One up and four to go

In a week of white-clad sportsmen vying for the attention of the British public, it was to Wales that our eyes turned as Scottish hope was eliminated from dreams of glory. A combination of Murray falling at the penultimate hurdle and England's relentlessly strong performance meant that success was to be found in the Welsh rather than English capital. It's hard to imagine how things could have gone much better for Alastair Cook and his team kicking the Ashes off, especially given the low expectations prior to the series. Those few glimmers of hope and encouraging signs against New Zealand came to fruition in four surprising and immensely enjoyable days.

With universal agreement that England as a team outplayed their Australian counterparts, how did the individuals on each side perform, and what does that mean for the rest of the series?

Adam Lyth - 6 & 37: Relatively mediocre performance and a significant part of England's top order issues. Took a couple of catches as the Aussies fell apart at the end but needs a big knock to put questions over his place in the team to bed. Performing when the chips are down, that will be the real challenge. 4/10

England's main area of vulnerability

Alastair Cook - 20 & 12: Actually seemed reasonably comfortable in both innings but evidently still not recaptured his best form or indeed confidence. A brilliant and critic-defying display of captaincy played a big part in the match win but to secure the series it's hard to imagine England not needing some runs from their senior opener. 4/10 batting 9/10 captain

Gary Ballance - 61 & 0: Like Cook, is still lacking the form which has seen him such a relentless run accumulator in the past. An impressive and gritty 61 in the first innings was exactly what England needed, especially as a foil to the more aggressive Root. A big innings may not be far off. 6/10

Ian Bell - 1 & 60: England's 2013 hero has been on such a dismal run of form that even a pressure-off 60 will be seen as a significant positive step. Hopefully more to come from the classy number 4. 6/10

Joe Root - 134 & 60, 28-2: The new 4th ranked test batsman is by far and away England's best, and most inspirational player. Digging England out of a hole in the first innings then piling on the pressure in the second, as well as chipping in with two wickets to finish it all off. Now has the 11th highest batting average in history (min 50 wickets) and will surely be an England great for years to come. 9/10

Ben Stokes - 52 & 42, 51-1 & 23-0: Went somewhat under the radar but played two very important innings without which England's totals would have been much less dominant. Is a solid rather than inspired bowler still at this stage but has such potential and I would expect there'll be at least one point in the series where he has a Flintoff-esque impact on a match. 7/10

Jos Buttler - 27 & 7, 3 catches: Bit of a nothing performance from Buttler really, decent enough with the gloves, never got going with the bat. England's need will be greater another day so it remains to be seen how he produces when that day comes. 5/10

Moeen Ali - 77 & 15, 71-2 & 59-3: A great all-round performance from Moeen who continues to improve in both aspects of his game. Australia had obviously decided to go after him so he'll need to tighten up when his role is just to contain but for now he functions well when Cook basically needs to buy wickets. Classy, occasionally explosive and brimming with potential batting-wise, this could be a defining series for the bearded spinner. 8/10

Stuart Broad - 18 & 4, 60-2 & 39-3: Broad appears to be back to his best with the ball, having great control and discipline, as well as intelligence and threat. Having plans for batsmen and then executing well, particularly with fuller-than-natural lengths. Still underperforming with the bat which could yet prove significant given how much of a contribution tailenders often make these days. 8/10

Mark Wood - 7* & 32*, 66-2 & 53-2: What a brilliant addition to the squad he's been. A genuine character and another who seems to genuinely enjoy his cricket and bring a bit of life to the team. A good back-up to Broad & Anderson, as well as apparently some skill with the willow as well. I hope Steven Finn enjoys county cricket because he won't be playing test matches any time soon. 7/10

James Anderson - 1 & 1, 43-3 & 33-0: Much like Broad, Jimmy appears to be right at the top of his game. The second best test bowler in the world has such control over the ball it's amazing he didn't take more wickets. On what was supposed to be a doddle to bat on, Anderson still had the Aussies guessing. 7/10

With England naming an unchanged squad and surely an unchanged starting 11, the signs are positive but the question will be how strongly Australia bounce back at Lords.

PS Australian team ratings to follow

What Now for Tennis' Big Five?

It's hard to know what to do with yourself on the days after a weekend of sports like that. French Open finals, Champions League final, Women's World Cup, NBA finals, Ireland - England friendly, Canadian Grand Prix, Gemili running sub 10 seconds and the Epsom Derby, as well as the ongoing FIFA and Salazar/Farah controversies. You get to the Monday and the only consolation is that we don't have to endure any more England friendlies until November. 

