bridge, so why not another couple of hundred to set the record? 


Given that it was a reserve bowler who took most of the wickets in the second Indian innings, it doesn't really count and I'm sure that if Gamhir/Sehwag were there things would have been different. As it was, India didn't really make too much of an effort - fair play I suppose, always good to let the underdogs take a game or two. 


All in all, a very weak and inconsistent team at the moment - we'll be lucky to win another match this series. Heaven knows what will happen against West Indies next summer.


Anyway, here are the traditional (2nd match in a row) ratings that you're (both) clamouring for:
Strauss - 48 runs but another victory 4/10
Cook - I never rated him. Another couple of failures with the bat, now averages the lowest of all England players across the two games (CT/JA haven't been out) 0/10
Trott - joking aside, clearly wasn't fit in the second innings but somehow managed to score even less that Cook, I'll cut him some slack and go for 1/10
Pietersen - couple of decent knocks, looks in good touch really. 7/10
Bell - as discussed, very poor performance from him. As a result, only 9/10
Morgan - wasn't really there when we needed him 1st innings but was able to play like an ODI in the second for a good 70. 6/10
Prior - as per Eoin 6/10
Bresnan - 7 wickets (at 14 runs each) plus 101 runs isn't bad for a second stringer. May have earned himself a place for the 3rd test. 9/10
Broad - Another exceptional performance, made all the more impressive because he got his runs when we were seriously under the cosh and got his wickets when the game was running away from us. In other words, people like Bresnan and Bell did the damage, but were only able to because Broad had saved us from the brink. Worthy MotM 10/10
Swann - Oh Swanny, where are you mate? Decent and very important knock in the first innings but 97 runs for no wickets isn't the return you'd expect from the world's best spinner, even if the seamers were doing the job anyway. Let's hope it was just a bruised hand and not a sign of his form. 3/10
Anderson - quietly picked up 5 wickets in the match at only 26 and continues to lead the attack well. 7/10


Mukund - 3 runs probably isn't what the selectors were hoping for to be honest 0/10
Dravid - another century in vain, he must wonder why he bothers. Hopefully he won't at Edgbaston. That would help. A shame he couldn't put up a Wall when India really needed it on Monday. 8/10
Laxman - has threatened to really come good but not quite there yet. Again, went missing when his country need him. 6/10
Tendulkar - the wait for the hundredth hundred continues. And in this form, it may wait all summer. 6/10
Raina - the promised showed at Lord's was left thoroughly unfulfilled in Nottinghamshire by Suresh. If all you had to do was bowl a bouncer or two at him, it makes you wonder how he scored so many last test match. Very weak game for him 2/10
Yuvraj - offers a good option with the ball, especially with Habhajan bowling like a Dad trying to build his son's confidence with a few underarms, and can do damage with the bat but as with his whole career really, lacking concentration and consistency. Will surely make way for Gambhir and/or Sehwag. 62 and the wicket of Bell earn him 6/10
Dhoni - sadly no points for sportsmanship, which is a shame for MS, cos he sure isn't going to win any for his field placements or batting skills. The 4th Indian golden duck of the match and the final nail in the coffin. 0/10
Harbhajan - 67/1 doesn't look too bad really, given that the Turbanator is bowling a lot of unthreatening Ashley Giles at the moment. His only consolation is that Swann isn't doing much better. Nice little cameo with the bat though. 2/10
Kumar - Praveen is picking up a good number of wickets, he now has 13 for the series, second only behind Broad. But frankly, I can't help thinking he gets wickets mostly just because no-one else in the Indian team does. Still, you can't argue with 169/7 - 7/10
Ishant - five wickets in the match may seem like a decent effort, but at nearly 40 runs a pop, he probably won't be opening the bubbly. 4/10
Sreesanth - as with Ishant, 5 wickets, but at 42 runs each. Nothing to write home about and certainly nothing to threaten Zaheer's return should his hamstring return to full working order. 4/10


Team totals:
England - 62
India - 45


Prediction time:
It looked for a while as though my 100-150 run victory could be accurate. Little did I account for Tim Bresnan. India will be stronger with a bit of a break and a couple of big players to return but it would take a massive turn around to stop England securing the top spot in the ICC rankings next weekend. England to win again

The first test passed

A thumpingly convincing start to the series for England can only give us confidence going into Friday's second test. The fact that we've only been bowled out once in the last 4 test matches really has to be looked at positively.


