Can Rafa get to 18 Slams?

After Rafa's stunning US Open campaign, the question on everyone's lips is whether he can go onto break the record for male Grand Slam winners. At the moment Roger Federer holds the record with 17, and it's widely accepted now that he is highly unlikely to add to that tally given his showing at the last couple of majors. As of the other night, Rafa now has 13 Slams: 1x Aus, 8x Fre, 2x Wim, 2x US, and needs another 5 to hold the record out on his own.

He now has an unparalleled 9 consecutive years with at least 1 Grand Slam victory (incidentally he also holds a similar unmatched record for 9 consecutive years winning a Masters Series/1000 Series title), and not many would bet on 2014 breaking that streak. 

It doesn't take an expert tennis analyst (luckily for me) to recognise that the main thing standing in Rafa's way is likely to be his own fitness. Over the last 5 years or so, he has been decidedly held back by recurring injuries, and in particular tendonitis in his knees. The chances of him being fully fit for all of the slams over the next 2 or 3 years seem slim at best. 
If there was less competition then he might be able to cruise to the odd title but with Murray and Djokovic (as well as the likes of JMDP, Wawrinka, Berdych, even Federer) around, he will have to be at his best to win a Slam. Even then it might not be enough.

There has been lots of talk about this being one of the best years in tennis history but just a couple of months ago he was knocked out of Wimbledon in the first round. Then, all of the discussion was about Nadal's knees and his ability to play on surfaces other than clay.

At most he is likely to have 3 years left at the very top, before the physical nature of his play restricts his chances of claiming the biggest prizes, even on clay. That means potentially just 12 more chances. Can he win 5 of them to enhance his claim to be considered the greatest ever? Only time will tell.


Geeky statto alert:

It is interesting (I appreciate this is a subjective term) to look at the ages of Grand Slam winners. The below graph shows the progression in terms of slam victories for each of the best known major winners.

You should be able to click on the graph to open it up and see more, but here are a few highlights that I thought were interesting. 

1) Aged 27, only Federer had more Slams than Rafa.
2) At 25 years old, Federer and Borg had 11 Slams, Sampras and Rafa 10. Borg retired without winning another, Pistol Pete kept going for years longer and added a consistent 1 per year, and then another aged 31.
3) Djokovic is considered one of the greatest and aged 25 he was behind only McEnroe (who didn't win another), and the above 4. He hasn't won one as a 26 year old yet so he's got a long way to go to catch up those in double figures.
4) Murray's slow start to winning Slams, mirroring his coach Lendl, is demonstrated as well, with the two of them being the oldest to claim their maiden slams from this list.
5) Agassi won more than half of his Slams after he turned 28, so there could yet be lots to come from RN/ND/AM all moving into the 2nd half of their careers.
6) I'm really geeky

PS I sort of just chose players who are best known for the chart, and left off the likes of Laver/Rosewall who won Slams both pre and post-Open era because it was too confusing.

Indianapolis Colts 2012: The Storybook Season

The story of the 2012 Indianapolis Colts season may just be the inspiration for one of those "based on a true story" movies in a few years time. I appreciate that neither of my readers will be overly well versed with the gridiron world but last season my own passion for American Football has soared and it's due in no small part to the aforementioned Colts.

I've followed them for many years, from the dismal dark days of the late 90s when I decided I needed to support a team in every league in every sport, through the glory years of Peyton Manning, right up to the present day. Admittedly with varying levels of passion and interest, they have nevertheless remained unquestionably my team.

Peyton Manning is without doubt one of the greatest quarterbacks ever to play the game. By sheer numbers, he is 2nd in history for touchdown passes and completed passes, and 3rd for total passing yardage (and he's got a few years left in him). You have to scroll down on his Wikipedia page to see all of the NFL records he holds. Needless to say, he has been a somewhat significant figure for the Colts the last dozen years.

Then Manning was out injured for the entire 2011 season, and the Colts won just 2 games all season. They had the worst record of everyone in the league, and then, having got back to full fitness, Manning left to go to the Denver Broncos.

So there was relatively limited optimism going into the 2012 season, with most commentators expecting a mediocre display of rebuilding at best. What followed was an pretty remarkable and dramatic storyline of a season.