With so much sport, we might have hoped for a few upsets to keep us on the edge of our seats but instead of a few little ones, we got just one big hit. Sunday's blistering performance from Stan Wawrinka has shaken up the tennis hierarchy. He has of course shown his capability before but this was something new. Beating an injured Nadal on hardcourt is nothing compared to toppling Djokovic on a 28 game unbeaten run in a Slam final. So where does it leave the big 5 of the men's game?

Djokovic - unquestionably the dominant player of the tennis world and clearly ahead of anyone else. His consistency and quality will see him atop the rankings for a long time yet and most likely favourite for every major for the next two years. Still some mental frailties when things are against him but he's so good that it rarely matters in the end. Currently on 8 Slams, it's hard to see him getting to Federer's mark of 17, especially as he's so far only ever once (2011) won more than one in a season.

Federer - appears to be in a strange place now in his career. Retains the class and style of his younger years but lacks the consistency to genuinely threaten at the business end of slams. Losses to the likes of Seppi, Cilic, Gulbis, Robredo and Stakhovsky in the last 2 years suggest that he is likely to have to settle for 17 Slams. With nothing more to prove or achieve, but still world number 2 for now and still capable of beating anyone, he does genuinely appear to just enjoy being on the tour and playing tennis. Of course he'd love to win another big one but he's content enough making a mockery of those who say he should retire just because he's no longer the best.

Murray - what could prove to be a very significant spring for Murray, with a breakout claycourt season. Winning two clay titles, beating Nadal in Madrid and looking thoroughly comfortable on the dirt. In significant tournaments (Slams/1000 series) this year he has only lost to Djokovic. Likely to overtake Federer for No 2 in the world later in the summer and almost a certainty to add to his 2 Grand Slams at some point in the next year or so. Definitely worth a flutter on him to build on a high level of confidence with a second Wimbledon title in a month's time. Probably won't have quite enough to overhaul Djokovic to top the rankings but he may well run him close soon enough. 

Wawrinka - simply one of the best individual performances I've ever seen. Devastating striking of the ball on such a regular basis. We've seen success from the likes of Del Potro and Soderling in the past just thumping it as hard as possible but nothing like what Stan produced. He will continue to be a threat, particularly at Slams where he turns it up a notch but such high risk tennis will never lead to a very top ranking. 

Nadal - ah Rafa, what are we going to do with you? One of the most physical, powerful and dominant players in history is something of a shell of his former self. So often throughout his career he has been held back by injuries and at some point it might need to be considered that he's not going to recover fully. Few players define competitiveness as much as Nadal but does he have it in him to beat Djokovic and Murray, especially from a current ranking of 10th? I hope so, but I fear not. 

A Chance for Someone New?

With the US Open starting today, there has to be a chance of an outsider taking a debut Grand Slam title for the second time this year. None of the usual suspects are on top form and some of the next generation such as Raonic and Dimitrov are starting to turn potential into ability. Both reached maiden Slam semi finals at Wimbledon and in the near future that may well become victories. Flushing Meadows also has a tendency to be a productive tournament for players who only win one or two in their career. Rafter, Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Del Potro and Murray all won their first major in New York and none have managed more than 2 in total.

Perhaps it's because it's later in the season and so there can be fitness issues affecting the field. The fatigue element may well have played a part in Federer failing to win since the last of his 5 consecutive titles in 2008, aged 27. He has won each of the other Slams since he last triumphed in New York, but not even reached the final here. The Swiss star's dominance coming to an end has brought about a season of the title changing hands each year. The last 6 years have produced 5 different winners (only Nadal x2) and no-one has defended their title from the previous year. That trend will continue again with this edition with Nadal's withdrawal due to injury.

Nadal's absence means that since his Grand Slam debut aged 17 at 2003 Wimbledon, he has been missed 7 majors, including one in each of the last 3 years. To compare, Federer's debut was at Roland Garros 1999, also aged 17. Since then he has never been absent, missing out only 1999 US Open main draw by losing in qualifying. Tomorrow he will appear in his 60th consecutive Grand Slam. Nadal will not overhaul Federer's record of GS titles, because his absence (and injury) record limits how many he has the chance to win. Rafa has actually only won 1 Slam outside of Roland Garros in the last 4 years and it's pretty unlikely he'll still be at the top of his game when he's 32.