Of course, India struggled with fitness/injury issues but I've said before, fitness is part of greatness - it's not unlucky that Zaheer pulls a hamstring if he's hardly played for 6 months and India haven't had a proper and thorough preparation. It amazes me that in an era with such detailed expertise on sports psychology, nutrition and preparation, cricketing schedules still seem to be put together poorly so frequently. Take England's post-Ashes timetable for a prime example. 


A comparison of the two teams shows how similar they are and yet how England were simply the superior team at Lord's:


Strauss - Mukund: Two left-handed openers, Strauss scored 54 runs, Mukund 62. Pretty similar games I'd say. 4/10 for them both
Cook - Gambhir: Two more lefty openers. Both absolute test match run machines who performed poorly at Lord's. Cook scored 13 off 63 balls - he only gets 2/10. Gambhir, with an injury in the second innings did OK, with 37 in total. He gets 3/10
Trott - Dravid: The parallels between these two hard grafting, battling number 3's are obvious. Awesome test match averages and an ability to hang in there matched in modern cricket only really by Chanderpaul. Trott put in 70 and 22, while Dravid was 103* in the first innings and a nagging 36 in the second. They score 7/10 and 9/10 respectively. 
Pietersen - Tendulkar: Two explosive, devastating and incredibly skilled batters. Two greats of the game - one has a long way to go to prove his true greatness, but took a massive step here. One has no critics to answer but bluntly put, performed poorly in this match. Sachin is of course the legend but in this contest, it was Pietersen who was the match-winner. KP 10/10, ST 4/10
Bell - Laxman: Another pair of remarkably similar batsmen, with beautiful stroke-making and a stylish and crowd-pleasing technique. Yet both are prone to a lapse in concentration and such was the case at Lord's. VVS threw away a strong start in the second innings with a lazy swipe, fitting that it was his opposite number who nonchalantly plucked it out of the air. Bell 4/10, Laxman 5/10
Morgan - Raina: Two lefties who have made their name in limited overs cricket and have serious potential in the test arena. Raina showed good form in the second innings (and particularly benefited from India vetoing DRS on LBW decisions). Eoin played an important role in stopping the second innings rot but contributed only 19 runs so scores just 2/10. Suresh gave India hope for a while but his 78 proved to be in vain but for scoring him 6/10 with me.
Prior - Dhoni: Another easy comparison, two aggressive wicketkeeper batsmen. Only this time out, it was only Matt Prior who dominated with the bat, as well as being the better keeper. 178 runs, including an unbeaten century in extremely difficult circumstances, compared to a mere 44 from MS means the Sussex gloveman scores 10/10 and the Indian captain takes home just 3/10 alongside his excuses.
Swann - Harbhajan: two top-class off-spinners who can bat aggressively. Swann did a great job, adding 24 quick runs in his only innings, Habhajan looked thoroughly uncomfortable with the bat and scored just 12 across his two innings. With the ball, Swann returned only 114/2 but his Indian equivalent took just 208/1, at nearly 2 runs per over more as well. No question who wins this match-up. The best spinner in the world 6/10. The Turbanator just 1/10.
Broad - Zaheer: I know I've played about with the order but these two top class bowlers came into the game with question marks over their heads. One off form and the other unfit. Broad returned to form, Zaheer most definitely did not return to fitness. Even if ZK makes it to Edgbaston officially not injured, he is certainly not going to be at the height of fitness. Broad played exceptionally, with bat and ball, so scores 9/10 while Zaheer's brief bowling spell in the first innings earns him a 4/10. May seem harsh but there's no prizes for  bowling a couple of early strikes before leaving the alley.

Tremlett - Sharma: Two tall bouncy pace bowlers that had mixed games. Tremlett was somewhat overshadowed by his colleagues' feats but 124/4 isn't exactly a poor performance. Especially not when you see that Ishant took 187/4 - one good spell can win you a match but apparently not this time. Tremmers 7/10, Ishant 6/10
Anderson - Kumar: The two swing bowlers (I know, I've really played with the order but it's their bowling that matters). Both found their names engraved on the Lord's Honours Board for 5 wicket hauls - Over the two innings, Kumar took 176/6 but the new world number 2 bowler came home with figures of 152/7 and a truly match-winning display on day 5, taking the not insignificant scalps of Dravid, Laxman, Tendulkar and Raina (total test match average if you're wondering, 194). Jimmy scores 9/10, with Praveen a very decent 8/10. 