At the NFL Draft, the Colts secured the top college prospect quarterback, Andrew Luck, as part of wholesale changes that saw them start the season with a huge number of rookies on the roster. He proved to be an incredible success, setting a number of rookie quarterback records, and leading the Colts to the 3rd largest turnaround in NFL history from one season to the next. From winning 2 games in 2011, they won an impressive 11 in the 2012 regular season (more than Superbowl champions Baltimore Ravens). 

This outstanding season included a remarkable number of 4th quarter comeback wins and game-winning drives, the highlight of which was a simply outstanding victory against the Detroit Lions, from 33-21 down with less than 3 minutes left. 

This relative success from minimal expectations was set against the backdrop of Head Coach Chuck Pagano being diagnosed with leukaemia at the beginning of the season. The heartstring-tugging story of his fight against cancer united the entire city under the slogan 'Chuckstrong', leading to moving demonstrations of support such as cheeerleaders shaving their heads. His emotional return late in the season had virtually the entire NFL welling up.

In Pagano's absence, up stepped offensive coordinator Bruce Arians. In the 12 games he was at the helm, the Colts won 9, and when the season ended, Arians was rewarded with coach of the year in recognition of his achievement in the face of such circumstances. Then, having made it the playoffs against all the odds, Arians was hospitalised and absent for the clash against the Ravens.

It was there that it finally came to an end. Like the end of Cool Runnings, it wasn't a fairytale victory but a respectable and dignified defeat, to the eventual Superbowl Champions (who had their own destiny-fulfilling storybook ending to come). 

And so the 2013 season begins this weekend with much optimism. Andrew Luck is a year older and stronger, Chuck Pagano is in remission and back at the helm, NFL general manager of the year Ryan Grigson (like a Director of Football) overseeing what will hopefully be another hugely successful season. 

English lambs before the Aussie slaughter

You don't have to be Glenn McGrath to know that England have very little chance in the remainder of this series. The dominant Australia batsmen, coupled with their prolific wicket-taking attack will surely be too much for the meagre poor English lambs. Putting aside all emotion and subjectivity, the positive thinking for which us Brits are famed, is there any hope for us?

Yes we have scraped through two matches thus far, reliant on a potent and controversial combination of dubious umpiring decisions, dodgy technology and being better than Australia. There's only so long though that we can rely on greater skill and application, and surely this Thursday will be the time for Australia's brilliance to become apparent. The question must be whether there is anything we can do to stop the surely inevitable demolition?

Let's look at the facts:

- England only have 3 batsmen averaging over 40 in the series. I appreciate that Australia only have 3 over 30, and one of those (Pattinson) is out injured for the rest of the series and the other is a teenage spin bowler, but that won't matter.

- England have no replacement for the likely absent Pietersen. Of course, James Taylor will play but I don't see him scoring any runs against the Australians.

Waterboy or run-machine?

- David Warner is back. Guaranteed to knock get Joe Root out, and fresh from a massive 193 against the mighty South Africa A, he's sure to be a threat. After all, prior to that innings he had scores of 6, 11, 9, 0, 0, 2, 0, 44, 4 and 13. Devastating stuff for England to fear.

- Australia have the series record for the opening, 9th and 10th wicket partnerships. England may have the highest partnership for all the other wickets, but it's how you start and end that matters isn't it?

I think we can all agree that we're in serious trouble. Just because we've won the first two matches, have the better batting line-up, bowling attack, experience and confidence, surely nothing can stop the organised and professional Aussies. 

Why Do We Support Who We Do?

At work, we've done a sweepstake on the Women's Euro 2013 tournament in Sweden. To be honest, we love a sweepstake and organise one for virtually any (major) event, so that's probably not much of a surprise. Sports events, baby weights, how late someone will come back from lunch, you name it we sweepstake it. And yet despite the inane nature of them and the almost laughable sums of money to be won, they seem to stir an astonishing loyalty in me for teams I scarcely knew existed much less supported.

This spring I found myself quite unexpectedly a die-hard Kolkata Knight Riders fan for the IPL 2013 campaign. Despite the fact that a few weeks before I had had to do comprehensive research before I could even a name an IPL team, I genuinely cared what happened in KKR's games. I was frustrated by Yusuf Pathan getting out early, Kallis scoring too slowly, Gambhir never converting a start and the failure to select Lee or Ten Doeschate. I downloaded the app and had ITV4 on constantly. My point being, I became a real fanatic. Sadly, the reigning champions and theoretical challengers for the title ended a dismal 6-10 record and early elimination.