Normally you'd think that Nadal's absence would mean the title is pretty much a guarantee for Murray or Djokovic. As it happens, both have been on a fairly feeble run of form, the Scot losing in the QFs of his last 3 tournaments, the Serb in the last 16 of his last 2. Of course they will rise to the big occasion but in the significantly tougher side of the draw, (Djokovic, Wawrinka, Tsonga, Murray, Raonic, Isner), it will take a mighty turn of form for either of them to be holding the trophy aloft in a fortnight. Federer has shown at Wimbledon that he is still in the hunt for the majors and with a relatively weak route to the final (Karlovic, Fognini, Dimitrov, Ferrer), he may well put the American drought behind him. That being said, his performance the last two years doesn't fill you with confidence if you're a Fed fan (2013 Last 16 loss to Robredo, 2012 QF loss to Berdych). For once, none of the major players look like safe bets.

Hence why it might just be the time for a breakthrough from someone new...

Just how important are the ATP Tour Finals?

2012 Paris finalists

Just how important are the ATP Tour Finals?

With the Paris Masters starting this week, it offers a final chance for qualification to the ATP Tour Finals at the O2. There are 2 places still to play for, to be fought out between Federer, Wawrinka, Gasquet, Tsonga and Raonic. Haas, Youzhny and Almagro still have very slim hopes and need to win in Paris to even have a chance. It adds a new dimension to a tournament that otherwise can be a bit of a damp squib. For once, all of the major seeds (bar Murray due to injury) are participating and the final weekend could produce a top match (a slight contrast to last year's closing stages). 

Surprise entrant to 2008
Masters Cup finals

Which leads into the tour finals. It has been something of a mixed bag in recent years. The 2010 edition was the only year in recent history with the top 8 players actually competing, all of the others (including this year) having suffered at least one withdrawal, either before or during tournament. There was a ridiculous situation in 2008 when Nadal withdraw drew to fatigue and then Roddick pulled out after one match, having turned his ankle. This led to 26th ranked Radek Stepanek playing the final two group games (losing both), purely by virtue of being the highest ranked person prepared to travel to Shanghai. He was there without racquets, socks and even contact lenses. In 2009 Davydenko beat Del Potro in the final, but then it hit the heights with an amazing final between Federer and Nadal in 2010. 

In terms of ranking points, it is between Grand Slams and 1000 Series tournaments (like Paris this week), with a potential 1500 points to an undefeated champion (Grand Slams are 2000 points, 1000 series are (remarkably) worth 1000). So how much does it mean to a top player? How significant will they be looking back in history? Theoretically you wold think that a competition between only the game's elite would matter hugely in evaluating the quality of a player compared to his peers, but the reality is that the tournament is blighted by end-of-season fatigue and injuries.

Federer has won it 6 times and Djokovic twice, but Nadal has 0 wins and Murray's not yet even made a final. Of course the same old arguments arise about standard of opposition but the truth is that it's more to do with the fact that Nadal and Murray in particular are shattered by the end of a season and needing time to rest/recover for the next season. Fairly frequently Nadal/Djokovic are in the Davis Cup Final as well. 

In reality, a tournament that should be an absolute pinnacle and exciting climax to the season often fails to deliver and is unlikely to be considered a significant factor in considering players' legacies. Nevertheless, let's hope that this November's edition proves to be a classic. 

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.

The Final Flourish to a Fascinating Fortnight

I think we can agree that it's been an unusual Wimbledon fortnight. After defeating 2011 champion Petra Kvitova, Kirsten Flipkens described getting through to the semi finals as "ridiculous", and really that's not a bad word to summarise the whole Championships to date. Obviously the men's finalists are as the seedings predicted, but everything up to then has kept us entertained and thoroughly surprised.

Early defeats for Federer, Nadal, Serena and Sharapova, alongside withdrawals from the likes of Tsonga and Azarenka meant that we knew come the later stages we were going to have some unfamiliar names (especially to those fans who forget that tennis happens outside of a month in the English summer). Marion Bartoli became the first woman to win the title without facing a top 10 seed, and didn't play anyone ranked higher than herself, despite only being seeded 15th.

Not since 2002 have so many of the big names been eliminated early in the men's draw, and yet it is the top 2 that have made it through. As entertaining as it is to have upsets and underdogs, it's always best to have two of the very best facing off in the Championship match. There's no denying that the final of Roland Garros was something of an anticlimax, especially after the standard of the Rafa-Novak semi. 