I'm sure the Will Huntings among you have worked it out already but this leaves the total scores, out of 110 of course as follows:


England = 70
India = 53


There's been a lot of talk about India being slow starters, and I know well enough how England can collapse after an early good performance (see Perth 2010 vs Aus, Headlingley 2009 vs Aus, The Oval 2010 vs Pakistan), but there's every reason to be confident. If the batting can keep up its recent consistency, I can only see one winner. England by 100-150 runs or by 5-7 wickets

The (multi)national pastime of choking

I am an avid English sports follower, in all three of the following senses:
a) a follower of English sports
b) an English follower of sports, and perhaps most pertinently, 
c) an English follower of English sports

So, when, in my imperial arrogance, I assume that we should be capable of winning every sporting event we enter and am subsequently let down but abject unlucky failure, I can't help but wonder why.

Links golf proving tough for Donald

I was most recently prompted to think about it by the entertaining British Open Championships. Well done Darren by the way. If we glance at the current world rankings, one can't help but notice positions 1 and 2 being held by Englishmen. Yet neither Westwood nor Donald seems able to perform much better in Majors than their slightly less orthodox namesakes may have been able to.

Westwood hits the decks

The last time an Englishman won a Major was Nick Faldo at the 1996 Masters so perhaps we're just chokers - even when we're the best in the world we can't win the biggest tournaments. When was the last time an English football team won a seriously tough match at a major tournament? You could say , Argentina 2002 with Beckham's so called redemptive penalty but that's a Tina that went out in the groups after failing to beat Sweden, certainly not Germany during Euro 2000 as they were eliminated with just a single point (against Romania) - so how far back do we need to go? Spain on penalties in Euro 1996, maybe the Dutch 4-1 during the group stages? Italia '90 it must be, we got to the Semi's, but played Cameroon (aet) and Belgium (aet) in the knockout stages. I am going to suggest the following:


England have not won a genuinely difficult and significant match in a major tournament since the World Cup Final of 1966.


As true as I believe that statement to be, it wasn't really the purpose of this blog. Rather than the typical English-sport-slating of every journalistic outlet in our green country (I mean literally, lots of grass & fields, not inexperienced, or jealous, or even environmentally friendly), I am going to suggest that a mental frailty or predisposition towards choking under pressure is no more of an English trait than football or tea are originally English inventions.

Who did Faldo beat in the '96 Masters? Greg 'The Shark' Norman - an Aussie. Famous for their determination to win, competitive mentality and strength of self-belief. Yet, leading by 6 shots going into the last round, he managed to play one of the worst final rounds seen until Rory's own version earlier this year. How could an Aussie choke like that?

In cricket, South Africa have consistently one of the strongest ODI teams, combining aggressive but reliable batters with economical but wicket-taking bowlers. They always have good numbers of all-rounders and are always among pre-tournament favourites. Yet they are always labelled chokers and always live up to their label as the tournament unfolds.

What about New Zealand? The All Blacks strike fear into the hearts of their opponents, and not just because of the Haka or Jonah Lomu - they are the strongest, fastest, most powerful and technically gifted rugby union team in the world and have been ranked No 1 in the world for nearly 3/4 of the entire time the rankings have existed. Yet every four years they somehow conspire to fail to win the tournament. We can only dream that this autumn will be the same old story.


USA's women were overwhelming favourites to win the World Cup a record 3rd time, but twice threw away the lead before producing 3 awful penalties to hand the tournament to Japan. Apparently "choke" is the wrong word so perhaps we'll just say that they bottled it.

Asafa Powell, one of the fastest men in history, regularly putting in incredible times, doesn't produce the goods when he's up against Tyson Gay or Usain Bolt - is he choking under the pressure of the big occasion? There innumerable occasions when other individuals or teams have collapsed at crucial moments. And, until only recently, the Spanish national team were routinely ridiculed for underperforming at major tournaments.

So my list of choking nationalities thus far includes the following: England, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, USA, Jamaica and Spain. This blog is already too long so I won't go on but I think we can safely say, it's not just an English thing. Is it about a bloody-minded, winning drive? Let me ask you... is that what this picture says to you?

Perhaps I'm sporting romantic (that's not a romantic person who's sporty by the way) but I reckon that in the end, talent will win. Spain are easily the best team and now they win everything. Rory choked massively at the Masters but proceeded to dominate the USPGA like no-one since Tiger had done. I'm no sports psychologist but it seems to me that if you are capable of winning, you most likely will.