Then comes the Women's Euros over the last couple of weeks. The sweepstake is organised, the team names on the bits of folded paper inside the mug. I draw France. Now my knowledge of women's football was such that I knew the USA were the best, and that England were decent, but beyond that, couldn't exactly claim to be an expert. A quick bit of research and I realise France are pretty decent and in with a shout. £16 here I come. Then, when it all came to an end against a stubborn and organised Danish team in the quarterfinals, I found myself genuinely disappointed (and not for the sake of £16 potential winnings).

The reason for my aimless ramblings is that it got me wondering how we come to form affiliations with teams, develop affections or even fanatical passion. It's probably fair to say that most people support a sports team of some description, whether that be football, cricket or tennis, club or national teams. And probably even more follow and support certain individuals in sports like tennis, F1, snooker or golf. 

Glory hunters...

With individuals it's often determined by their nationality (would anyone support Andy Murray if he wasn't British?), as much as by their personality or sporting prowess. But with club teams it can be apparently arbitrary but no less meaningful. Of course a lot support their "local" club (I use speech marks because that usually means the closest team that are good) but there seem to be all manner of other reasons as well - parents' teams, obscure links as a child, kit colour, favourite players etc. I decided to start supporting Sheff Wed around the age of 12 for no particular reason other than they were in the Prem and I didn't support anyone else. 

Most would agree that the most passionate/fanatical fans would tend to be those who have a geographic/nationalistic link to their team but there are unquestionably other reasons and factors that lead to fervent support. Why do you support who you do?

Not Bad for a Dying Format

Unquestionably man of the hour

Short of writing some kind of dissertation-length post, there is really going to be no way of describing what has taken place in Nottingham over the last five days. Generally with major sporting events you can't wait for the next match and struggle to imagine how you'll survive a few days' gap but in this instance I think we'll all be grateful for a bit of a rest so we can let our heart-rates stabilise. I imagine plant life across the UK suffered from all the lack of carbon dioxide in the air as most of the country has been holding its breath since Wednesday. Needless to say, it's was pretty dramatic right to the death.

From Starc's wayward first ball to the inevitable DRS-induced conclusion, this game had the lot. Batting collapses, spin, swing, reverse swing, a century, three 5 wicket hauls, a record partnership and record debut innings, a whole host of controversy and a desperately tight finish. If this match is setting the tone for the rest of the series then 2005 might have to rethink its title of "The Greatest Series". 

A somewhat enjoyable moment

I've scarcely seen a game with the team in the ascendancy changing so often. England started reasonably well, before collapsing to a meagre 215. Australia failed to capitalise, being skittled to 117-9 before debutant Agar (alongside Phillip Hughes) wrestled back the initiative. The Aussies were seemingly on top until Cook, Pietersen, Bell and Broad batted England into the lead again. What had appeared a total beyond the brittle Australian top order then seemed possible at 84-0, 111-1 and 161-3. A brilliant burst last night and consistent wickets this morning left an England win a near-certainty, before Haddin and Pattinson kept hearts in mouths until the last.

There's so much to choose from but here are my particular highlights:

1) Agar: not that he batted so well and isn't it great to see a young man doing so well etc. No, what I liked is that he got out 2 runs short of his century. Come on people, he's Australian (half at least), we have to be ruthless with them. If you don't think 2 runs can make a difference, just ask Michael Kasprowicz.

Unexpectedly gritty

2) Ian Bell: One of the most elegant, stylish batters who has long been seen as fair-weather, only scoring hundreds when conditions are good or England are on top. And yet, he's now joint 10th on the list of English test-centurions, level with Vaughan and Gower, ahead of Atherton, Hobbs, Sutcliffe.
3) This Aussie article which says that cricket won, not England, that pays a decidedly backhanded compliment to Bell, talks about the "inner grubbiness of the soul" in relation to Broad, the vulnerability of Finn, and suggests that no-one can really be sure if Haddin edged it or not. Ah Australia, this is what makes beating you so enjoyable. Hopefully you are going to have a full 6 months of learning how to be better losers.