Now of course it is unlikely Djokovic - Murray will quite match the drama and excitement of the DelPo semi but hopefully it will be its equal in terms of standard. Undoubtedly it will be a very different type of contest, both Murray and Djokovic's games are built on astonishing return of serve and relentless defensive abilities, movement around the court and staying in a rally. It will be take a lot of adjustment for them both, having had semis against ultra-attacking, go for a winner every shot Janowicz and Del Potro respectively. Having not faced a genuinely top quality player might have made Murray's route to the final easier but perhaps a clash with Nadal/Federer/Tsonga might have helped prepare him. In that sense I don't think it was the worst thing to be pushed by Verdasco and Janowicz, even if neither is in Djokovic's league.

Only time will tell the effect of the previous 6 matches on both men. In truth, there has been so much said, predictions made and analysis presented, all we can do now is watch and enjoy...


By the way, here is an update on the table I posted before the tournament began - whatever happens Federer will be ranked 5th and Djokovic will remain an absolute mile clear:

	R1 (10)	R2 (45)	R3 (90)	R4 (180)	QF (360)	SF (720)	F (1200)	W (2000)
Djokovic	11840	11875	11920	12010	12190	11830	12310	13110
Murray	7370	7405	7450	7540	7720	8080	8560	9360
Federer	5750	5785	5830	5920	6100	6460	6940	7740
Ferrer	6870	6905	6950	7040	7220	7580	8060	8860
Nadal	6860	6895	6940	7030	7210	7570	8050	8850

A Genuine Four Horse Race?

With the start of Wimbledon just days away, it seems only right to take a minute to look ahead to what could be yet another fascinating Grand Slam tournament. 
It is not often that all of the big four can be considered to have a genuine chance of winning. Djokovic could win anything, Nadal is the world's form player, Murray comes off the back of a victory at Queen's and carries incredible home support while reigning champion Federer can simply never be written off on grass. I'm sure there will be suggestions of an outsider having a chance, someone like Tsonga, Berdych or Del Potro but the reality is that needing to be beat 2 or 3 of the top ten over 5 sets will be too much for anyone else. I believe we have a genuine four horse race.

A few years ago the men's tennis world was utterly dominated by Federer and Nadal, as the great rivals won 24 of the 28 majors from '04 to '10. Only with Djokovic's sudden and meteoric rise to prominence in 2011 was the stranglehold broken. Since then, the spoils have been somewhat more shared, in such a way that the four Slams are currently held by four different men, for the first time since 2003. Any of the four could quite possibly be holding the golden trophy aloft in a fortnight's time, but what is almost certain is that there will be some epic clashes in there. Nadal being ranked 5th may or may not have much of an effect as there are inevitably going to be multiple match ups of the top men however the draw throws them together. The last time there was a straight sets final between 2 of the 4 was the 2011 Aussie Open, and if you take Murray's streak of final defeats out of the equation, it's the 2008 French Open.

Obviously there's no telling when a Lukas Rosol might come along again and keep us all on our toes, but I for one hope that we'll be seeing the four of them battling it out in two weeks' time. 

For the geekier among you I've quickly worked out what ranking points they'll all be on at the end of the tournament depending on how far they make it:

	R1 (10)	R2 (45)	R3 (90)	R4 (180)	QF (360)	SF (720)	F (1200)	W (2000)
Djokovic	11840	11875	11920	12010	12190	11830	12310	13110
Murray	7370	7405	7450	7540	7720	8080	8560	9360
Federer	5750	5785	5830	5920	6100	6460	6940	7740
Ferrer	6870	6905	6950	7040	7220	7580	8060	8860
Nadal	6860	6895	6940	7030	7210	7570	8050	8850

(current points, based on last year's performance is in bold)

And if you really like stats, here are their respective winning records, both for 2013 to date and all time at Wimbledon:

Djokovic 2013: 33-5 (86.8%) / Wimbledon all time: 32-7 (82%)
Murray 2013: 27-5 (84.4) / Wimbledon all time: 30-7 (81.1%)
Federer 2013: 26-7 (78.8%) / Wimbledon all time: 66-7 (90.4%)
Nadal 2013: 43-2 (95.6%) / Wimbledon all time: 36-6 (85.7%)

Relevance to Sunday 7th July = 0%